CAUTION ZIONISM! Chapter 5 – Caution Zionism!

In 1928 Jacob de Haas, Theodor Herzl’s habitually circumspect secretary, succumbed to the temptation of revealing an aspect of Zionist activity which is most highly valued and financed by the “powers that be“, and one that is carefully concealed and denied by the Zionists themselves:

“A real organisation does not exhibit all its strength on parade, though that . . . form of demonstration was not overlooked when the need arose. The great strength of the American Zionist organisation was in the multifariousness of its contacts and in the accurate knowledge of those in control of the human resources on which they depend. Did the British need to obtain a contact in Odessa, or were they in need of a trustworthy agent in Harbin? Did President Wilson require at short notice a thousand word summary detailing those who were in the Kerensky upheaval in Russia? The New York office rendered all these services [emphasis added—Y.I.], asking for nothing but receiving much, the respect and good will of the men whose signatures counted in great affairs. Thousands of Zionists everywhere served, and served well in that far flung line which the organisation maintained.” [1]

De Haas, an ideological kinsman of the darkest forces of international reaction who endeavoured to cast a slur on all Jews, forestalled by many years the author of a much shorter utterance defining a basically identical approach to the same issue: “Everyone can be a spy. Everyone must be a spy. There is no secret which cannot be discovered.” *


[* NOTE:   A thought expressed by Rudolf Hess, a NAZI leader.]


Let us cast another swift look at the basic positions of Zionist classics whose conceptions are fundamentally opposed to the interests of the working people. “The Jewish national idea“, wrote Nahum Sokolow, “involves the struggle of all, irrespective of their level of education or party adherence on all questions that concern the Jews and Judaism. . . .”

Thus it is not the founding and the existence of the State of Israel that is the cornerstone of the Zionist motto “Judaism above all“, but the more than seventy-year-old aim of subjugating world Jewry to the will of the pro-imperialist Zionist centre by any means available. It is not the appearance of Israel as such, but the consolidation of the ruling Zionist clique at the top of the Israel social pyramid that has become a highly favourable attendant factor of the international Zionist centre’s corruptive activity. And it is this activity which international Zionism (while retaining its leading positions) is farming out in present conditions and in a certain measure to the Israeli ruling circles.

British Intelligence, employing something like 3,000 people, and Israeli Intelligence employing some 300, make a far more accurate assessment of matters bearing on US policy . . . than our over-staffed intelligence agencies,” [2] wrote Hanson Baldwin, The New York Times military observer, concerning the activity of the three intelligence services in the Soviet Union. Let us leave Baldwin with his calculations which merely show that the Soviet Union is not the sort of place where this activity can be conducted at will, and note the principal thing: “Israeli Intelligence [a component of the intelligence of the international Zionist centre—Y.I.] is doing its utmost to gather military, political and economic information in the socialist countries, particularly in the Soviet Union.” [3]

The specific activity of the Zionist intelligence service, which is but one area of Zionist activity, is, however, not the subject of our concluding chapter. In it we should like to make a brief study of the tactics and methods employed by international Zionism in its efforts to realise the general programme concisely formulated on June 2, 1967, three days before Israel’s aggression, by Chief Rabbi of Britain Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits (among other things the realisation of this programme would provide a base for intelligence activity, too): “We must make sure there will not be a Jew anywhere in the world shirking his duty. . . . Young people . . . must be ready to fight . . . at a telephone call from Israel, be willing to go there to man essential jobs left vacant by the military mobilisation of Israeli citizens. . . .

“The rest should be ready to contribute to a per capita tax on every single Jew to help Israel’s economy. . . . If they want us we will be there at their command. . . .” [4]

(In our opinion there is only one other person in Britain who puts forward his thoughts in such a peremptory manner typical neither of the English language nor English traditions; that man is the fascist Mosley.)

So Jakobovits mentioned neither Britain, France nor the Soviet Union, but frankly stressed the global nature of the tasks now being set via its professional and voluntary agitators by the international Zionist centre for the purpose of safeguarding and consolidating imperialist positions.

So that it may not be thought that Jakobovits’s statement was a single isolated case, an “irresponsible” declaration by one individual, let us take a look at a much earlier utterance by Ben-Gurion which in a way discloses the essence of what Jakobovits said: “This means aiding Israel whether the government of the country in which the Jews are resident and of which they are subjects likes it or not. . . . When we speak of a single Jewish nation we must ignore the fact that the Jewish nation is scattered throughout the world and that the Jews living in any place are citizens of their country of residence.” [5]

Naturally, all working Jews for whom the interests of the Zionists and their imperialist patrons are absolutely alien, sweep aside such recommendations.

On the same day, June 2, 1967 (a coincidence?) the Zionist newspaper Israelitisches Wochenblatt published in Switzerland carried an appeal of the World Zionist Organisation which outlined both the Zionist action programme and the means to be adopted for its realisation:

“The existence and the security of the State of Israel are being threatened. . . . The entire population of Israel is aware of the danger looming over it and is fully determined to endure any sacrifice. All (Jewish) sections of the population, regardless of their country of origin or party affiliation, have in these difficult times unconditionally placed their services at the disposal of the State of Israel. Expressions of sympathy and assurances of complete solidarity which we are receiving from all Jewish communities are an additional source of courage and trust for the population of Israel in the coming struggle. But the situation is aggravating and there is no saying how long this will continue.

“At this decisive moment,” the authors of the appeal exclaim in tones faltering with emotion (having already issued their instructions to the crews of Israeli bombers), “we appeal to our brethren in the Diaspora to strengthen ties between Zion and the Diaspora, and mobilise the sympathies and active support for Israel among all the peoples of the world [all emphasis added—Y.I.], to increase donations [!], persuade the younger generation to emigrate to Israel and to work instead of those who for the sake of defending their country are standing along her frontiers, sincerely and to the maximum exert their material resources [!], furnish financial assistance [!] and thus bear the extraordinary hardships imposed on Israel. The size of financial [!] means needed in this crisis cannot be set in advance, but in any case they are very considerable . . .” (!) and so on and so forth.

A study of this appeal reveals three fundamental factors indicating the trend, nature and methods of Zionist activity.

First, Zionist leaders, representatives of the class of wealthy pro-imperialist or imperialist bourgeoisie, base their propaganda for the Jewish masses in all countries on the allegedly indisputable “affiliation” if not the blood kinship of Jews throughout the world whatever their “country of birth” or “party affiliation,” ostensibly disregarding the question whether or not a certain section of citizens in different countries accepts the Zionist conception. This approach is by no means as senseless as it might appear. On the one hand, it relieves the Zionists of the need to prove the existence of such “affiliation” (which spells nothing good for them in view of the unequivocally negative attitude of the working Jews, especially those living in socialist countries, to this idea), and on the other hand, it gives all Jews opposing Zionism the status of temporarily deluded souls who should be treated carefully, kindly and with the greatest restraint as one would a demented person. This, so to say, is the front line of Zionist activity.

Simultaneously, they execute two enveloping manoeuvres to inject the virus of discontent among the working Jews with their environment and keep them in a state of constant uneasiness. Presenting a “new” programme to the 26th International Zionist Congress, Nahum Goldmann clearly indicated the need to create such a situation when he said that the Jewish people should be made to realise that they must shake off their complacency and begin to think seriously about their future.

Both manoeuvres are based on the old concept of the “exclusiveness” of Jewry which the Zionists are propagandising in a much more veiled form than previously in view of the changed situation.

One of these manoeuvres is in effect inculcation of what could be termed “fatalist complex” which might be illustrated briefly as follows: “You are not an office manager but a clerk because you are a Jew. You are not the company director but his deputy because you are a Jew. You are not a minister but a deputy minister because you are a Jew,” and so forth.

There is no denying the potential effectiveness of this manoeuvre designed to whet ambition, all the more so in that it is greatly strengthened by a purely racialist counter manoeuvre whose essence is skilful injection, frequently by cat’s-paws, of the idea of the “extraordinary,” “outstanding” “capabilities bordering on genius” of all Jews compared with all other peoples.

In this case, the Zionists do not confine themselves to “pure” propaganda or “historical excursus,” but allow themselves the luxury of mentioning Jesus Christ, and also Karl Marx whom they loathe. Having vast sums of money at their disposal, they resort to bribery and advertising to inflate the prestige of those people who can render the best service to their cause.

In the past hundred years it is only the NAZIs and the Zionists who have “enriched” civilisation by elaborating the idea of the “undoubted superiority” of their “national genius.” But if the NAZIs sought to impose this idea on the people through crude violence, the Zionists, armed with the “theory of small deeds,” are doing the same thing surreptitiously and with much greater “efficiency.”

(We should note that the concept “world Jewish nation” which Marxism rejects torpedoes the Zionists’ efforts to use in furtherance of their shady objectives the names of the truly gifted people whose brilliant minds were nourished by the national cultures of the Arab East, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Britain, Poland, Romania, Russia and America and who had never dissociated themselves from their native soil.)

It would be stressed that these measures are but a few of the variations performed by the Zionist propaganda bandwagon, but we consider them the basic ones. Multiplied by more than 70 years of daily effort they cannot be regarded as harmless and deserve the most serious attention.

The second essential factor of the above appeal of the World Zionist Organisation is the direct instructions of the Zionist leaders to “mobilise the sympathies and active support for Israel among all the peoples of the world.”

This appeal leaves a lot unsaid.

Taking into account the existence of powerful Zionist organisations in the USA, Britain, France, Scandinavia and Latin America and also the Zionist leadership in Israel, the psychological warfare experts of the international Zionist centre are just as concerned, and sometimes more concerned with brainwashing the non-Jews in the pro-Zionist spirit than with conducting work among their “adopted kin.” Success in this activity, they believe, will also bring a section of Jews who categorically reject Zionism to contemplate or even capitulate.

One of the most important measures employed by the Zionists in this sphere is economic blackmail. The following example will amply illustrate the effectiveness of this sort of pressure. “. . . The Lebanese and Syrian Americans, because of business connections [emphasis added—Y.I.], give far bigger contributions to the United Jewish Appeal,” * writes A. Lilienthal, “than they donate out of conviction to the appeals for the Arab refugees.” [6]


[*  NOTE:  A Zionist organisation engaged in raising funds for Israeli ruling circles.]


At one time 199 synagogues in America and Canada summoned people to purchase Israeli bonds sold directly on their premises, thus forcing many Jews into directly participating in this and many other financial operations.

Zionists throughout the world own 1,036 periodicals. Nonetheless, their leaders attach paramount importance to installing their agents or “sympathetic elements” into the central press in all countries, into the foreign services of broadcasting stations, into the cinema industry and television. Zionists never underestimate the role played by these powerful levers in indoctrinating public opinion since they know very well that such “trifles” as composing an article of long primer and placing it next to a dramatic photograph, or composing it of nonpareil and hiding it away at the bottom of the second but last page sometimes make all the difference. Better still they know that any noble idea which contradicts their views can be discredited through endless mechanical repetition until people will stop taking it seriously, or by lauding it with honeyed phrases which can easily be explained away by claims that this was done “with the best of intentions.”

It is common knowledge that Zionism holds no threat for US imperialism and since this is the case it is all the more useful to examine how Zionist agents operate even in the citadel of their allies.

In The Other Side of the Coin, A. Lilienthal takes a close look at the activity of the Zionists in the US press, particularly in The New York Times, a paper with one of the largest circulations in the country. Incidentally, its overseas circulation is steadily growing and 72 newspapers in the USA, Canada and other countries use its news service.

Lilienthal describes the methods employed by the Zionists in The New York Times to impose specific point of view on its readers, and has devoted his book to illuminating this extremely ugly “side of the coin.”

In April 1956, Lilienthal writes, Senator Kefauver seeking nomination for the Presidency sought to take advantage of the pro-Zionist sentiments of a part of the country’s population. In response to his demarche, some prominent public leaders issued a statement to the effect that the Senator had jeopardised US national interests and that his reshuffle of the domestic and foreign policy was impermissible. This statement got eight lines in The New York Times which on the same day (April 23, 1956) front-paged Ben-Gurion’s criticism of Eisenhower’s refusal to send arms to Israel.*  On the third page it had a photograph of Israeli children emerging from an underground shelter with the caption: “Youngsters were evacuated from nursery minutes before it received a direct hit early this month.” On the tenth page it carried a report on the annual conference of the Brooklyn Council of the Jewish Community, and so forth.


[* NOTE:  At the time the US sent arms to Israel through various NATO partners.]


In May 1961, when Ben-Gurion came to see Kennedy, The New York Times devoted three columns to the news beneath a photograph of the two leaders capped by a running title, and only one column to the news that Kennedy was leaving (on the same day) for Europe to take part in a conference.

Lilienthal writes that he selected The New York Times on account of its being one of the most influential newspapers in the USA and by no means because it was unique among US newspapers in its pro-Zionist orientation.

It is not only US reality that offers hundreds of irrefutable facts testifying to the carefully planned purposeful activity carried on by Zionists on radio and television, in literature and literary criticism, in the theatre and the cinema, and many other fields that influence man’s world outlook.

To return to Lilienthal.

. . . What can a librarian do? A great deal: recommend a book for example. What book? Any book. John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World, Lion Feuchtwanger’s Jud Süss, Lev Tolstoi’s War and Peace, Irvin Shaw’s Young Lions, etc.

Lilienthal notes that “Princeton, allegedly a stronghold of Arabism” in the USA, is a small college town whose public library is a vivid example of Zionist influence on the education of the young people. Its catalogues list the works of all known Zionist and pro-Zionist writers who had ever written anything about the Middle East and Palestine. In a conversation with Lilienthal the librarian made the following most revealing remarks: “We have a most active Jewish community here. . . . They carry on several programmes in which they co-operate in our work. They are very kind and generous in their gifts of books.” [7]

The last but not the least important factor clearly indicated in the Appeal of the World Zionist Organisation is money.

Reading the above-quoted excerpt from the Appeal one cannot fail to be struck by the repeated mention of “financial assistance,” “donations,” “to the maximum exert your financial resources” and other “variations on the financial theme.”

Putting it briefly, without any special calculations (which could have been made on the basis of information from different countries) the dollar sums which the international Zionist concern and Israel’s ruling circles received during the latest aggression against the Arab states are enough to cover the cost of several further ventures of this kind.

Where did these billions come from? The lion’s share was lifted from the pockets of American, British, French, South African and other working people by Zionist or pro-Zionist industrialists, bankers and gold-mine owners and transferred to the strong rooms of the Zionist centre, while the remainder was donated by the “middle class” and Jewish working people thanks to the constant mass efforts of Zionist propaganda.

Are such contributions in the interests of those who, voluntarily or involuntarily, make them?

Why did the US ruling circles pass a law exempting from taxation all “donations” (however fantastic they might be) in aid of Israel?

Why is it that in Britain, shaken by the devaluation of the pound and losing hundreds of millions of pounds a month through the Israeli blockade of the Suez Canal, hundreds of millions of pounds are successfully raised by the Zionists to keep the canal closed for as long as possible?

Yes, there is food enough for thought.


* * *


The cardinal objective of the international Zionist concern has been and continues to be enrichment at whatever the cost, enrichment, which guarantees them power and a parasitical well-being within the imperialist system;

the establishment of ideological and political control over the Jewish section of the population, which in the indefinite future is promised the role of pastor of mankind, has been and continues to be one of the chief means of achieving this objective;

formed as a result of the humane act of representatives of many peoples of the world, the State of Israel, owing to the anti-national, perfidious policy of its Zionist ruling circles and in the person of these circles, has been and continues to be the tool of the “holy alliance” of international Zionism and imperialism;

the main targets of the subversive activity of the international Zionist concern (both within and without the framework of its daily financial and political machinations that clash with the national interests of all peoples without exception) have been and continue to be the Soviet Union, all socialist countries, the international communist, working-class and national liberation movement.

The campaign against the socialist community, and against the Soviet Union in particular, is being conducted under the ragged banner of “protection of the Jews.” How many political adventurists have marched under this banner and how many honest but credulous people have, if only for a moment, held it aloft, deluded into doing so by the strenuous efforts of the Zionists.

The form of this subversive activity aimed at creating the bases for the work of all kinds of agents of imperialism is by no means devoid of sense, for some people might well think that since they are being so vigorously protected perhaps, after all, they really do need protection.

Let us, however, turn to a less philosophical question: What conclusion could be drawn from the fact that the neo-NAZIs in Bonn organise a “week of solidarity and defence” of the Israeli Zionists, while the latter organise a “week of solidarity and defence” of Soviet Jews?

It certainly defies all the laws of formal logic that Kurt Kiesinger, member of the NAZI party since 1933 (party card No. 2633930), a prominent figure in the Third Reich’s propaganda apparatus, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, where, according to 1967 figures, some 100 undisguised neo-NAZI centres are preaching anti-Semitism, has, together with like-minded persons and colleagues in the government, become an active supporter of the Zionist cause of “defending the benighted and inferior citizens languishing behind the iron curtain.”

This gives rise to two questions. First, is such a dubious situation a diplomatic victory for Israel? Second, are there any secondary, collateral reasons (apart from the main objective—establishment of ideological and political control by the Zionist centre) impelling the Zionists to moan at all the crossroads of the world about the “unfortunate” destiny of the Jews in the USSR?

Yes, there are, and I should like to give a brief account of the most essential one.

In May 1965 a journalist asked a Zionist leader of average importance on a sightseeing tour of Haifa the following question: “Please, tell me, why is it that you persist in your efforts to secure the emigration of Soviet citizens of Jewish origin to Israel? There are twice as many Jews in the USA, yet you’re making practically no efforts at all in that direction.”

“If I give you a frank answer, you, as a journalist, will be bound to mention my name and raise a scandal,” he replied after a pause. However, he was assured that nothing of the sort would happen.

The conversation was not conducted in private and those present will recall that his reply ran as follows: “In your country Jews are working people and as such are relatively unexacting. Since it is a matter of developing sparsely populated territories, both factors suit us perfectly.”

It was pretty difficult to link this up with a later statement by Eshkol: “We must explain to the whole world, including the Arab world, that one way of solving the issue is fully and absolutely out of the question—it is impossible to settle Arab refugees in Israel . . . for Israel 100,000 refugees would be tantamount to having an atom bomb dropped on us.”

But further collation of facts, figures and developments made the frankness of the statement by the Zionist in Haifa more and more obvious.

In the 20 years of her existence 250,000 Jews, of whom the overwhelming majority were of European extraction, emigrated from Israel.

In the 20 years of Israel’s existence each American Jew paid approximately $250 a year as “smart-money” for refusing to move to faraway Palestine.

In the 20 years of Israel’s existence her ruling militarist circles have, as a result of their aggressive actions, seized (and are intending to “develop”) a territory approximately four times the size allotted to the country under the UN decision.

In the 20 years of Israel’s existence her authorities have forcibly expelled about a million Arabs from the country (between 1948–1950) and hundreds of thousands more during the June aggression.

If we recall Theodor Herzl’s words, “Our unskilled workers . . . will move first of all from the large Russian and Rumanian reservoir . . . ,” if we take into account the fact that this was said about 70 years ago and that technology has developed immeasurably since then, and if we bear in mind Ben-Gurion’s recent dramatic appeal for an immediate mass emigration of European Jews to Israel we shall see that in the light of the above facts the statement, “in your country Jews are working people and as such are relatively unexacting. Since it is a matter of developing sparsely populated territories, both factors suit us perfectly,” appears to be absolutely sincere.

Such cynicism on the part of the Zionist leaders can only be regarded with contempt by the working people of the multinational Land of Soviets. All those working energetically for the benefit of the Soviet people will not allow the Zionist leadership to sneer at the Soviet Jews, their comrades in work and in struggle, who share their convictions and are dedicated to the communist cause, socialist society and their homeland.


The Zionists constantly change the tactics of their ideological and other forms of subversion against the USSR.

To further its specific plans the international Zionist centre in 1961 called for “a moderate line” towards the USSR and other socialist countries.

In March 1963 the Executive Committee of the World Zionist Organisation rejected the “moderate line” and called for an “offensive campaign” against the socialist community, particularly the USSR. Nahum Goldmann, speaking of the general aims of Zionism, declared that the WZO should become a political task force capable of defending the rights of all Jews living outside Israel.

In July 1964 Zionist leaders vamped up their directives and stressed the need for “constant pressure on the Soviet authorities” with the help of “non-Jewish forces.”

In 1965 there were signs of yet another tactical reorientation. Some Zionist leaders in fact conceded that frontal attacks, including unbridled anti-Soviet smear campaigns, failed to produce results and recommended “enveloping” manoeuvres.

In 1966–1968, as was evidenced in particular by events in Poland and Czechoslovakia, the international Zionist centre once again reverted to large-scale overt provocations.

In their “total war” the international Zionist centre resorts to such worn stereotype methods as Voice of America and Kol-Israel broadcasts, illegal dissemination of Zionist literature in the Soviet Union, the dispatching of Zionist periodicals to Soviet citizens whose addresses are known in Israel (without their permission) and parcels of matzoth (although it is common knowledge that Soviet bakeries produce enough matzoth a month to build a second Mount Ararat or Zion).

There are other methods, less striking but more venomous: dissemination of provocative rumours, encouragement of mercantilism and clannishness, provoking a big fuss out of anything that is remotely anti-Soviet, juggling with facts quoted in memoirs and other literary works, and supporting all those who either deliberately, or due to their youth or stupidity are actually or potentially capable of being led by their rope.

Zionist leaders attach particular importance to the revision and misrepresentation of Marxist-Leninist ideas, falsification of the history of the Soviet state as the basic means of ideological struggle against the USSR and communism as a whole.

What suits Zionism least of all is the Marxist-Leninist theories of what is a nation, the scathing criticism to which the founders of communist ideology subjected the concept of the “world Jewish nation” and the way Marxists pose and resolve the so-called “eternal Jewish question.” Day in and day out, for many years now the Zionists have been waging their both open and secret war against the heritage of the founders of Marxism-Leninism.

Foreign Zionists and pro-Zionists are recommending and “justifying” the need to revise Marxism, and their apologists in the socialist countries without much ado set about various juggling acts.


“The way many theoreticians and activists of the Second International interpret the Jewish question has nothing in common with the Marxist-revolutionary interpretation. First it should be noted that they did not pay sufficient attention to this question and to the national question in general. And when mass violence against the Jews . . . in capitalist society forced them to speak up they treated the Jewish question either in the spirit of emancipatory liberalism or in the spirit of Jewish nationalism. Characteristic in this respect was Kautsky’s statement. . . . What solution does he offer for the Jewish question? In effect he calls for assimilation, since hostility towards the Jews ‘will be eliminated only if and when the Jewish sections of the population cease to be alien and blend with the mass of the population.'”

(Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya, Vol. 24, Moscow, 1932, p. 154.)



“That is precisely what the Jewish problem amounts to: assimilation or isolation?—and the idea of Jewish ‘nationality’ is definitely reactionary not only when expounded by its consistent advocates (the Zionists), but likewise on the lips of those who try to combine it with the ideas of Social-Democracy (the Bundists). . . . Karl Kautsky, in particular reference to the Russian Jews, expresses himself ever more vigorously. Hostility towards non-native sections of the population can only be eliminated when the non-native sections of the population cease to be alien and blend with the general mass of the population. That is the only possible solution of the Jewish problem, and we should support everything that makes for the ending of Jewish isolation.’ Yet the Bund is resisting this only possible solution for it is helping, not to end but to increase and legitimise Jewish isolation. . . .”

(V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 101.)

Seven years after Lenin’s death, Volfson pretended to have “forgotten” the Leninist tenet: “The best Jews, those who are celebrated in world history, and have given the world foremost leaders of democracy and socialism, have never clamoured against assimilation. It is only those who contemplate the ‘rear aspect’ of Jewry with reverential awe that clamour against assimilation.” [8]

Having frightened the reader with the fact that Kautsky was one of the inglorious leaders of the Second International, Volfson straight away falsified Lenin’s idea. A few lines further, as was to be expected, he “rebuffs” the supporters of “colonisation of Palestine,” the Zionists. But the main thing was already achieved. “The main front of our struggle at the present time,” Levi Eshkol stressed, “which is more important than at any other period in our history, is the home front. Assimilation and decentralisation constitute a threat to our further existence.” [9]

And this is how things really stand. The national process of the assimilation of the Jews observed in all countries, just as the process of the natural consolidation of the Israeli nation, for very obvious reasons categorically did not suit and still does not suit the international Zionist concern. Its agents, ideologues and paid propagandists continue to erect, as they have in the past, the most diverse obstacles, both theoretical and practical, to prevent these processes from taking their natural course to completion.

A vivid example of the intrigues of international Zionism in the communist and working-class movement was the recent attempt to undermine the internationalist positions of the Israeli Communist Party, to replace its Marxist-Leninist, genuinely patriotic policy with a policy of actual alliance with Zionism and solidarity with the criminal gambles of those advocating the establishment of “greater Israel.”

Founded in 1919, the Communist Party of Israel has every reason to be proud of its revolutionary traditions, its long and arduous path of day to day struggle for the rights and interests of the Israeli working people. Forged in the grim conditions of artificially fomented national strife, the international Jewish-Arab unity of the CPI members, the fraternal co-operation between the Jews and the Arabs united in the Party on a class basis, is the object of the legitimate pride of the Israeli Communists, a magnificent example of the indivisible community of interests of all the working people of the Middle East.

The great achievement of the Communist Party of Israel and its Central Committee was that the internationalism of the Israeli Communists was able to withstand and overcome the social-chauvinism of the splitter group which in 1965 attacked the Party under the smokescreen of demagogic phrases calling for “Israelisation of the Communist Party” and expounding the need to follow a “more flexible tactical line.”

Exactly two years after the unsuccessful attempt to divert the Communist Party of Israel from its Marxist-Leninist course of defending the Israeli people’s true national interests, those who suggested “more flexible tactics” literally demonstrated their own “flexibility” by bowing to Zionist audiences applauding their qualification of the Israeli aggression as “the most just of all wars known to mankind.”

But the Communist Party of Israel has been put to the most rigid test of all recently. Having failed to shatter the Party from within, the Israeli authorities resorted to numerous repressions against the Communists from such refined methods as the baiting of their children in school and in the street, to the traditional arrests of Party activists and leaders, brutal beatings up at police stations and attempts to assassinate leading Communists.

The Communist Party of Israel continues to work in most difficult conditions. In Israel and elsewhere the Zionist and pro-Zionist press is increasing its hate-campaign against it. There are hysterical appeals to ban the Communist Party, and proposals are being drafted for a new electoral system in Israel aimed solely at depriving the Communist Party of hay-ing its representatives elected to parliament.

Displaying composure and courage, the Israeli Communists are continuing to fight for the genuine interests of the people, for peace and a just solution to all outstanding issues between Israel and the Arab countries.

The Zionist parties in Israel, who form various temporary and permanent alliances for the purpose of staging at regular intervals the gaudy spectacle of “forming an Israeli government” have established Zionism as the official state ideology. But in the opinion of Zionist supporters, and according to their plans, this ideology should not flourish in Israel alone. And while the defeated splitter group in the Communist Party of Israel was to have played the role of a Zionist agent in the international communist movement, the so-called socialist (Zionist) parties in Israel have been assiduously fulfilling this assignment for a long time in the world’s Social-Democratic parties, widely using for the purpose the rostrum willingly offered them by the Socialist International.

How fruitful this activity of the elite of Zionist “Social-Democracy” has been and how fertile the soil of the Socialist International on which it was conducted, can be judged by the special resolution passed in the first days of the Israeli aggression at an Emergency Meeting of the Bureau of the Socialist International on June 8, 1967. There is no need to quote the entire resolution adopted by those who had organised the struggle for the cause of reform capitalism. Suffice it to cite the first and the last paragraphs of this document, “socialist” in form but imperialist in content:

“The Socialist International expresses its full solidarity with the people of Israel who are defending their existence and their liberty against aggression. . . . [?!]

“The Socialist International allies itself with the democratic forces in the Middle East, in their fight to repudiate all forms of feudalism and dictatorship. The Socialist International will work to bring the advantages of democratic Socialism to all the countries of the Middle East.” [10]

It is the Israeli Zionist leaders in the Socialist International who are putting in a great deal of effort to “bring the advantages of democratic Socialism” with the help of bayonets or promissory notes. It is the Zionists who have elaborated the programme of the Centre for Socialist Thought established “to study the various trends within the international Socialist movement today and the application of their programmes and methods of action in developing countries. . . .” [11]

Paragraph 5 of the Zionist memorandum which accompanied the proposal to set up the centre recommends the following: “To engage in dialogues concerning problems of Socialist ideology and practice with parties both in Asia and in Africa which” do not “belong to the Socialist International. . . .” [12] All this shows that international Zionism’s ideological subversion is conducted on a broad front and planned for years ahead. The same is true of the military, intelligence and economic activities of the international Zionist concern.

It should be stressed again and again that in opposing the Soviet Union, the entire socialist community and the communist and working-class movement, Zionism is bound to struggle against the national liberation movement too. In this struggle an important role is still being played by its well-tested tactics of faits accomplis, particularly in the Middle East area.

What else, apart from crude violence and blatant sabotage, enables Zionism’s allies to employ these tactics with temporary success in international organisations that are called upon to ensure peace and justice with all the means at their disposal?

It is not enough to say that Zionism owes this temporary success among other things to a smoothly functioning misinformation and propaganda service on an international scale, and leave it at that. Let us try to see just how it works.

We have already noted how in preparation for the latest Israeli aggression, the international Zionist centre, employing all the means at its disposal, managed to condition a certain section of the Western public in favour of the aggressors and in effect to neutralise another large section of it.

The aggression was accomplished, and unfortunately it was only post factum that a large number of people in the world carne to realise what had actually taken place in the Middle East and the baseness of falsehoods which were presented as “information about what is taking place.” The occupation of considerable Arab territories which were immediately qualified as “liberated territories,” killings, terror, maltreatment of the civilian population, destruction of Arab dwellings, forcible eviction of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homeland and categorical refusal to comply with the UN decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem have had a sobering effect on many, and have led the misguided to make a radical reassessment of events.

What is Zionist propaganda doing now that the scales of world public opinion have obviously tipped in favour of the Arab states, the victims of the aggression? The propaganda manoeuvre undertaken by international Zionism in the new conditions may be termed the “tactics of searching for the truth.”

Of late a vast number of “investigations” have made their appearance in the USA, Britain, France, Italy and other countries in the form of brochures, books, extensive reviews, and analytical reports “taken from personal archives” and “brought to light for the first time.” They invite the reader “to calmly examine the facts and finally arrive at the truth.” The friendly tone, the refined manner of submitting mistakes and obvious failures on both sides, hundreds of names, thousands of dates and situations, a play of varying shades of controversial views, frequent recourse to humour as a means of engaging the reader and getting away from the point, subtle flattery for the reader as an intellectual capable of understanding that, of course, there is no such thing as being absolutely right or guilty, and, finally, the conclusion deduced in the best traditions of the time-hallowed (but no less bourgeois for the passage of time) objectivism: life is manifold and, as we have shown, complicated, therefore take it easy, don’t rush: it would be best to weigh up and take stock of everything again, to argue more often, for truth will out in argument.

Thanks to considerable effort, support and careful handling, this mode of thinking is gradually gaining ground, all the more so since many of the authors paid to put out works containing such ideas are carefully chosen as having been progressives in their time.

Meanwhile, the Jordanian sector of Jerusalem is being actively Israelised with the help of funds initially set up by Rothschild, the World Zionist Organisation and the Ambassador of an “allied power”—the Federal Republic of Germany. Meanwhile 70 kilometres from Damascus, a village of Israeli “farmers” armed to the teeth is rising on ancient Syrian territory. Meanwhile thousands of indigent Israelis are being resettled in the occupied regions so that the Israeli leaders will be able to say, as they did in 1948: “What resettlement are you talking about when Israeli working people have already been living for so long on the lands of the so-called refugees?” Meanwhile the manager of the Zionist trust, Nahum Goldmann is making innumerable trips in an effort to settle things peacefully and have everything remain as it is—the farmers, and the fishermen angling in turbid waters. Meanwhile. . . .


* * *


David Gavish (b. 1924), native of Minsk, graduate of Jerusalem University, Israeli diplomat and professional secret agent, was on a plane bound for Vienna. The instructions he had received before leaving testified to his being extremely well-trusted. Only one thing upset him: why was it that he, an expert authority on the socialist countries, had not been invited to attend the last routine meeting, which had discussed the matter of purchasing a large shipment of spare parts and ammunition for arms captured from the Arabs? Gavish was greatly disturbed by the suddenly increased authority of his Sinologist colleagues.

Every criminal remembers more and more frequently and clearly as time goes on his first victim. Gavish remembered Dolnik. . . .

But let us interrupt Mr. Gavish’s thoughts for a moment and tell in the plain, unadorned language of a document of the activities of one of his Moscow underlings.

“Summary of material on Dolnik S. B., arrested and convicted for anti-Soviet activities.

“May 26, 1966, Dolnik, Solomon Borisovich, native of the town of Rudnya, Smolensk region, non-Party, cartographer by profession, was arrested on Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. . . .

“Investigations revealed that in 1965 Dolnik had established contact with members of the staff of the Israeli Embassy in Moscow (Gavish, Bartov, Govrin, Biran, Katz, Rave) and given them various material ordered by the Israelis. . . . Dolnik generally made contact with the Embassy staff at the Moscow Choral Synagogue which he visited regularly. Dolnik photographed the material he had collected in order to simplify the transfer. . . .

“In collecting the slanderous information the Israeli Embassy also requested, Dolnik resorted to direct forgery. Thus, in the summer of 1965, he fabricated a photocopy of so-called “facts” of anti-Semitism in the USSR. Dolnik photographed several tombstones in the Jewish cemetery and touched them up with swastikas. . . .

“For the various information he handed over to the Israelis Dolnik received material rewards in the form of parcels of articles supposedly from a brother resident in Israel. . . .”

The aircraft aboard which Gavish was flying from Tel Aviv to Vienna, landed on the dot with true German punctuality.


The Main Documentary Centre has existed for some time in the Austrian capital. The name is sufficiently vague to mean anything and provides a good cover for the activities of a large espionage organisation created by the International Zionist Organisation and the CIA (USA), acting in many cases under orders from the Israeli Embassy in Vienna, whither, as it happens, our “diplomat” was bound. However, before going on to describe the latest action of the little-known Documentary Centre, it is necessary to return once more to events of the recent past.

In 1951 a Czechoslovak court condemned William Oatis, Associated Press correspondent, to 10 years imprisonment for espionage. In September 1968, the magazine Newsweek wrote about him, and mentioned the fact that he had had extremely wide connections in Czechoslovakia among Jewish nationalists.

Oatis was by no means the only Western agent who had tried to find accomplices in the Jewish communities of Brno, Bratislava and Prague. According to the Czechoslovak press Israeli Zionist diplomats had been equally active for many years in attempting to carry out subversive activities in the interests of their imperialist allies. In 1957, a Secretary at the Israeli Embassy, Moshe Katz, was expelled from the country for actions not in keeping with his position as a diplomat. It was common knowledge that the Embassy Second Secretary Karl Aaron and his successor Itzkhak Shalef had tried all kinds of means to achieve the departure from Czechoslovakia (for political and other reasons) of outstanding experts of Jewish origin.

In protest against the 1967 Israeli aggression against the Arab countries, Czechoslovakia, along with several other socialist countries, severed diplomatic relations with Israel. The Zionists were thus deprived of the possibility of carrying on their activities in the country through the agency of their diplomats. International Zionism thus felt the need to adopt a manoeuvre intended to artificially stir up world public opinion against socialist Czechoslovakia on the so-called Jewish question.

In the autumn of 1967, Charles Jordan, an active figure in the World Jewish Congress, arrived as a tourist in Prague. Soon after, his body was found in the river and the Zionist press in all 67 capitalist countries where it is legal was howling about “anti-Jewish outrages” and the “brutalities of the Czechoslovak secret police.”

After this the general public was treated to the death of two doctors—members of the International Concilium—invited from Switzerland by the Czechoslovak authorities to investigate the causes of Jordan’s death. The doctors met their death far from Czechoslovakia, in circumstances somewhat reminiscent of the death of Oswald Lee, Jack Ruby and other witnesses deemed “undesirable” by the imperialist secret service.

The real aim of all the shady activities conducted by the Zionists in Czechoslovakia on the eve of the attempts by the forces of reaction at home and abroad to overthrow socialism in the country is clearer today, now that with the aid of the fraternal socialist countries, the Czechoslovakia has eliminated the danger that threatened her in August 1968.

It should be stressed that Zionist activities in Czechoslovakia were, naturally, but a part of the activities undertaken by internal and external forces of counter-revolution. A leading role in the Zionist activities was to be played by the inconspicuous “Main Documentary Centre” tucked away in Vienna. On the eve of the events in Czechoslovakia the Centre created a “daughter enterprise,” the Committee for Czechoslovak Refugees. It is significant that almost simultaneously a Centre for the Co-ordination of Fighters for the Freedom of Czechoslovakia was set up in Israel (which must have seemed a rather strange move, surely, to the ordinary Israeli, for whom the main thing in 1968 was the Israeli-Arab conflict).

But the Zionists are not wont to take into account the mood of the ordinary Israeli. The Tel Aviv Zionist newspaper Maariv revealed the nature of the Centre’s activities in a routine report of October 6, 1968.

“Yesterday the Co-ordination Centre sent a group of young Czech intellectuals resident in Israel to various European countries. The group’s task is to establish contact with Czechoslovak citizens outside the country. They are also to investigate the possibility of establishing contact with various groups inside Czechoslovakia. Part of the group is to go to Prague.”

“The Co-ordination Centre in Israel,” the paper went on to say, “is becoming a world centre of fighters for the freedom of Czechoslovakia. . . . Those who meet material difficulties and have insufficient means for activities in or outside Czechoslovakia are given material support. . . .

“The Co-ordination Centre has prepared a programme for organising the publication of Literarni Listy, a paper which is the voice of democracy [?!] in Czechoslovakia. Contributions for this purpose may be sent to: Discount Bank, account No. 450055, Tel Aviv.”


Thus, both on the eve of and during the events in Czechoslovakia, in its own interests and the interests of its imperialist allies, international Zionism created a number of centres specialising in different kinds of subversive activities against the socialist countries, and moved some of them (including the Committee for Czechoslovak Refugees) close to the frontiers of Czechoslovakia. Moreover, Zionist agents actually infiltrated the country. According to press reports, Israeli nationals were working as advisors at many of the illegal broadcasting stations that were set up in the country and slandered socialism and the socialist achievements of the Czechoslovak people.

International Zionism spared no efforts to support the plot of the American imperialists and West German revanchists against the Czechoslovak people, and thus against all the peoples of the socialist community. Nor can it be denied that the intrigues of international Zionism (in this case in Czechoslovakia) did in fact receive a certain amount of support within the country from some ideologically corrupt and openly pro-Zionist elements among citizens of Jewish descent.

The so-called Czechoslovak “refugees” sent by the Zionists’ Vienna espionage centre to Israel for instruction and further use as Zionist agents and spies in West European countries and Czechoslovakia, were written of in perfectly unambiguous terms by the Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post. “They have come for moral compensation for the Czech arms deliveries to the Arabs and the behaviour of the Communist bloc,” the paper wrote. According to the same paper, one of these transferred elements declared: “I want to compensate a little at least for my country’s delivering arms to the Arabs. These deliveries are a cause of suffering to me.”

Who corrupted and inspired these “long-suffering martyrs,” apart from the Zionists in the service of Voice of Israel, Voice of America, and other equally lying voices? Their names are known: Eduard Goldstücker, Jiri Pelikan, Ota Sik, A. Liehm and many other Zionist supporters, posing as “loyal” Czechoslovak patriots and showing the usual long-suffering patience and persistence with lying that enabled them to gain control of the means of mass information.

It is worth mentioning here that the value, or rather the price of the ideas Goldstücker and his brethren introduced into Czechoslovak society with the aim of rallying the forces of internal counter-revolution is testified by a simple, but nevertheless significant fact that came to light recently. For a long time in the past Goldstücker had been receiving inflated fees for his foreign publications from Fritz Molden, the “king” of the Austrian bourgeois press, then Allen Dulles’s son-in-law.

It was in fact no accident that in the circumstances of continuing Israeli aggression and militarist fascist terror in the occupied Arab territories, when the Zionist expansionists were openly flouting all the decisions and demands of the UN, the counter-revolutionary forces in Czechoslovakia were calling for the immediate restoration of diplomatic and commercial relations with Israel.


Christmas Eve, 1969. Paris was gaily decorated with Christmas trees and the streets were unusually deserted. The corridors of the French National Assembly were empty.

Silence reigned in the residence of Baron Edmond de Rothschild (b. 1926).* The Pope was speaking on television. Paul VI lost his place, and patiently waited for a lay-brother to push the text of the address closer to his failing eyes and point to where he had gone astray.


[*  NOTE:   The founder of the Rothschild dynasty of financial magnates was the banker Amschel Meyer of Frankfort-on-the-Main (1743–1812). His descendants soon moved to Vienna (where they received the title of Baron), London, Naples and Paris. By the mid-19th century as a result of the financial dependence of several of the courts of Europe on the Rothschilds, the latter had a considerable influence in European politics. In the latter half of the 19th century and the early years of the present century the Rothschild bankers in Austria, England and France, closely connected with one another, played a major role in providing government loans in their respective countries. The Rothschilds played an important part in financing the intervention against the Soviet Republic (1918–1920), had a hand in the strengthening of the Hitlerite regime in Germany, the suppression of the national revolutionary struggle of the Spanish people (1936–1939) and preparations for the Second World War. The Rothschilds have always been a major financial pillar of Zionist organisations.]

The Parisians celebrated the festive season at home, en famille, and the vast majority were naturally unaware that their city was the scene of a meeting between the Czechoslovak Zionist counter-revolutionaries Ota Sik, Pelikan, Liehm and others, and representatives of the so-called “old emigration.” On the agenda was: unification of the old and new emigration to form a Paris centre that would be the largest in Europe, and exploration of the possibility of publishing the newspaper Literarni Listy in Paris. The “new emigration” was prepared to finance the scheme. They had been promised the wherewithal by the Discount Bank in Tel Aviv, where the expenses would be deducted from Account No. 450055.

The Parisians were celebrating Christmas and many of them had not yet got round to thinking about how much of the money earned by their labour had been transferred by Rothschild, Pierre Dreyfus and other financiers and businessmen as little concerned for the interests of France to that same account No. 450055. They did not know that on the mantle of Paul VI, glittering on their TV screens, there lay the shadow of the Vatican Cardinal Augustin Bea, who had long ago abandoned his Jewish faith to embrace Catholicism in order to help cement the alliance between the Catholic Church and the Jewish Church by means of the Second Vatican Council Declaration of November 20, 1964, and a cheque in favour of the Vatican, of whose origin even the old, trusted keepers of the banking secrets of the principality of Liechtenstein have no inkling.


At three o’clock in the early hours of Christmas morning, five fast rocket-launcher destroyers slipped quietly out of the French port of Cherbourg. They had been built by a French firm on an Israeli order. They slipped away, despite the strict orders of the French Government that they should not be handed over to the customer. It was a world-wide sensation. In a fever of excitement hundreds of leading newspapers and magazines throughout the capitalist world reported the thrilling news. Once more there was frank admiration of Israeli skill and the elusiveness of Zionist agents. Once more the heart of the matter was concealed and the chief culprits were shielded from the public eye by a torrent of detailed and tendentious information. And only a terse report published in the French Communist newspaper on March 3, 1970, gave a hint of what was really behind it all:

“Admiral Limon in Israel,” L’Humanité wrote, “will wear the blue cloak with Brandenburg embroidery and the yellow cap of Baron Edmond de Rothschild. Limon’s brilliant part in the Christmas affair of the Cherbourg destroyers has decided his appointment as manager of all the French financier’s investments in Israel.”

The French Government expelled the organiser of the “scandalous theft,” Admiral Limon, Counsellor of the Israeli Embassy in Paris, and a few weeks later “the French financier” rewarded his willing tool, having flouted the French Government for the umpteenth time.

The French Rothschilds have had a hand in the ousting of numerous politicians and governments in France, a country so alien to their spirit. And they know how to keep their secrets, just as they managed to keep secret their rendezvous during the two world wars, when they congregated from Austria, France and England to gloat together, en famille, over their champagne glasses at the peoples of Europe shedding their blood somewhere out there—it might be on another planet—to assign roles and spheres of influence and count their profits.

The Israeli historian and journalist Hannah Arendt was so right when she wrote: “Where, indeed, was there better proof of the fantastic concept of a Jewish world government than in this one family, the Rothschilds, nationals of five different countries . . . in close co-operation with at least [my italics—Y.I.] three different governments . . . whose frequent conflicts never for a moment shook the solidarity of interests of their state bankers? No propaganda could have created a symbol more effective for political purposes than the reality itself.”*


[* NOTE:  Quoted from H. M. Sachar, The Course of Modern Jewish History, p. 129.]


Indeed, who is it that moves the English Queen Elizabeth II to pay ceremonial visits to the synagogue, as the London Jewish Chronicle triumphantly reported in February 1970? If this question appears unimportant, there is every reason to get to the bottom of another question, which deserves careful attention and scrupulous investigation. Towards the end of May 1969, the Chairman of the West German National-Democratic Party (NDP) Adolf von Thadden—Führer of the West German neo-nazis—was interviewed by a correspondent of Der Spiegel. He was asked the following question:

“Herr von Thadden, you have recently been talking of the NDP having seats in the next Bundestag as if it were already an absolute certainty. If things don’t go as well as expected at the September 28 Bundestag elections, is it not very possible that you will simply be forced to resign the Party chairmanship?”

Von Thadden’s answer was, in part, as follows:

“I certainly would be in that case. But it won’t come to that. An Israeli journalist has just informed me that he doesn’t know a single politician here who is not absolutely convinced that the NDP will have seats in the next Bundestag.”

Von Thadden was deliberately lying. He knew perfectly well that the right time for his party had not yet come, and was quite aware that come what may he would retain his leadership. This is precisely what happened.

At the 4th Congress of the NDP, held on February 9, 1970, von Thadden was re-elected Chairman despite the modest results his party achieved in the Bundestag elections, the NDP receiving a mere 4.3 per cent of the votes. But why was it that von Thadden had suddenly felt bound to add to all his other propaganda bluster the opinion of an Israeli journalist, real or fictitious? It was hardly calculated to win over an extra thousand potential but still wavering supporters, whose anti-Semitism is taken for granted. No, far more serious matters were involved.

“Where does the NDP find the resources it needs, which are growing at a fantastic rate from year to year?” Charles Haroche asked himself and his readers in an article entitled “Le néo-NAZIsme: attention danger!” (France Nouvelle, September 3, 1969). He pointed out, quite correctly, that membership dues could only cover an insignificant part of the neo-NAZIs’ expenses. “In 1965,” he continues, “NDP membership dues amounted to DM 78,472.67, in 1966 to DM 176,570.11, and in the first few months of 1967 were as much as 169,071.72.” Haroche then plunges into guesswork and quotes material that can be found on any newsstand in West Germany. In answer to the authors of such quotations, Ernst Henry wrote in his article “Who Pays the Neo-Nazis?” (Pravda, August 10, 1968): “The bourgeois press in the FRG makes out that only a few second-rank industrialists have begun to give some support to the NDP. They name, for example, the Bavarian manufacturer of tank caterpillars Diel, a friend of Strauss; Etker, the owner of shipping lines and food factories, and Schickedanz, owner of a Bavarian mail-order firm. These businessmen are indeed collaborating more or less openly with the NDP. Their fortunes run into the tens, if not the hundreds of millions of DM, and they have a considerable influence in Bonn society and the Bonn state. Yet it is not they who hold the reins of power in the camp of West German monopoly capital.”

This sums up the situation very accurately. Let us return, however, to Charles Haroche’s article. Haroche mentions the fact that Bauer, Attorney-General of Bavaria, revealed yet another source of the NDP’s funds revenue when he informed a correspondent of the British newspaper The People that the NDP received money from various funds that the NAZIs had sent out of Hitler Germany for safe keeping in foreign banks and also from the sale of various treasures plundered by the NAZIs.

Bauer went on to say that in the last three years (1967–1969) certain unknown brokers had sold large batches of valuable metals and jewels on the Stock Exchanges of Geneva and Amsterdam. Inquiries revealed that these represented a part of the treasures concealed by the nazis, and that the money from the sale went into the NDP kitty.

If the inquiries Bauer refers to had been carried out thoroughly—and there can be no doubt that they were—the very mention of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange was extremely significant. For this has long been the preserve of the Rothschilds, who are kept well informed by their agents of everything that goes on there down to the last detail. Not a single big deal is concluded in Amsterdam without the knowledge of the multimillionaire Zionist family.

There is another line of approach to the investigation of a fact that is becoming plainer and plainer all the time, and that is that Israeli militarism and West German neo-NAZIism are fed from the same source. The old family of bankers, Leopold Seligman of Cologne, has long-standing ties with the Rothschilds. The original Seligmans (three brothers—Mauritz, Jakob and Heinrich) founded their business in 1811 in Koblenz, and transferred it to Cologne in 1868. For a long time relations between the two families were via the Rothschilds’ Austrian branch. However, the simple fact of these dealings would not mean very much, were it not for two other extremely significant points.

The following is an extract from a short, but most enlightening article by the Soviet scholar Y. Yevseyev. “Voluntary contributions to Israel’s Treasury have often been made by West German monopolies and trusts in one way or another connected with the Zionist ‘Millionaires’ International.’ Among the most important of these are: Deutsche Bank headed by Hermann Abs (the late Adenauer was on the supervisory board), Berliner Bank, Frankfurter Bank, Bayerische Hypotheken- und Wechsel-Bank, the old banking house of Leopold Seligman in Cologne—the citadel of the Rhine banks, Salomon Oppenheim Jr. and Co., and J. H. Stein, also based in Cologne. . . .”* Let us compare this honest report with a report issued by the ADN Agency in Berlin in early August 1968, which declared that “a group of representatives of the Flick, Rudolf, Etker, BASF concerns and several other of the leading FRG monopolies held secret discussions at the end of last week with the leaders of the NDP. At the meeting, the place of which was kept secret, the candidates the NDP proposed putting up for the 1969 Bundestag elections were discussed.”


[* NOTE:   Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, No. 10, 1969, p. 43.]


We should note especially the presence at the meeting of representatives of major Rhenish banks, the Leopold Seligman Bank of Cologne being one of them and having close ties with them, as well as having long-standing business connections with the Rothschilds and being a generous benefactor of the Armed Forces of the State of Israel.

Thus, it is quite clear that the NDP and Israeli militarism are fed by the same hand. Is this paradoxical? All those who are fond of speaking of “paradoxes,” especially in connection with the international Zionist movement today, might do well to answer the following question: why is it that the capital of the Rothschild family, and a Jewish family mark, feeding as parasites on the economy of many countries, should have emerged not only unscathed but even healthier than ever from the years when the NAZIs were brutally murdering numerous peoples in Europe, the Jews among them? We have already seen how the Jews in Europe were doomed in advance to the role of victims by the Zionist fanatics, nursed from the cradle by the Rothschilds, how the Zionists came to terms with the NAZIs with whom they collaborated in driving the Jews either into the concentration camp crematoria or the kibbutzes of the “Land of Canaan.” The German journalist Heinz Höhne hit the nail squarely on the head when he wrote that “since the Zionists and the National Socialists had elevated race and nation to the scale of all things, it was inevitable that a common bridge should have appeared between them.”

As Lenin pointed out: “Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom.” In implementing this aim, imperialism has always counted, and continues to count, on the reactionary forces which it considers to best serve its interests in the particular historical circumstances obtaining at a given stage. Hence the way it once backed fascism so heavily.

The Rothschild bankers were among the monopoly capital groups that backed fascism in the struggle against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In opposing freedom and its major bearer, the world’s first state of workers and peasants, for the umpteenth time, international imperialism suffered a crushing defeat in 1945. However, in the new situation that ensued—the emergence of a community of socialist countries and a rapid upswing and new triumphs of the working-class, communist and national liberation movements, imperialism began to search for new ways and means of defending its positions, new detachments of reactionary fanatics to be its willing tools, new means of recapturing lost ground. Neo-colonialism, attempts to create “ultra-imperialism” in miniature, relying on the network of international Jewish capital, the boosting of the economic might of the FRG and the emergence of neo-NAZIism, the all-round consolidation of international Zionism as an instrument of imperialist reaction, attempts to establish contacts with nationalism of every form and shade and the petards of new ideological subversion—all this testifies to the intensive work and efforts of international reaction, which, although on the retreat, is nevertheless still extremely active and highly dangerous.

The period of the rise of fascism was also the period of the all-round consolidation of Zionism. Zionism survived and established itself not in spite of fascism, but thanks to fascism, which in the new historical conditions (history never repeats itself exactly) it is rapidly moving in to replace. Every example of nationalism based on concepts of racial superiority carries within it the embryo of fascism. The intensity of active nationalism differs according to conditions and circumstances; but the imperialist arsenal contains means of stimulating it to the maximum.

Let us consider the following lines: “Where the roads from the west cut across the roads from the east, there lies the city of Jerusalem, the fortress of Zion. And the Jews, when they acknowledge the God of Israel, the One who is omnipotent, Jehovah, at sunrise and at sunset, stand with their feet together and their faces towards Jerusalem, towards Zion; those in the west turn to the east, and those in the Orient turn to the west, all at the same hour, all facing towards Jerusalem. . . . With the sure intuition which they had for the new, for the dawn, they surmised the changing aspect of the world outside, the ousting of birth and worth by money. . . .

“They knew that to exercise power and to endure power is not the real, the important thing. The colossi of force, did they not all go to rack and ruin one after the other? But they, the powerless, had set their seal on the world. . . .

“. . .This mysterious knowledge it was that united the Jews and smelted them together, nothing else. For this mysterious knowledge was the meaning of the Book.

“If . . . they were one, more one than all the other peoples of the world, it was the Book that sweated them into unity. Brown, white, black, yellow Jews, large and small, splendid and in rags, godless and pious, they might crouch and dream all their lives in a quiet room, or fare splendidly in a radiant, golden whirlwind over the earth, but sunk deep in all of them was the lesson of the Book. . . .

“. . . They had dragged the Book with them through two thousand years. . . . They had given it to all peoples, and all peoples had embraced it. But it is only legitimate possessors, knowers and judges, were they alone” (all italics mine—Y.I.).

Lion Feuchtwanger could hardly have imagined that these passages of his famous book Jud Süss would one day be taken so seriously, that they would serve to inspire a man like Uri Zvie Greenberg, the bard of Israeli aggression, fascist poet Number One in Israel today.

On October 23, 1968, the Israeli newspaper Haarets published a “masterpiece” of a poem by Greenberg, entitled “On Place and Time,” in which “the Israeli knight of nationalism,” as he is referred to in the press, cynically extols war and scorns peace, mocks the idea of the equality of all nations, and glorifies the Jewry. He compares the dirty aggression of the Israeli invaders to the war of the Israelite leader Joshua whose “exploits” are extolled in the Bible, who also brutally massacred the indigenous inhabitants of the lands now trampled by the boots of Israeli shock units. He heaps violent abuse on all supporters of peace, and especially those Israeli citizens who have protested against the aggression. He insists that to return the seized Arab territories would mean the end of Israel, and labels as traitors all those who even think of it. The poem ends on the eloquent note: “My Israel, we need a leader with an iron hand!”

In reading these venomous lines one cannot help thinking of the tremendous responsibility that rests on the shoulders of all those who work at the sources of the written word, in the cinema, at the theatre, on the radio and television. How important it is that honest people should stand at the controls of the means that influence the opinions of the general public. The mass media must be vigilantly guarded by all to whom the cause of socialism and progress are dear.* Time moves much faster in this complicated century of ours. The first works by Zionist writers came many decades before the literary ravings of Goldstücker, whereas only a month separated the “2,000 words” written in Czechoslovakia to dictation by qualified consultants from Greenberg’s appeal for undisguised fascism in Israel, the lair of Zionism.


[*  NOTE:  Imperialist propaganda cunningly tries to contrast these two concepts. We shall discuss this further on.]


Lenin bade us safeguard the purity of communist ideology, and the noble Party spirit of Soviet literature, dictated by motives of highest humanism. He taught us to preserve the best and richest traditions of people’s art and fulfil our international duty, standing firm on the ground of Soviet patriotism. And it is just because our Party and people carry Lenin’s banner high through the storms of war and the difficulties of exploration, rallying around them all peace-loving countries and peoples, that international reaction continues to frantically mount subversive actions against the USSR, throwing its very last reserves into the field.

International Zionism belongs to these last reserves of imperialism. On March 11, 1970, giving its orders from above through the mouth of the Israeli Premier Golda Meir, it declared a total campaign against this country. The form in which this struggle is waged, already well known from the recent events in Czechoslovakia, is what is called “peaceful counter-revolution.” The form of organisation of the struggle is also known—it is to attempt by exploiting sentiments surviving from the past, relics of the private ownership psychology and exerting ideological influence on the “autonomous individual” to create the conditions for the existence of various groups of like-minded persons, capable of combined action thanks to modern means of communication.

Voice of Israel broadcasts have a wide range of ideological content. Apart from sabotage and direct subversion, the Soviet Union’s enemies would like to see, for example, “more sex in Russian classical ballet,” “broadway style musicals” in Soviet theatres and so on.

Voice of Israel broadcasts to the Soviet Union in three languages. The Russian language broadcasts strike a rather whining” note, and are not even particularly critical of the Soviet Union. The broadcasts in Yiddish preach Zionism and pour slander on the USSR; while the broadcasts in Hebrew give instructions.

But the Zionist efforts and all-out campaigns are doomed to failure. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has overcome more serious adversaries than these. Our comrades-in-arms, the Soviet Jewish working people reply to the provocational appeals from Tel Aviv and slanderous fabrications of the so-called “Jewish question in the USSR” with anger, indignation and mass protests.

International Zionism is the enemy of all peoples, nations and national groups. It has long since ceased to be a local phenomenon. Having concentrated in its hands tremendous financial resources, using the State of Israel as its base, and supported by the millionaires of the USA, Britain, France, West Germany, South Africa, Italy, Argentina and several other countries, it wages a day-by-day struggle against communism everywhere. Thus, the struggle against international Zionism is the vital concern of all Communists, all freedom-loving people throughout the world, all working people who detest exploitation and war.

Relying on the theory of Jewish “racial superiority,” Zionism, both in word (suffice it to remember Greenberg) and deed, is following in the footsteps of fascism. It has made its base, Israel, a dungeon for all who refuse to comply with its monstrous, inhuman theories and practice or are simply deemed “undesirable.”


Haifa is a beautiful city, rising in curved tiers from the turquoise waters of its bay up a green hill, topped by the golden dome of a church, built goodness knows how by natives of Persia. Higher up still, behind a mountain ridge, stands the Damoun prison. On March 7, 1969, a Jordanian intellectual named Jizhak Ali al-Morari was arrested in the Jordanian sector of Jerusalem on the false charge of engaging in “hostile activities.” He was swiftly transferred to Haifa and imprisoned in the Damoun. No one heard anything about him for a whole month. When his lawyers requested permission to see him, the Israeli reply was a curt refusal on the grounds that “inquiries were still proceeding.” These “inquiries,” as it later emerged, were conducted by the Israeli police commissar Marcus. . . . Al-Morari was strung up by his legs and given numerous electric shocks. Whenever he lost consciousness, Marcus ordered boiling and ice-cold water to be poured over him alternately. For 21 days he was submitted to brutal beatings with clubs and whips causing a severe head-wound. He was on a starvation diet and was given filthy dishwater to drink. There was naturally no question of his receiving medical aid. As the successively more brutal torments were applied, Marcus repeated: “If you won’t talk we shall have to continue.” Al-Morari left the Damoun prison a cripple. He was released as innocent, since there was absolutely no evidence to the contrary. Al-Morari told reporters of his experiences in jail, but neither The New York Times, nor The New York Herald Tribune, nor the London Jewish Chronicle, nor any other Zionist or pro-Zionist newspaper—of which there are hundreds in the world—would publish his story. Al-Morari’s story was only brought to the attention of the world by the militant press organ of the Israeli Communists—Zo Hadereh.*


[*  NOTE:  September 24, 1969.]


Abdallah Yussuf Oduan, a Communist, has been in the Til Karem prison of the Israeli militarists since March 29, 1969. His lawyers, Felicia Langer and Ali Rafa were not permitted to see him until September 8. When at last they did see him, the reason became plain enough. “They forced me to swallow lighted matches. They burnt my lips, and then I was forced to swallow them,” Comrade Oduan told his lawyers. He had been beaten and tortured until he passed out. He had had his skin burnt and been given electric “treatment.

Are these but isolated, chance acts of brutality by sadists? Or are they the fruits of purposeful mass education? We have already had occasion to give an unambiguous answer to these questions. But here are some new, extremely significant facts:

On January 8, 1970, a Reuter correspondent reported from Tel Aviv:

“The results of a public opinion poll held by an Israeli scientific research institute have just been published here. According to this poll, over 40 per cent of Israelis are for the immediate annexation by Israel of the Arab territories occupied during the Six Day War, 44.4 per cent are for maintaining the status quo for the time being, but 86.4 per cent are for mass Israeli settlement of the occupied lands.”

A criminal end gives rise to criminal means.

On February 9, 1970, the London Daily Mail reported that a new, more effective model of the Uzzi submachine-gun had been produced in Israel, following improvements by its inventor, Major Uzzi Gal. This new Israeli automatic rifle can be produced in two types, one of the standard NATO calibre, the other of small-bore rifle which uses tin-head bullets. The tin-head bullet, being soft, spreads out on impact and produces gaping wounds. The aim is to put five enemy soldiers out of action: according to the theory that it takes four men to aid one wounded soldier. It is already being delivered to front-line forces to replace the Belgian FN rifle.

In the years of fascist persecution of the Jews, to the inquiry of the British Royal Commission on the possibility of transferring six million West European Jews to Palestine, the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann answered in the following cold-blooded manner: “No, the old will go. . . . They are dust, economic and moral dust of the world. . . . Only the branch will remain.” Such is the symbolism of murderers. The idea was as clear as it was monstrous. “Let them kill and burn, we in return for saving lives shall send to Israel only the young and well-to-do and will educate them to make the Israel we need.”

Thirty years later, on February 17, 1970, another Weizmann, the Israeli Minister of Communications Ezer Weizmann (b. 1924) made an equally cannibalistic statement in less symbolic, more prosaic terms. “The Israeli Army is ready to take any necessary steps the Government decides on. . . . Ancient Israel is in our hands. Any talks with the Arabs must concentrate on the rights of Israel and not on territorial concessions. I’d rather have a million Arabs in the bag than behind my back.”

The Zionist leaders’ consistency in their views and brutality is perfectly understandable. But many people who know little or nothing of the machinery of international Zionism find the following rather puzzling: how is it that 86.4 per cent of Israelis are for the fascist slogan of “Lebensraum,” how is it that the former inmates of Oswiecim and Dachau can look on calmly while their sons take sadistic delight in burning people’s skin and torturing them with electric current, destroy homes and kill the inhabitants of Arab towns? To many it seems impossible that among these 86.4 per cent of the citizens of the State of Israel there could be people with NAZI prison camp numbers tattooed on their bodies. And yet there are!

How much is it necessary to cultivate the seed of a nationalist or religious mystique originally planted in the mind of an intellectual by tendentious works of art and literature, for example, for him to howl, “Hail Dayan, the newly appeared Joshua!”? Does the imperialist arsenal contain means capable of producing this kind of effect? Practice shows that it does indeed.

The following is a list of just some of the Zionist organisations which, like the Main Documentary Centre in Vienna, were directly involved in influencing the Jews in Czechoslovakia prior to and during the events there.

1. The World Zionist Organisation.

2. The World Jewish Congress.

3. The Zionist Youth Organisation.

4. The Congress of European Zionists.

5. The Co-ordinating Board of Jewish Organisations.

6. The International Council of Jewish Women.

7. The World Sephardi (Jews of non-European origin) Federation.

8. The Women’s International Zionist Organisation.

9. The World-Wide Organisation for Child Care, Health and Hygiene among Jews.

10. The International Council on Jewish Social and Welfare Services.

11. The World Council of Jewish Workers.

12. The World Union of Jewish Students.

13. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

14. The World Organisation of Orthodox Jews.

15. The World Association of Jewish Artisans.

16. The World Federation of Young Speakers of Ancient Hebrew.

17. The International Consultative Committee of Organisations for Christian-Jewish Co-operation.

18. The World Congress of Jewish Journalists.

This list speaks for itself and in our opinion comment is superfluous, except, perhaps, to add that if Jews living outside the capitalist world are subject only to psychological and ideological treatment, those living in some capitalist countries, and especially Israel, are dependent for their daily welfare and sometimes even their lives on the Zionists.

This only serves to increase our respect for the heroic Communist Party of Israel and strengthen the solidarity of Communists of all countries with the struggle of the Israeli Communists, Jews and Arabs, defending hand in hand, in the most difficult circumstances, the principles of internationalism. On February 16, 1970, the Politbureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Israel “warned the working people of Israel, the women and young people, of the tremendous danger of the escalation of aggression being carried out by the Israeli Government, and which threatens the very future existence of the country. . . . Israeli extremist ruling circles, following their own aims of territorial expansion, are acting hand in hand with US imperialism in its global plans, attempting to undermine the anti-imperialist national liberation movement of the Arab peoples, to overthrow the anti-imperialist governments in the Arab countries and sever the ties of friendship between these countries and the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. By this policy the Israeli leaders are trying to torpedo all the efforts of the Soviet Union and other states to ensure a peaceful solution of the Middle East crisis on the basis of the UN Security Council Resolution of November 1967.”

Only true patriots like the Communists speak out like that in Israel today. No threats, persecution, and attempts at extermination can force these courageous people to keep silent.

On December 16, 1969, the Secretary of the Tyre organisation of the Communist Party of Israel, Comrade Gazi Shbeyita, elected municipal representative by the people of Tyre was returning home. He never got there. His killers had been bought off a long time before. “Shinbet” is extremely generous when it comes to dealing with Communists. It is a matter of supreme indifference to the Israeli Secret Police as to whether the victim is one of the chosen people or not. The blow was delivered from behind, with a wooden club with iron spikes.

Shatta is an Israeli prison for compulsive murderers, recidivists and political prisoners. Two years ago, a Communist, Comrade Naim Al-Ashhab was brought here. No inquiry or court proceedings were held, and there was no indication that they were intended. On January 7, 1970, a hired murderer dealt him a heavy blow on the head with an iron tray causing a serious wound.

The prisoner, who is still in confinement, was saved by the solidarity of the other political prisoners, Arab and Jewish. They went on a hunger strike, announcing that they would end it only on condition that they were able to see Naim Al-Ashhab taking a daily walk.

Amid howls of protest from the Zionists, the question of saving the life of political prisoners, and especially the Jordanian Communist, Comrade Al-Ashhab, was brought up for discussion in the Knesset by the Communist members. On March 10, 1970, Naim Al-Ashhab sent a letter via friends to the International Red Cross Organisation.

How many such letters have been sent from Israel? How many more have not got past the frontiers of this “democratic” state? How many never reached their destination? But everyone of them is waiting for an answer!


. . . I have a book on my desk. It reads from back to front. Inside is a photograph of a man whose brow and expression are deeply thoughtful. The written dedication ends with the words: “From Alexander Penn, who writes from right to left, Moscow, 24.8.1964.” The father of Israeli proletarian poetry, friend of Mayakovsky, one of the best translators of Soviet poetry into Hebrew, seems to be standing right here beside me again, leaning on his dark cane walking stick and reciting Vladimir Mayakovsky:


It’s peace we demand.

But should anyone touch us,

we’ll fall into ranks

and clench hard our teeth.

The war instigators

will face a rebellious,

all-workingmen’s front,

with weapons unsheathed.

Although confined to his bed by a severe illness, Penn is still in the international ranks of the fighters for peace, against Israeli aggression.

He named his eldest daughter Senilga, because apart from Mayakovsky he is extremely fond of Shishkov.* The Rabbis were at a loss. But that was before the days when the racists began dictating their will to the local Rabbis, and the latter were satisfied that Senilga was a perfectly respectable name, even a good Jewish name.


[* NOTE:  Senilga, a character in the novel Ugrum River by Soviet writer B. Y. Shishkov.]


Times change however.

On January 24, 1970, Associated Press reported from Jerusalem that “the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) is likely to introduce legislation which could overturn the Supreme Court ruling that a child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother is still a Jew.”

The Israeli Minister of Justice, Ja’acov Shapiro, announced on January 25, 1970, that he would submit a recommendation immediately to revoke the ruling of the Supreme Court. However, Victor Shemtov, Minister Without Portfolio (and an Israeli Intelligence chief—Y.I.) welcomed the Supreme Court ruling “as encouraging the immigration of Jews to Israel, including those of mixed marriages.” The ruling passed by five votes to four in the Supreme Court provoked a storm of protest and controversy in international Zionist circles. We borrow from Associated Press the following short account of the incident that has produced such heated debate over this matter of great importance to the Jewish racists.

“The argument arose after the Supreme Court supported the Navy Lt. Cmdr., Benyamin Shalit’s demand that his children must be registered as of Jewish ‘Peoplehood,’ even though their mother is an atheist. According to the court ruling, the children must be registered as of Jewish nationhood and as having no religion. In effect, the Supreme Court took the right to determine a person’s religion out of the hands of the state rabbinate.”   [Note how the correspondent side-tracks the issue here, thereby revealing his own view.—Y.I.]

“The Rabbis countered by warning this would split the Jewish people, and accused the court of trying to separate the church from the state.”

On January 27, 1970, France Press reported from Jerusalem that “on Tuesday evening the Grand Rabbinate forbade the registering of children born of mixed marriages, and declared that no authority on earth could violate the law according to which only persons born of a Jewish mother: or who had changed their faith could be counted as Jews.” (According to the laws of the Jewish religion a person is a Jew if his mother is Jewish or if he has embraced the Jewish faith, observing the necessary ceremonies.)

On January 29, 1970, Reuter reported: “The Israeli Cabinet is meeting today in a special session to prevent a political crisis over the question of ‘who to count as Jewish.’ The Minister of Justice Mr. Shapiro proposed a compromise decision, the introduction of two amendments to the law: the law of return, giving all the rights of Israeli citizenship to Jewish immigrants, would apply to children even if their mother was not Jewish. After which, any who later wanted to be considered Jews should embrace the Jewish faith.”

Finally, on March 10, 1970, Pravda reported: “The Israeli parliament has passed a law whereby only those born of a Jewish mother and embracing the Jewish faith are to be considered as holding Jewish nationality.”

What lies behind this protracted and deliberately confused uproar? Is it but another example of the open racism of the Zionists and the “fathers” of the Jewish religion? Is it another proof of the obscurantism and fascist tendencies of the Israeli ministers? Partly yes, but the heart of the matter lies elsewhere. The arch-reactionary nature of the Jewish faith has long been no secret—one has only to open the Bible for one’s eyes to fall on numerous racist sentences. Even less of a secret is the racism of the Zionist leaders, for after all that was what they started from.

What is the relationship between the fate of the children of an officer of the Israeli Navy who married a Scottish woman, and the existence in Japan of a sect founded by the Zionists, which views all the Japanese as the descendants of “the Lost Tribe of Israel”? Strange as it may seem, there is a connection, and quite a close one at that. The recent squabble in Jerusalem was but a clash between two camps in Israeli ruling circles, two camps that are by no means antagonistic to each other, but simply hold different views for the time being on the best way to get manpower in the present circumstances.

A fairly well-known British politician cynically declared recently: “Just as every Englishman is ready to fight to the last Frenchman, so every European and American Jew is prepared to fight to the last Israeli.” Similarly, we have 86.4 per cent of Israeli citizens in favour of settling the seized Arab territories—with Jewish immigrants.

The Israeli leaders need more cannon fodder and “live material” for the Israelisation of the occupied lands. With a view to this some of the Israeli Zionist leaders are prepared to reject those dogmas of the Jewish religion which once helped them gain control (via the synagogue) of large numbers of credulous people. Another, more cautious group of the Israeli ruling clique consider this premature, and still count on “influencing” the numerous believers “on the periphery” (i.e., outside Israel). Such was the true essence of the violent controversy that raged in the Israeli parliament.

It was perfectly natural that the afore-mentioned Benyamin Shalit should have been so keen for the Israeli authorities to accord his children Jewish nationality. To be a gentile in Israel is to be deprived of rights. Still worse is the fate of the Arabs, whom the Israeli racists put in a special category, still lower than the Goys, the gentiles in general. In Israel, and especially in the occupied territories, the Zionists have unleashed open terror against the Arab population. This terror takes various forms, but all of them are reminiscent of the methods employed by the NAZIs during the Second World War. The civilian population of Arab towns and villages where the Israeli occupiers are in charge are under constant threat of expulsion, arrest or physical liquidation. As The Guardian aptly remarked on March 4, 1970, the bulldozer has indeed become the symbol of the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem. The Zionists have turned the symbol of constructive labour into a symbol of destruction—the destruction of hundreds of homes. From 1967 to June 1969, 6,728 houses had been destroyed or requisitioned in the occupied territories, 5,000 people killed, and 16,000 injured, thrown into prison or “missing”—vanished without trace.

The Israeli authorities try to conceal brutalities, which are carried out with their sanction. Information on the crimes of the Israeli military has to get by a double barrier—Israeli military censorship and the censorship of international Zionism outside Israel. This must be borne in mind by anyone wishing to make a realistic estimate of the scale and degree of the brutal persecution of the Arabs by the Israeli militarists. Early in 1969, the Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdul Karim al Sheikli sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General U Thant, informing him of one of the latest crimes of the Israeli racists, the burying alive of 14 Arab prisoners-of-war.

The destruction of Arab villages, shooting on peaceful demonstrations of women and children, torture in interrogation, the widespread use of paid hirelings to organise the “elimination” of people refusing to serve the Zionist interests, and other equally heinous criminal acts, are on the conscience of those like Golda Meir, who is able to put to her listeners the rhetorical question: “Why when a house is destroyed do people start raising cries of barbarism?”!

In sowing fascist methods in Israel, carefully cultivating racism there, and oppressing hundreds of thousands of Arabs, international Zionism—a tool and agent of imperialism—often dons all kinds of garb to appeal to small peoples and national groups on the grounds of “common interests.” Sometimes, as is the case in Africa, for example, ignorance of the true nature of Zionism enables it to carry out the most base acts of provocation, on orders from London and Washington.

Thus, a Washington Post correspondent, Robert Estabrook, admitted that the Israeli authorities sent the Biafran troops at least two planeloads of captured Soviet arms and equipment, as a psychological warfare manoeuvre designed to provoke the distrust of the Nigerian Federal Government and “thereby to discredit Moscow.”

Wherever it possibly can, international Zionism (by no means always acting under the Israeli flag) tries to undermine the prestige of the socialist countries, and organise both petty acts of provocation and major ideological subversion against them.

In all kinds of circumstances—from various angles, in various versions, and decked out in various kinds of tinsel camouflage—the imperialist West, making use of the services of its agents, including the Zionists, tries to sell the population of the socialist world the idea that in the age of space flight, nuclear power, world-wide TV communications, and other modern means of communication there is a fundamental “contradiction” between socialist patriotism and support of progress. This false “contradiction” invented years ago can be resolved (naturally!) by renunciation of the class struggle and acceptance of the “advantages” of private ownership of the means of production, as illustrated by thousands of literary, cinema and TV “inventions,” involving all sorts of anti-worlds, anti-people, anti-morality, and above all anti-communism. Bourgeois sociologists, philosophers and economists kindly offer to free us from this cunningly contrived “contradiction,” presenting in a distorted, hypertrophied form various separate features inherent in modern capitalism on the retreat. They are prepared to offer mankind integration, convergence, any form of “integrated industrial society” at all—barring communism, which much to their displeasure is marching forward triumphantly.

One of the originators of these false theories is the well-known American anti-Soviet expert Walt Rostow (born 1916, into the family of Victor Aaron Rostow, for a long time trusted expert in Zionist affairs at the White House). American imperialism still employs the services of this veteran organiser of anti-communist ideological attacks. But time marches on, and the old advisers in the White House are gradually being replaced by new ones, less averse to revealing their real convictions and intentions. On January 22, 1970, an official report from Washington stated that high-placed government officials were taking an active part in the Zionist organisations of the United States of America. According to the official bulletin of the National Committee of the Republican Party, four of the senior advisers to the President of the United States had been appointed to high posts in the “United Jewish Appeal” Zionist organisation in the capital, in order to help it in its campaign to raise funds. These included: Leonard Garment, head of the national (?) aims research group at the White House; William Safire, special assistant to the President on questions of internal planning; Herbert Stein, member of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President, and Eugene Cowen, administrative assistant for liaison with Congress, who is Honorary Chairman of the “United Jewish Appeal.” Events have thus come the full circle. US Government circles, according to the will of monopoly capital (the real representatives of which once more prefer to remain in the shadows), have publicly united with Zionist leaders, demonstrating to the whole world the direct relationship and interdependence that exists between them.


* * *


Nothing throws Zionism into greater confusion than the fixed attention of the world public. Nothing draws from it such a flow of accusations of anti-Semitic activity as the efforts to trace the path it has trodden from the beginning to the present day. This is no accident. There are numerous reasons why it should be so, the main one being that the attempts of the international Zionist concern to completely cover up the compromising tracks it has left in the distant and the recent past have been to no avail.

With this in mind Zionism has long been striving to appear before the eyes of world public opinion as an integral ideological, organisational and functional whole. Multiformity and pseudo-irrational diversity—such are the new and carefully selected dominoes of the contemporary Zionist masquerade. And only a thorough scrutiny and collation of events and facts enable us to ascertain the direct connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena (from military provocations and economic upheavals to petty sabotage “of angry young men”) and see the old familiar faces behind the new masks. It is this attention calling for unceasing, calm vigilance that more than anything else upsets the leaders of the international Zionist concern accustomed to the long-established privilege of always remaining in the shadows.

The June aggression of the Israeli ruling class has brought out of the traditional shadows the silhouette of the Zionist leaders, the organisers of international provocations, crimes and sordid intrigues, who are capable of defying and disregarding everything in their drive for profit and power. Today they are scurrying back into the shadows.

But in vain. For everywhere there are people who do not doff their caps before the owners of bulging purses and extensive kennels and will not permit them to lurk in the shadows again, just as nations and history will not permit them to escape retribution.


August 1968.



1. Menorah Journal, USA, February. 1928.

2. The New York Times, January 2, 1953 (retranslated from the Russian).

3. [Cyrillic text].

4. Daily Mail, June 2, 1967.

5. Jerusalem Post, August 17, 1951 (retranslated from the Russian).

6. Lilienthal, A., The Other Side of the Coin, p. 208.

7. Ibid., p. 194.

8. Lenin, V. I., Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 29.

9. World Jewish Congress, July 31, 1966, p. 8 (retranslated from the Russian).

10. Socialist International Information, 1966–1967.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

Back to Menu