Friday, April 29, 2016

British Jews Against Nazis Zionist Collaboration - Jewish Chronicle December 27th 1935 The "Unclean Thing"





Democracy and Class Struggle says Jews in the British Isles were horrified by the Zionist Haavarah or German Transfer Agreement as this leading article in the British Jewish Chronicle records in 1935 and its undermining of the international Nazi Boycott Campaign.

Thanks to Tony Greenstein for this research visit his blog here :
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/



The 'Unclean Thing" The Jewish Chronicle leading article December 27th 1935


Moving the report of  the Palestine Committee at the Deputies last week Dr Israel Feldman chairman of the committee stated that the leading article that appeared in the Jewish Chronicle  some weeks ago on the subject of the Haavarah or German Transfer Agreement reflected very truly in the sentiment in which the vast majority of Jews approached the existence of the official working arrangements as between a group in Palestine and Nazi Germany.

It might be the anxious realisation of the fact that prompts Zionist leaders to recur to the question upon which  they might otherwise be better advised to observe a discreet  silence.

Dr Brodetsky in particular has just delivered himself a long apologia for the Agreement.

It is impossible within the scope of this article  of a leading article to deal with all his points ,seriatim, nor is it very necessary to do so , for in his concluding remarks Dr Brodetsky admits the Haavarah is a dirty business,or to use his own words an 'unclean thing'

Such transactions ,as a rule ,lend themselves  only to summary exposure not to lengthy argumentation.

Professor Brodetsky  as whether or not Jews from Germany are to be helped in order to settle peacefully in Palestine.

Our answer is that we do not oppose assistance  for Jewish individuals or families planning to leave Germany, but we prefer the help to be clean.

We object to the transfer of their assets in the form of the products of German factories and German employment.

We say that this is aiding and comforting one of the most savage repressions even in Jewish history.

It dishonours and defiles us.

It shames us and un mans us,it is a blow to our pride and a shock to our morale and self respect at a time when we are direly in need of strengthening those qualities.

It also disheartens us for it breaks the united Jewish boycott front, let it not be forgotten ,with which Gentile sympathisers are also aligned.

It is a distressing reflection that in the Yishav there flowed last year total imports from Germany amounting to one and two thirds millions, and that the Jewish share was probably about a million.

There is little balm in the calculation that over a quarter a million pounds of the entire total total represented the value of imported "used personal effects".

The balance that remains is bad enough.The Rachmanut is all very well and we are the last to belittle it
.
But the Rachmanut has never saved our people and never will.



The Boycott offered Jews the first real weapon they ever had, thanks to the development of international trade.

The Haavarah dashes that weapon from our hands.

The Haavarah has actually exerted itself,if our information is correct to promote an increase in the purchase of German products in Palestine.

Professor Brodetsky pooh poohs these objections.He argues that the Haavarah  brings into Palestine only an insignificant part of the total German export.The arguement would be true in a country like Britain.It is demonstrably false of a land like Germany which is trembling on the verge of economic collapse and where every assistance,however small staves off the evil day.

Even our critics admit that the transfer does confer a benefit on Germany "an outlet for some manufacturers  and their employees is provided - though it is only a small advantage
 - the old servant girl excuse it is only a little "an"

He adopts the contention already heard that the goods sent out of Germany are not paid for by any equivalent of cash or other goods. Germany get no equivalent credit abroad for the purpose of buying raw materials abroad or for any other purpose.

It is a definite loss to Germany of so much wealth. That may be so. but it is overlooked that what counts most urgently for the Reich today is not the loss of wealth but that she should keep the wheels of the economic machine turning during a period of grave emergency  and this is what the Haavarah is helping her to do.

If pure Rachmanhut is to be the governing consideration, the time for stressing it was when the boycott was first instituted.

It was then asked whether a boycott would not injure the Jews of Germany as well as their enemies.The question did not restrain the boycotters.

Professor Brodetsky reminds us they did so with very much greatest regret. We must concede the same sentiment - and the same liberty to maintain the boycott - to those who oppose the Transfer Agreement !

We have only to add that the standpoints of Professor Brodetsky are probably irreconcilable and that further controversy is therefore useless and may be harmful.

But at least, let not our critic try to fool us with the argument that if the Haavarah helps Jewish nation reconstruction it does not transgress against Jewish national dignity.

Building a new Judea on"unclean" transaction is not our idea of preserving Jewish dignity.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

DEM ARBETERS LID (the workers song ) JEWISH LABOUR SONG



In an old dark tenement, desolate as a tomb,
Where everything one sees is sad and empty,
There on the fourth floor you can still hear, from the clattering,
That there one finds nothing other than a dismal tailor shop
Visages pale and exhausted, bloodless,
They're sitting in their places absolutely lifeless
They're running the machines with all their might
And they're all singing this song in their minds:

"The children are naked, my wife's sick and weak,
There's not a cent in my pocket, there's nothing in the house."
On each face is imprinted an expression that would move a stone
And the noisy machine accompanies the song in rhythm

Thus one sits for one's brief life, tailoring,
Or by some other kind of self-slavery...
Oh, worker, wake up already from your long sleep
And make an end to this, already. An end!
Free yourself from this heavy yoke, throw off the chains.
Wake up, worker, and show your might, your strength!
Then no longer will you have to be tired of life,
And in your mind you won't any longer be humming a song like this: (chorus)

Therefore enslaved worker, stand up, each of you equally,
And abolish and make an end to "poor and rich"
Race or nation shouldn't make any difference to you.
Raise up the red flag, let it flutter,
Then you won't need to be anyone's servant any longer.
Each of you will have joy equally from everything that's right.
Then you'll be peaceful and happy and live "solid."

And in your mind you won't any longer be singing a song like: (chorus)


Democracy and Class Struggle remembers the revolutionary Jewish Labour movement with the song above.

Red salute to the Jews who fought the Zionists and the Nazis.






Long ago Columbus found a golden land.
Now we suffer within it -- and we have him to thank!
Take a look out in the dampness and see: the suffering is so great
Workers, the masses, they die for lack of a piece of bread
They die from the bitter layoffs, there's no way to earn a cent
The suffering, hunger, cold, and being turned out in the street by the landlord when you can't pay your rent!

Oh, when will the time come when the worker will be free from troubles?
Slaving away through the years, working hard, every penny costs you a tear
Worker, when will you be free?

You suffer year in, year out, especially when there isn't much work.
And as soon as you manage to save a little, the bank robs it away.
You look like a vagabond, your rights are stolen
You toil in the shops, you're a slave.
You make others rich, you have nothing for yourself.
You just slave away, you're always ?
Lift your head and throw off the yoke, there must be an end to this misery!


Lenni Brenner - Zionism & The Third Reich



Essential Reading to counter Labour for Israel new re definition of anti semitism to include criticism of Israel

FREE BOOK : ZIONISM IN THE AGE OF THE DICTATORS BY LENNI BRENNER
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres/LBzad.pdf


ALSO INTRODUCTION TO 51 DOCUMENTS

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/06/12/51-documents/51-documents.pdf



The Zionist-Nazi Collaboration by William James Martin


Democracy and Class Struggle says the British Labour Party is trying to redefine anti semitism to include criticism of Israel and its treatment of Palestinians.

The historical amnesia exhibited by some of  Labour friends of Israel forces in the British Labour Party is staggering and we will publish a series of articles covering Jewish Opposition to Zionism and its Nazis collaboration in the 1930's including in the UK

The first article below by William James Martins covers United States Jewish opposition to Zionism.


Both Nazism and Zionism arose in tandem from small insignificant social movements in the early part of the 20th century, arguing, with equal force, that Jews were an alien and indigestible mass living in the midst of an otherwise pure Aryan population. Both movements contributed to the more general acceptance of this argument in Europe, and particularly in Germany, as mid-century approached, and both have to be responsible for the consequences.

In 1896, journalist Theodore Herzl’s book, Der Judenstaat (The Jews’ State), Herzl expressed his understanding of inevitability, permanence, and omnipresence of anti-Semitism and argued that the only solution was a separate state for Jews.  Herzl stated, in his book:

The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in perceptable numbers. Where it does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our presence produces persecution. …1

In 1912, Chaim Weizman, Israel’s first president, and the Zionist advocate who had the most to do with lobbying the British for the Balfour Declaration of 1917, echoed this view, speaking to a Berlin audience:

… each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorder in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews.2

Reflecting in 1949 in his autobiography, Trial and Error, Weizmann wrote:

Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them …

Weizmann, the chemist, invoking a metaphor from the sciences, added:

… the determining factor in this matter is not the is solubility of Jews, but the solvent power of the country. … This cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulger sense of that word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake it off …3

Ben Frommer, an American Revisionist, stated in 1935:

No matter what country he inhabits … [it] is not of the [his] tribal origins. … Consequently, the Jew’s attempt at complete identity with his country sounds spurious; his patriotism despite his vociferousness [sounds] hollow even to himself; and therefore his demand for complete equality with those who are of the essence of the nation naturally creates friction. This explains the intolerance of the Germans, Austrians, Poles and the increasing tide of antagonism in most European countries … It is presumptuous on the part of a Jew to demand that he be treated as lovingly as say a Teuton in a Teutonic country or a Pole in a Polish country. He must jealously guard his life and liberty, but he must candidly recognize that he does not ‘belong‘. The liberal fiction of perfect equality is doomed because is was unnatural. [Italics mine]4

Indeed, in 1925, Jacob Klatzkin, the co-editor of the massive Encyclopedia Judaica, wrote:

If our people is deserving and willing to live its own national life, then it is an alien body that insists on its own distinctive identity, reducing the domain of their life. It is right therefore, that they should fight against us for their national integrity … Instead of establishing societies for defense against the anti-Semites, who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defense against our friends who desire to defend our rights.5

The understanding of Herzl, as well as the Zionists, about the inevitability of anti-Semitism was possibly self-fulfilling, for rather than opposing anti-Semitism in the first half of the 20th century, the Zionists found common cause with Hitler, Eichmann, and the Nazis and used anti-Semitism and Nazism as a means of achieving their end which was the establishment of a Jewish state. The two reactionary movements shared the view that German Jews were living in that country as a ‘foreign race’ and that the racial divide was essential to maintain.

The Zionists’ use of Nazism involved, among other things, the blocking of avenues of escape to other countries of Europe’s Jews and diverting them to Palestine, even as the death trains began to roll in Europe. The rise of Nazism and Hitler to power was never, or almost never, opposed by the Zionists prior to the establishment of Israel.

Thus, in an article by Siegfried Moses, which appeared in the Rundschau, the official newspaper of the German Zionist Federation, and later, its head, stated:

… it is true that the defense against anti-Semitism is not our main task, it does not concern us to the same extent and is not of the same importance for us as is the work for Palestine …6

In 1934, Stephen Wise, head of the American Jewish Congress said:

… I cannot be indifferent to the Galuth [the Jewish diaspora living outside of Palestine] … if I had to choose between Eretz Israel and its upbuilding and the defense of the Galuth, I would say that then the Galuth must perish.7

On October 2, 1937, two SS officers, Herbert Hagen and Adolf Eichmann, disembarked in Haifa and were met by the Gestapo’s agent in Palestine, Fritz Reichert, and later in the day, Fevel Polkes, a Haganah agent, who showed the Nazi officials Haifa from Mt Carmel and then visited a kibbutz. Some years later, when Eichmann was hiding in Argentina, he taped a story of his excursion to Palestine, stating:

I did see enough to be very impressed with the way the Jewish colonists were building up their land. … In the years that followed I often said to Jews with whom I had dealings that had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist.8

Eichmann had read Herzl’s book, Der Judenstaat, and also studied Hebrew.  In their trip report, the two SS officers paraphrased Polkes’s message to them:

The Zionist state must be established by all means and as soon as possible. … When the Jewish state is established according to the current proposals laid down in the Peel paper, and in line with England’s partial promises, then the borders may be pushed further outwards according to one wished.9

… in Jewish nationalist circles people were very pleased with the radical German policy, since the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would be so far increased thereby that in the foreseeable future the Jews could reckon upon numerical superiority over the Arabs in Palestine.10

During his February trip to Berlin, Polkes proposed that the Haganah act as spies for the Nazi government and, as a sign of good faith, passed on intelligence information which was detrimental to their mutual enemies, the Communists.  

History might have been very different had the Zionist component of Jewry opposed Nazism; there might never have been a Holocaust. And there might never have been a state of Israel, as some Zionists well understood.

Lenni Brenner puts it:

of all of the active Jewish opponents of the boycott idea [of Nazi Germany], the most important was the world Zionists Organization (WZO).

It not only bought German wares; it sold them, and even sought out new customers for Hitler and his industrialist backers.

The WZO saw Hitler’s victory in much the same way as its German affiliate, the ZVfD [the German Zionist Organization]: not primarily as a defeat for all Jewry, but as positive proof of the bankruptcy of assimilation and liberalism.11

Here Brenner is referring to the so-called Ha’avara agreement, or ‘transfer agreement’.

In 1933, Sam Cohen, owner of a citrus export company in Tel Aviv, approached the German government with the proposal that emigrants from Germany could avoid the flight tax by instead purchasing German products, which would then be shipped to Palestine, along with their purchasers, where the new arrivals in Palestine could then redeem their investments after the sale of the products by import merchants.

Heinrich Wolff, the German Consul in Jerusalem, quickly realized the utility of such an arrangement in tamping the international boycott effort of German import goods. He wrote to Berlin:

Whereas in April and May the Yishuv [the European Jewish community in Palestine] was waiting boycott instructions from the United States, it now seems that the situation has been transformed. It is Palestine which now gives the instructions… It is important to break the boycott first and foremost in Palestine, and the effect will inevitably be felt on the main front, in the United States.12

Cohen had promised Heinrich Wolff that he would work behind the scenes at the forthcoming Jewish conference in London to weaken or defeat any boycott resolution.

Dr Fritz Reichert, the Gestapo’s agent in Palestine, later wrote to his headquarters:


                               The Mass Boycott of Nazis Goods undermined by Zionists


The London Boycott Conference was torpedoed from Tel Aviv because the head of the Transfer in Palestine, in close contact with the consulate in Jerusalem, sent cables to London.

Our main function here is to prevent, from Palestine, the unification of world Jewry on a basis hostile to Germany … It is advisable to damage the political and economic strength of Jewry by sowing dissention in its ranks.12

Negotiations with the Nazi government were taken over by the World Zionist Organization and Cohen was replaced by Chaim Arlosoroff, the Political Secretary of the Jewish Agency.

 Arlosoroff traveled to Berlin in May of 1933. He and the Nazis reached a preliminary understanding to continue Cohen’s arrangement. Arlosoroff returned to Tel Aviv where he was assassinated, most probably by some members of the Revisionist wing of Zionism headed by Jabotinsky who opposed any accommodation with the Nazis.

Negotiations continued, however, and an agreement was signed in 1933 between the Nazis and the World Zionist Organization which persisted until 1939 and the German invasion of Poland.

The Ha’arava grew to become a substantial banking and trading house with 137 specialists in its Jerusalem office at the height of its activities.

The sale of German products expanded to include destinations outside of Palestine, but the arrangement remained essentially the same as the one originally negotiated by Sam Cohen – that German Jews wishing to emigrate, rather giving up most or all of their wealth to the German government, could invest their money in a German bank which would be used for purchasing German export goods.

The purchaser could then redeem his investment when the goods had been sold and after he had arrived in Palestine. The German government set the rules and the emigrant would lose typically in excess of 30% of his investment and, eventually, 50%.

Indeed, there was a fundamental incompatibility with the upbuilding of a Jewish state in Palestine and opposition to the Nazi program of extermination of Europe’s Jews. The Ha’avara agreement allowed the transfer of LP 8,100,000 (Palestinian Pounds; then $40,419,000) to Palestine along with 60,000 German Jews between 1933 and 1939.

But it also had the effect of undercutting the international boycott effort and providing an inflow of capital to the German government owing to the sale of German manufactured goods abroad.

This understanding is important, as the Holocaust has been central in provoking sympathy for the State of Israel and in amplifying the claims for reparations from European governments. Sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust, whether Jews or Roma, is no less justified, but the state of Israel cannot maintain an air of complete innocence nor be the justified recipient of billions of dollars or reparations, very little of which is actually dispersed to Holocaust survivors.

Nor has Israel accepted the universal principle that states must pay reparations to ethnicities whom it has harmed, as Israel has ignored or denied the catastrophe of ethnic cleansing and massacres which it prosecuted against the Palestinian people in 1948.

The model of Jews fleeing a burning building; i.e., the Nazi Holocaust, and thus creating a redoubt of safety in the form of the state of Israel cannot be maintained. Aside from the fact that the Zionist project was initiated at least by the time of Herzl’s Der Judenstaat of 1896 and his founding of the World Zionist Congress a year later, and well before the Nazi ascension to power in the 1930s, the Zionists were little concerned with the slaughter of Jews in Europe and almost exclusively focused on building a state in Palestine.

A proposal by the British, in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, of November 1938, that Britain admit a thousand children directly into Britain was sternly opposed by Ben Gurion who told a meeting of the Labor Zionist in December:

If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz Israel, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.13

By 1943, ample reports of massacres of Europe’s Jews were arriving in the US, though it garnered little of the mainstream press.

At this time, Peter Bergson, a Palestinian Jew and member of the Irgun, a militant offspring of the Revisionist Zionists, and his young colleagues, shifted their attention to saving Europe’s Jews. Bergson, who had been sent to New York City, by Revisionists leader, Jaobtinsky, in order to create American support of the establishment of a Jewish army in Palestine, and his colleagues formed the Emergency Committee to Save Europe’s Jews and initiated it with a conference attended by 1500 delegates including former President Herbert Hoover and New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia.

The delegates ultimately adopted an eight-point rescue program, the primary feature of which was the creation of a US government agency charged with saving Europe’s Jews. They also called for their allies to immediately attack the concentration camps and bomb railroads lines leading to them.

The conference’s program sought to avoid the issue of a Jewish state in Palestine, preferring to leave that to another day. Indeed, the efforts of Bergson were perceived by the American Jewish organizations, and especially by Rabbi Stephen Wise, head of the American Jewish Conference, as an effort to divert energy and attention away from Zionism and the upbuilding of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Bergson’s group sponsored full page advertisements in the New York Times and other newspapers with such bold headlines as, “HELP Prevent 4,000,000 People from Becoming Ghosts.” Another read, “THIS IS STRICTLY A RACE AGAINST DEATH.”

The Emergency Committee also organized public events and rallies and a march by 450 Orthodox rabbis to the White House and the US Capitol. They also staged a theatrical production, entitled, We Will Never Die, authored by Academy Award winning screen writer Ben Hecht and included actors such as Edward G. Robinson with music written by Bertoldt Brecht. 

The play chronicled the contributions of Jews and addressed the current situation of Europe’s Jews.

The production played to 40,000 in Madison Square Garden and, in Washington, was viewed by Eleanor Roosevelt and hundreds of members of Congress.

Though the Emergency Committee had raised the consciousness of Americans for the plight of Europe’s Jews, their efforts were strongly opposed by America’s organized Jewish groups including Rabbi Stephen Wise and his American Jewish Congress.

In Buffalo, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh, local mainstream Jewish organizations attempted to block the production of We Will Never Die.

Most significant of the Emergency Committees’ actions was to provoke the sponsorship of a resolution, introduced in the House by Baldwin and Will Rogers Jr., and in the Senate by Guy Gillette, on November 9, 1943.

The full text follows:

Whereas the Congress of the United States, by concurrent resolution adopted on March 15 of this year, expressed its condemnation of Nazi Germany’s ‘mass murder of Jewish men, women, and children,’ a mass crime which has already exterminated close to two million human beings, about 30 per centum of the total Jewish population of Europe, and which is growing in intensity as Germany approaches defeat; and

Whereas the American tradition of justice and humanity dictates that all possible means be employed to save from this fate the surviving Jews of Europe, some four million souls who have been rendered homeless and destitute by the Nazis: therefore be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives recommends and urges the creation by the President of a commission of diplomatic, economic, and military experts to formulate and effectuate a plan of immediate action designed to save the surviving Jewish people of Europe from extinction at the hands of Nazi Germany.

Senator Gillette emphasized that the bill focused only on rescue and not on the issue of Palestine or a Jewish state.

It is not to be confused with the dispute over the future of Palestine, over a Jewish state or a Jewish army. The issue is non-sectarian.

The sole object here is to rescue as many as possible of Hitler’s victims, pending complete Allied victory.

Stephen Wise tried unsuccessfully to persuade the sponsors of the bill to withdraw their support. But failing that, Wise traveled to Washington and testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Sol Bloom, stating that the resolution was ‘“inadequate” because it did not urge the British government to open Palestine to Jewish refugees” [italics mine].14

The lack of a reference to Palestine was, of course, intentionally absent from the bill.

Congressman Rogers also faced strong pressure from Zionists groups:

When it became known that I was becoming a member of the Bergson group, there was a terrific amount of pressure from all sorts of areas. I went back to Beverly Hills and I remember meeting with Rabbi Stephen S Wise in a synagogue. … He took me aside and said, ‘Now, young man. I knew your father very well. Now you are getting confused, you are getting mixed up with the wrong type of people. Let me tell you and steer you clear when it comes on, or want to meet the right people, the responsible people.’ He was quite the diplomat. He didn’t say, ‘If you get mixed up with them, you are not going to be reelected.’ He wasn’t that direct, but he made every pressure that he could, and where he know it would be effective.15

Gillette also faced strong opposition.

These people used every effort, every means at their disposal, to block the resolution. … [They] tried to defeat it by offering and amendment, insisting on an amendment to it that would raise the question, the controversial question of Zionism or anti-Zionism … or anything that might stop or block the action that we were seeking.15

On stationary with the letterhead of the American Jewish Congress, Stephen Wise wrote to Secretary of the Interior, Harold L. Ickles on December 23, 1943:

I was very sorry to note, as were others among your friends, that you had accepted the Chairmanship of the Washington Division of the Committee to Rescue European Jews. … I do not like to speak ill of you, not of us, concerning a group of Jews, but I am under the inexorable necessity of saying to you that the time will come, and come soon, when you will find it necessary to withdraw from this irresponsible group, which exists and obtains funds through being permitted to use the names of non-Jews like yourself.

Nor was Bergson beyond the crosshairs of the American Zionists. Bergson received an offer from Congressman Samuel Dickstein (D-NY) to meet with him in his DC office where it turned out that several other US Congressmen had also assembled. He was told, as paraphrased by Bergson, that unless he ‘behaved”, “we will deport you. … One shouldn’t mistake democracy with lawlessness, and don’t feel that you can just come to this country without – on temporary visitor’s visa and do whatever you wish …”15

Despite the opposition of the American Zionist community, the bill passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously only to die in the entire Senate.

According to a State Department memorandum, Rabbi Stephen Wise had expressed to State Department John Pehle, that Wise “had gone so far as to inform Mr Pehle that he regarded Bergson as equally great an enemy of the Jews as Hitler, for reasons that his activities could only lead to increased anti-Semitism.”11

Reports of atrocities and mass murders in the Ukraine began arriving in the west in 1941. In January 1942, the Soviets issued a report of the working of the Einsatzgruppen, or the SS, and in May of that year, the Bund, the Jewish Workers Union of Poland and Russia, which was anti-Zionist, sent London a radio message that 700,000 people, most Jews, were exterminated in Poland. This message was repeated on the BBC two months later.

In April, even before the Bund broadcast, Moshe Shertok, later to become Israel’s second Prime Minister, wrote to British General and commander of the British Eight Army in North Africa:

The destruction of the Jewish race is a fundamental tenet of the Nazi doctrine. The authoritative reports recently published show that that policy is being carried out with a ruthlessness which defies description … An even swifter destruction, it must be feared, would overtake the Jews of Palestine.16

The focus here is on the hypothetical Nazi attack on Palestine, not on the slaughter actually taking place in Europe, but based, nonetheless, on Shertok’s understanding that such a slaughter was, in fact, taking place.

Despite the amply sufficient reports of massacres and exterminations, essentially nothing at all was done by the Zionist organizations, and reports of atrocities were consistently minimized.

Dov Joseph, acting director of the Jewish Agency’s Political Department cautioned:

… against publishing data exaggerating the number of Jewish victim, for if we announce that millions of Jews have been slaughtered by the Nazis, we will justifiably be asked where the millions of Jews are, for whom we claim that we shall need to provide a home in Eretz Israel after the war ends.17

Yitzhak Gruenbaum, leader of the Jewish Agency’s Vaad Hazalah (Rescue Committee) who, in 1942 also believed the reports of atrocities taking place in Europe were exaggerated, offers a defense in his post war book, Bi-mei Hurban ve Sho’ah (In the Days of Holocaust and Destruction):

I want to destroy this assumption [that the Zionist leadership was to blame that it did not do everything possible to help the European Jews] in order to take out people from the occupied countries … it would be necessary for the neutral countries to provide refuge, that the warring nations open their gates to the refugees. …

How is it possible that in a meeting in Yerushalayim people will call: “If you don’t have enough money you should take it from Keren Hayesod [the Palestine Foundation Fund], you should take the money from the bank, there is money there.” I thought it obligatory to stand before this wave … .

And this time in Eretz Yisrael, there are comments: “Don’t put Eretz Yisrael in priority in this difficult time, in the time of destruction and European Jewry.’ I do not accept such sayings. And when some asked me: ‘Can’t you give money from the Keren Hayesod to save Jews in the Diaspora’? I said: no! And again I say no! … I think we have to stand before this wave that is putting Zionist activity into second row. …  I think it necessary to say here Zionism is over everything… [Italics mine]

… [W]e must guard Zionism. There are those who feel that this should not be said at the time a Holocaust is occurring, but believe me, lately we see worrisome manifestations in this respect: Zionism is above all – it is necessary to sound this whenever a Holocaust diverts us from our war of liberation in Zionism. Our war of liberation does not arise from the fact of the Holocaust in a straight guard – especially in these times – the supremacy of the war of redemption [Italics mine].18

The irony is overwhelming. Though the memory and imagery of the Holocaust is not far from the lips of every Israel leader, particularly the present one, and though this imagery is exploited for the sake of gaining tolerance and forbearance from the international community, as well as reparations which go well beyond actuarial merits, there was little serious concern on the part of organized Zionism for those facing extermination in Europe.

Rather the Holocaust was regarded as a threat which had the potential of diverting energy and resources from the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine which was by far their highest priority.

The fact that the initiation of the Zionist project had nothing to do with the Holocaust, as it developed more than a half century earlier, and the fact of the mostly indifference to the slaughter of Jews on the part of the founders of Israel, together with its collaboration with the Nazi Party, undermines Israel’s projected, and exploited, image as innocent victim.

At the end of the war a document, dated 11 January 1941, produced by Avraham Stern, proposing a military alliance and an understanding between the Third Reich and the Zionists was found in the German embassy in Ankara.

 It had been presented to two German diplomats in Lebanon, under Vichy at that time. The document was entitled, “Proposal for the National Military Organization (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the side of Germany.” The NMO, later to adopt the name Lohamamei Herut Yisrael, or lehi for short, was universally known by its British designation as the Stern Gang.

The document read:

The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries …  The NMO, which is well acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a New Order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed volkish-national Hebrium would be possible; and,

3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement, are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side [italics mine].

This offer by the NMO … would be connected to the military training and organization of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the New Order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.19

The Irgun, (the MNO) under Manachem Begin, and the Stern Gang, are sometime blamed, by mainstream Zionism, as being uniquely responsible for the more grotesque atrocities of Israel’s fight against both the Arabs and against the British in its quest for statehood; for example, the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, in which 96 mostly civilians were killed, and the massacre at Deir Yassin. In fact, both of these actions involved the coordination of these ‘dissident groups’ with the Haganah — the military under the direction of David Ben Gurion.

Yitzhak Yzernitsky — later to call himself Yitzhak Shamir, and later to become Israeli Prime Minister, in fact, the longest serving Prime Minister of Israel except for David Ben Gurion — became the operations commander of the Stern Gang after Avraham Stern was killed by the British army in February of 1942.

Under Shamir’s leadership, 14 assassinations were attempted of British officials with two successful ones, of Lord Moyne, the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, sitting in Cairo, and the UN Representative to Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, who received three bullets in the heart on the order of Stern’s operations commander and future Prime Minister – Yitzhak Shamir.

The Charter of the Stern Gang, or more accurately, the principles promulgated by Stern, included the establishment of a Jewish state “from the Nile to the Euphrates”, the ‘transfer of the Palestinian Arabs to regions outside of the Jewish state, and the building of the Third Temple in Jerusalem.

It maintained offices outside of the Middle East – including Warsaw, Paris, London, and New York City, the latter headed by Benzion Netanyahu, the present Prime Minister’s father.

Auschwitz survivor

Hajo Meyer talks about Israeli occupation and apartheid.




Herzl,
Theodore, The Jewish State, p 9, 2007, BN Publishing [?]
Weizmann [?]
Weizmann, Chaim, Trial and Error, pv90-91 [?]
Frommer, Ben, The Significance of the Jewish State, Jewish Call, (Shanghai, 1935), p 10-11. [?]
Agus, Jacob, The Meaning of Jewish History, vol II, p 435. [?]
Edelheim-Muehsam, Margaret, Reactions of the Jewish Press to the Nazi Challenge, Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, vol V, (1960), p 312. [?]
Rabbi Wise, The New Palestine (14 February 1934), p 5-7. [?]
Eichmann, Adolf, “Eichmann Tells His Own Damning Story”, Life (28 Nov. 1960) p 22. [?]
Polkehn, Klaus, “The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany 1933-41”, Journal of Palestine Studies (Spring 1976), p 337. [?]
Hohne, Heinz, The Order of the Death’s Head, p 337. [?]
Brenner, Lenni, Zionism in the Age of Dictators, Lawrence Hill, (1983). [?] [?]
In Yisraeli, David, “The Third Reich and the Transfer Agreement,” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. VI (1971), P 131. [?] [?]
Gelber, Yoav, “Zionism and the Fate of European Jewry (1939-42),” Yad Vashem Studies, vol. XII, p 171. [?]
Brownfield, Peter Egill, “The Jewish Establishment’s Focus on Palestine: Did it Distract from Holocaust Efforts?” (Summer 2003). [?]
Ibid. Also, Brenner Lenni, Zionism in the Age of Dictators. [?] [?] [?]
Laqueur, “Jewish Denial and the Holocaust,” Commentary (December 1979, p 46. [?]
Gelber, Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry, p 195. [?]
Gruenbaum, Yitzhak, Bi-Mei Hurban ve Sho’ah, p 62-70. [?]
Brenner, op. cit., p 267. [?]

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

America First - Fascism Next - Woody Guthrie takes us back to the future Donald Trump's America First - Fascism Next by the Corporate fixer (deal maker)



Part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich”

The above quote is Trump, of course, but the predatory pursuit of profit long ago transcended national borders/loyalty. The “very rich” were doing their fascist thing long before The Donald got his first “small loan.”

In the decades before WWII, doing business with Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy (or, by proxy, Franco’s Spain) proved no more unsavory to the captains of industry than selling military hardware to Saudi Arabia does today.

“Many leaders of Wall Street and of the U.S. foreign policy establishment had maintained close ties with their German counterparts since the 1920s, some having intermarried or shared investments,” writes investigative reporter Christopher Simpson. “U.S. investment in Germany accelerated rapidly after Hitler came to power.” Such investment increased “by some 48.5 percent between 1929 and 1940.”

Among the U.S. corporations investing in Germany during the 1920s were Ford, General Motors, General Electric, Standard Oil, Texaco, ITT, and IBM -- all of whom were thrilled to see the German labor movement and working-class parties smashed. For many of these companies, operations in Germany continued during the war (sometimes using concentration-camp slave labor) with overt U.S. government support.

“Pilots were given instructions not to hit factories in Germany that were owned by U.S. firms,” writes Michael Parenti. “Thus Cologne was almost leveled by Allied bombing but its Ford plant, providing military equipment for the Nazi army, was untouched; indeed, German civilians began using the plant as an air raid shelter.”

Occupied Wall Street

The support for global fascism also included Sullivan and Cromwell, the most powerful Wall Street law firm of the 1930s. Allen and John Foster Dulles -- the two brothers who guided the firm boycotted their own sister’s 1932 wedding because the groom was Jewish while simultaneously serving as the contacts for I.G. Farben, the company putting the gas in Nazi gas chambers.

During the pre-war period, the elder John Foster led off cables to his German clients with the salutation “Heil Hitler,” and blithely dismissed the Nazi threat in 1935 in a piece he wrote for the Atlantic Monthly. In 1939, he told the Economic Club of New York, “We have to welcome and nurture the desire of the New Germany to find for her energies a new outlet.” 

Little brother Allen, who actually got to meet the German dictator, promoted the post-war idea that multinational corporations are instruments of U.S. foreign policy and therefore exempt from domestic laws. This concept eventually took root in institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, etc.

Leonard Mosley, biographer of the Dulles brothers, defends Allen by evoking the all-purpose alibi of anti-communism. The younger Dulles, Mosley claims, “made his loathing of the Nazis plain, years before World War II … (it was) the Russians (who tried) to link his name with bankers who financed Hitler.” However, in 1946, both brothers would play a major role in the founding of the U.S. intelligence community and the subsequent recruiting of Nazi war criminals.

“Import shock troops to help him run for president”

A Third Reich supporter with perhaps the most similarities to Trump was Henry Ford, the autocratic magnate who despised unions, tyrannized workers, and fired any employee caught driving a competitor’s model. Ford, an outspoken anti-Semite, believed that Jews corrupted gentiles with “syphilis, Hollywood, gambling, and jazz.” In 1918, he bought and ran a newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, which became an anti-Jewish forum.

“The New York Times reported in 1922 that there was a widespread rumor circulating in Berlin claiming that Henry Ford was financing Adolf Hitler’s nationalist and anti-Semitic movement in Munich,” write James and Suzanne Pool in their book Who Financed Hitler. “Novelist Upton Sinclair wrote in The Flivver King, a book about Ford, that the Nazis got $40,000 from Ford to reprint anti-Jewish pamphlets in German translations, and that an additional $300,000 was later sent to Hitler through a grandson of the ex-Kaiser who acted as intermediary.”

An appreciative Adolf Hitler kept a large picture of the automobile pioneer besides his desk, explaining: “We look to Heinrich (sic) Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement in America.” Hitler hoped to one day “import some shock troops to the United States to help (Ford) run for president.”

On Henry Ford’s 75th birthday in 1938, he was awarded the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle from the Führer himself. He was the first American (GM’s James Mooney would be second) and only the fourth person in the world to receive the highest decoration that could be given to any non-German citizen. An earlier honoree was none other than kindred spirit, Benito Mussolini… you know, the guy who equated fascism with corporatism.

Trump 2016

I could go on (e.g. U.S. support for Mussolini) but I’m hoping you don’t need further evidence that fascism, xenophobia, and demagoguery are as American as genetically modified apple pie.

What sets Trump apart from his predecessors is that he’s not siding with official enemies. He’s demonizing the already-demonized. He first slandered Mexicans, then Black Lives Matter. When his poll numbers rose, he raised the rhetoric to another level.

Once the United States joined the Good (sic) War, the Nazi supporters discussed here had to become more covert and publicly contrite. The average 1940s American was conditioned to temporarily loathe Germans (and Japanese) thus, you’d win no votes extolling the virtues of Nazism.

Today, however, every time ISIS (or any such group) kills Americans or American allies, Trump’s support grows, with voters saying stuff like: “Even though people don’t want to hear it because a lot of what he says is inflammatory toward certain groups, it is the truth” AND “He’ll keep a sharp eye on those Muslims.”

To anyone consciously and intensely programmed to fear and hate Muslims (and most non-white humans), Trump probably sounds sensible. He’ll stand up to the bogeymen and allow frightened Americans to sleep at night. Decades of relentlessly effective military-industrial propaganda sowed these seeds and now Trump is reaping the low hanging fruit.

In 2016, we’ll discover how many bad apples he can find.


Venezuela : US Southern command coincides with the agenda of the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) By Jesus Rojas




The disclosing of a report attributed to the US Southern Command on Operation
Freedom Venezuela 2 and the escalation of statements by Gen. John Kelly,
outgoing head of this military unit, activated alarms and security protocols of the
Great Patriotic Pole parties and Ministry of Defense.

In that report, the implementation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter by
the OAS is requested, encouraging widespread street protests by issues such
as an electoral or economic crisis, and to initiate the closure of the plan "in July or
August 2016," these are the instructions that emerge from the document signed
by Kurt Tidd Admiral, on February 25, 2016, current chief of Special Operations
Command.

Analysts Atilio Boron and Carlos Lanz, plus some investigative journalism
portals have denounced the US interference through this regional military unit
that develops clandestine missions of non-traditional combat and internal
defense in Venezuela.

About the policies developed by the governments of Hugo Chavez and Evo
Morales, in 2005 was appointed within the Southern Command a special
commission for the two countries.

The leaked document where the content and scope of Operation Freedom 2 is
exposed (to overthrow the Venezuelan government) draws attention to the date
of completion of the strategy: July or August.

Coincidentally, or not, it is the same one first announced on 27 December 2014 by the newly elected member of the new National Assembly, Henry Ramos Allup to activate a mechanism to shorten the term of President Nicolas Maduro.

It is recalled that today the anti-Chavez coalition with majority in the National
Assembly, drives in parallel form a call for a recall referendum and a
constitutional amendment to cut the presidential term.

Another point that attracts attention in the mentioned document, it refers to the
alleged agreement between the Secretary General of the Organization of
American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, and sectors of Venezuelan opposition to
channel the request for application of the Inter-American Democratic Charter.

It impresses because recently, following the opinion of the Supreme Court
which declared void some laws passed by the National Assembly, the diplomat
recalled that in Venezuela, that express request, can be activate the
mechanisms included in the Inter-American Democratic Charter.

In the document the common agenda that has developed with the Democratic
Unity Roundtable (MUD) for "street demonstration " and boost ungovernability is
expressed.

Among the "12 recommendations" highlights an abrupt scenario that can
combine street actions and dosed use of armed violence.

The alleged legitimacy of the actions are covered in Articles 333 and 350
of the Constitution referred to the duty to cooperate in the restoration of the
Constitution and the disowning any regime, legislation or authority that violates
democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights.

The exposed strategy is developed under an approach of "encirclement and
suffocation" promoted by the anti-Chavez bloc in Parliament.

It is Recommend " convene events and demonstrations, question the rulers deny loans and
repeal laws, among others."

Analyzing the first weeks of the Assembly, and taking as legitimate the report, it appears that the instructions are fully met.

Another "coincidence" between the issues raised by the document Freedom 2
and actions that are developed from international areas are related to "move
others intervention springs indirectly, using former presidents, like-minded
governments and the Parliamentary Alliance Democratic of America.

On the sidewalk of the MUD, members of the Commission on Security and
Defence of the National Assembly, Edgar Zambrano (president) and Armando
Armas (vice president) do not give it credit and they consider it apocryphal
though it has not been denied by the Southern command.

It is worth remembering that the MUD ruled on the extension of the decree of
President Obama, noting that this "unfortunate situation" is promoted by the
Government.

"Hiding behind the flag to protect a bank account with funds corruption is
immoral. Also, hiding behind the word Patria (Homeland) to pretend impunity for
human rights violations ", they said about the executive order against
Venezuela.

The U.S. senator Bernie Sanders said he thinks President Obama's extrajudicial drone assassination program is constitutional and legal.



Democracy and Class Struggle says that real struggle for socialism goes way beyond the Bern.

We are hopeful that a new generation of Americans will see that necessity and build a revolutionary socialist movement in the United States and remember its pioneers like William Z Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.


People in the United States have "a lot of right to defend ourselves," presidential contender Bernie Sanders said at a town hall meeting Monday when asked if he too would have an extrajudicial "kill list" like President Barack Obama.

The senator from Vermont also endorsed Obama's recent deployment of another 250 soldiers to Syria as part of the war against the Islamic State group.

"Look. Terrorism is a very serious issue," Sanders told MSNBC's Chris Hayes. "There are people out there who want to kill Americans, who want to attack this country, and I think we have a lot of right to defend ourselves."

However, the senator added, "it has to be done in a constitutional, legal way."

The New York Times revealed in 2012 that President Obama hosts a meeting every Tuesday at the White House where he decides which suspected terrorists will be added to a so-called "kill list." Those on the list can then be targeted for killing, typically with an unmanned drone.

"Do you think what's being done now is constitutional and legal?" Hayes asked Sanders, noting the existence of "a list of people that the U.S. government wants to kill."

"In general I do, yes," Sanders replied.

Sanders, locked in a tight race with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, was also asked about President Obama's decision to deploy another 250 U.S. Special Forces to Syria, where they are expected to help largely Kurdish militias fight the Islamic State group.

"Here's the bottom line," said Sanders. "ISIS has got to be destroyed, and the way that ISIS must be destroyed is not through American troops fighting on the ground." However, "I think what the president is talking about is having American troops training Muslim troops, helping to supply the military equipment they need, and I do support that effort."

"We need a broad coalition of Muslim troops on the ground," Sanders continued.

 "We have had some success in the last year or so putting ISIS on the defensive, we've got to continue that effort."

Sanders' comments on the eve of primaries in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connnecticut and Rhode Island demonstrate that while he may be less inclined to deploy the U.S. military than Clinton, who he has knocked for backing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he is no dove himself.

In addition to the the use of drones in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and troop deployments in Syria, Sanders also supports extending the presence of roughly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and continuing airstrikes in Iraq and Syria that have likely killed more than 1,000 civilians, according to the independent monitoring group Airwars.org.

SOURCE: 

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Bernie-Sanders-Says-US-Kill-List-Legal-Backs-Troops-in-Syria-20160426-0017.html

SEE ALSO

The Iran Nuclear Deal - South Front Analysis of US Court Decisions




Democracy and Class Struggle says  the judgement against Iran by US court for "support" of Al Qaeda is most bizarre given extent of Saudi Arabia's help to Al Qaeda and Shia Iran's hostility to Sunni fundamentalism like Wahhabism







Monday, April 25, 2016

Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents







India - Urgent ! ABVP Goons attack wheelchair bound Dr Saibaba :Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad, the student wing of RSS



ABVP goons attacked Saibaba in RLA Staff Room, now shouting slogans outside the staff room. Saibaba had gone to give letter.

Complete breakdown of law and order.

Admn and Police doing nothing. Situation is tense. Pl try to reach. Pl fwd." Nandita Narayan....


Two years of incarceration, anda cell, torture, denial of treatment, false charges...none could silence this voice against Operation Green Hunt.

Intimidation by these sanghi goons now after his release, shall and must also fail!


Latest News Reports

Members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) reportedly tried to attack Delhi University professor GN Saibaba at Ram Lal Anand College on Monday. 

This was the third attempt to attack him. 

Saibaba escaped unhurt as almost 100 college students formed a human shield around the teacher. The teachers trying to save Saibaba had a scuffle with the protesters.


The authorities called the police to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. 

Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/once-again-abvp-members-try-to-attack-saibaba-on-campus/story-5nT8rbNHoxyzbXywYwYOwL.html


The wheel-chair bound professor, Saibaba, who suffers from almost 90 percent disability told Firstpost,  “It’s the third attempt on me. In the last five days, attempts were made thrice to physically attack me inside the college campus. The earlier two attempts were made on 21 and 22 April.

The police had been called, but they stood like bystanders and no attempt was made to stop the outsider group.”

He said, “Third attempt was made on 25 April when I went to college to submit my application regarding revocation of my suspension. Suddenly, a group of students barged into the staff room and tried to physically attack me.

Due to the students and my colleagues I remained unharmed. The outsiders even attacked my students, who supported and tried to protect me.”

“Though I couldn’t recognize the members of the group who came to attack me, except the one – the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) joint secretary Chhattrapal Yadav, who the led the group.

As I’m on a bail from the Supreme Court and the case is going on, I applied for the revocation of my suspension order and this outsider group demanded otherwise,” added the professor.

Both the Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) and the Staff Association of RLA College have appealed the governing body of the college to revoke Saibaba’s suspension order.

Why Saibaba was attacked

The group that barged inside the college campus raised slogans against Saibaba such as, “Deshdrohi wapas jao (Go back traitor)” “Don’t allow Naxal in the campus”, etc.

According to the eye-witness, the students group that barged into the campus had a strong objection to the application given by Saibaba for revocation of his suspension.

"The three attempts on him were made to give a message to the governing body that he shouldn’t be reinstated. The goons and members of the right-wing affiliated ABVP demanded that the person (read Saibaba) who’s a face of the Maoists and strongly supports Naxalism shouldn’t be allowed to teach students,” final-year student of RLA College said.

“Today when Prof Saibaba came to submit his application, the ABVP members of DUSU tried to attack him physically. They raised slogans against him. There were around 50 students who forcefully entered the staff room and gheraoed the professor.

Even on 22 April on College annual day, they heckled Saibaba. DUTA and our staff association have taken it up with the governing body,” said Rajiv Kumar, media in-charge, RLA College.

Saibaba was arrested by the Maharashtra police for alleged Maoist links in 2014. After the arrest, he was suspended from college. It was on the afternoon of 9 May, 2014 when Saibaba was heading back home from the university, a group of policemen in plainclothes stopped his car, dragged the driver out and drove him out of the university campus.

The next morning after his arrest from Delhi, he was flown to Nagpur, where the District Magistrate heard his case and sent him to prison.

He spent 14 months in jail before the Mumbai High Court granted him bail for six months in July last year for his deteriorating health condition.

He had to surrender and again go back to jail in December. He was recently granted bail by the Supreme Court and the RLA College’s governing body constituted a one-member committee to revoke his suspension and reinstate him.

Resolution passed

The staff association of RLA College has passed two resolutions in this context.

“Two resolutions were passed on Monday evening. First, we’ve strongly condemned the failure of the college principal and the administration to stop goons from entering the college campus and create havoc. The administration of the college has collapsed. 

The manner in which Prof Saibaba was attacked thrice has made students and staff members insecure.

 Second resolution has been passed to set a time limit to the one-member committee. We want the committee to submit its report on revocation of suspension within a stipulated time frame,” said RLA College staff association’s secretary, Dr Rakesh Kumar.

“Irrespective of any political affiliation or ideology, creating ruckus inside the campus of an educational institution is completely unwarranted and unacceptable. 

It shows total degradation of college administration. The role of police is also questionable on why it didn’t act,” he added.

Ambedkar Bhagat Singh Students' Front has strongly condemned the continued harassment of Saibaba. 

DUSU joint secretary, Chhatarpal Yadav with other ABVP goons in huge police presence tried to terrorize the Prof Saibaba. 

This whole incident happened in front of college principal, chairman and the police, but no one came to his defense and it was the college students who formed a human chain around him to protect him from ABVP goons. 

No strict action was taken by college administration, and we strongly condemn this insensitive attitude of the college authorities,” the Students’ Front said.

SOURCE: http://www.firstpost.com/india/deshdrohi-wapas-jao-slogans-raised-gn-saibaba-attacked-on-campus-again-2749800.html
.