Honigman: FDR, BHO, & the Cattle Cars of Genocide…
Follow Virtual Jerusalem on and
Date Posted: 2012-05-12 18:38:59
FDR, BHO, and the Cattle Cars of Genocide...
You know--that same rail system the Jews' super hero refused to bomb.
Recently, two news articles especially caught my attention.
The first was an article by Professor Rafael Medoff, FDR Used The Jews. In it he gave an account of an earlier interview he conducted with the current Prime Minister of Israel's father, Benzion Netanyahu, who was an eye witness to these events. The scholar had recently passed away at the age of 102.
While some folks have known of these things for quite some time, most Jews still view FDR as the next best thing to chocolate candy. As just one of too many such troubling examples, a movie was later made of the ship carrying fleeing German Jewish refugees seeking asylum (Voyage Of The Damned) which was never allowed to land in Florida under FDR's watch.
Professor Medoff is the founding director of the David S. Wyman Institute For Holocaust Studies. Wyman is the Protestant author of one of the essential, definitive texts on the Holocaust, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust (1984)--the one that puts to the lie the claim that America went to war to save Jews.
Here are some telling excerpts from that interview: Part of the problem was how they saw themselves. In their contacts with President Roosevelt, Jewish leaders thought of themselves as weak or helpless. Take, for example, Rabbi Stephen Wise - leader of the American Zionist movement, the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress. He thought of himself as a servant of President Roosevelt.
He referred to Roosevelt as "Chief," and he really meant it that way - Roosevelt was the chief, and Wise was the servant. Wise was happy to just follow along with whatever Roosevelt wanted. He was content as long as FDR just remembered his name or gave him a few minutes of his time every once in a while. FDR used Jews if they served some purpose that he needed. Samuel Rosenman was useful to him as a speechwriter. Henry Morgenthau Jr. was useful to him as secretary of the Treasury.
Only a certain kind of a Jew could reach that position in Roosevelt's administration - the kind of Jew who would not talk about Jewish issues or problems.
FDR used the Jews, but there was no room in his heart for the plight of the Jewish people...
Just before Yom Kippur in 1943, the Bergson Group and the Vaad Hahatzalah mobilized more than 400 rabbis to march to the White House to plead for rescue. The president refused to meet with a delegation of their leaders.
Later, a columnist for one of the Yiddish newspapers wrote that if 400 priests had come to the White House, the president would not have refused to see them. Was there indeed a double standard applied to Jewish concerns?
To answer that question, just consider how the international community would have responded if millions of Englishmen or Frenchmen were the ones who were being annihilated, rather than millions of Jews. Would the world have just stood by, quietly?
Would you have needed to have protest groups organizing marches and taking out newspaper ads in order to wake up the world's conscience? No. The nations of the world would have immediately risen in angry protest, without any prompting. They would never have allowed such a thing to continue. But when the Jews were the victims, it was a different story. It was as if the Jews were untouchables. It was as if the nations did not want to besmirch their hands by touching the Jews.
In other words, folks like Wise and Morgenthau were nothing more than modern day Court Jews and did nothing to jeopardize their own comfortable positions. FDR would not be the last American leader to have such Hebrew crew members aboard ship.
Yet, to this day, if you have a discussion with the vast majority of members of The Tribe, they either don't--or won't--know anything about this.
Besides Wyman, Professor Medoff is a renown scholar himself. One of his newest books, Blowing the Whistle on Genocide: Josiah E. DuBois, Jr. and the Struggle for a U.S. Response to the Holocaust, discloses how a fairly low level US Treasury Department lawyer exposed the State Department's policies of impeding the rescue of Europe's Jews. Follow these excerpts closely seen here.
In 1943, DuBois, who was chief counsel for the Foreign Funds Control Division of the Treasury Department learned through surreptitious examination of documents provided by a friend within the State Department, that senior State Department officials had been deliberately obstructing opportunities to save the remnants of Europe's Jews.
In an excerpt of a pivotal report authored by Josiah DuBois dated January 13, 1944 and sent to Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr, DuBois intones, "This government has for a long time maintained that its policy is to work out programs to save those Jews of Europe who could be saved. I am convinced on the basis of the information which is available to me that certain officials in our State Department, which is charged with carrying out this policy, have been guilty not only of gross procrastination and willful failure to act, but even of willful attempts to prevent action from being taken to rescue Jews from Hitler. Unless remedial steps of a drastic nature are taken immediately, I am certain that no effective action will be taken by this government to prevent the complete extermination of the Jews in German controlled Europe, and that this government will have to share for all time responsibility for this extermination."
Ah yes, the State Department...Those very same folks who would later fight President Truman over his willingness to recognize the rebirth of Israel turned out to be complicit in the murder of Jews as well.
The hostility emanating from the State Department both towards Jews and the Jew of the Nations has not subsided to this date--so Israel must harbor no illusions regarding the nature of any negotiations which lie ahead under the guidance of State's assorted anti-Semites and Arabists.
Before leaving this first article about FDR, let's just look at a few more closing excerpts from that Jewish Magazine source utilized above...
During his remarks, Dr. Medoff contrasted DuBois and President Roosevelt as two symbols "of the tragic history of America's response to the Holocaust." Concerning President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dr. Medoff said, "here is the president who was regarded as a humanitarian, who portrayed himself as the champion of the little man, who had the power to save many Jews from the Holocaust but who -- to quote Fowler Harper, the Solicitor General for the Interior Department in the 1940s-- 'would not lift a finger' to help them...His was the administration that kept the immigration quotas 90% under-filled --meaning it could have saved 190,000 Jews under the existing quotas, without changing the immigration laws. His was the administration that sent planes to bomb German oil factories less than five miles from the gas chambers of Auschwitz, but refused to instruct them to drop bombs on the gas chambers, or the railway lines, even after receiving maps and detailed information about what was happening in the camp. His was the administration that refused to pressure the British to open the gates of Palestine so Jews could find refuge there."
So much for Franklin Delano Roosevelt...the alleged hero of most Jews who, to this date, largely go to the polls each election cycle and vote in memory of his name.
Okay...time to move onto the second article I mentioned above which prompted this analysis.
The headline read, Biden: Obama's Done Most For Israel Since Truman.
It was not the first time that President Obama's Vice President uttered such words of wisdom. This time, he proclaimed that no leader since Truman has done more to enhance Israeli security than Obama.
Biden likes to brag (especially to contributors) that he's a great friend of the Jews. Follow below and see what that might really translate to...
Back in 2010, he returned from the Middle East after blasting Jews for building on land that they have called home since the days of the Pharaohs. And, much earlier, in well-documented reports, in 1982 Biden used similar bully tactics with the late Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin--banging on the desk with his fists and so forth, to try to intimidate him into relinquishing his nation's barest security needs to American "no friends, just interests" policies. Some things change, some things don't.
For many reasons, Biden would be best not to open his mouth at all on such issues. While he gets away with much of his shtick with the ignorant, for those who know, he's a sorry joke.
Truman--to be credited, for sure, on his recognition of Israel amid opposition from those in the State Department and elsewhere--did virtually nothing to help the nascent state of Israel's security. Take a look at the title of this second article again...
When Israel was attacked immediately after its rebirth in 1948 by a half dozen Arab armies, no official American response came to aid it. Israel protected itself mostly with Czech and later French armaments for decades after Truman was long out of the White House. French Mirages and Mysteres lead Israel's devastation of Arab air forces and tank battalions in the 1967 Six Day War. Only after that war ended did American aid become significant. But, that particular revelation of either Biden's ignorance or deliberate obfuscation was actually the least offensive of his claims.
Israel has had a long-standing relationship, for the past several decades, with the United States regarding military issues. This has been done largely to counter Soviet--and now Russian, North Korean, and Chinese--influence in the region as well as the various forces of militant Islam which see Israel as but the Little Satan next to the bigger one--America. Those forces are indeed ascendant today as the Muslim Brotherhood and its clones increasingly gain power during the so-called Arab Spring.
For some perspective, Arab countries also get tens of billions of dollars in aid from the United States. Besides the armaments per se, America for years has spent as much in one week in Iraq as Israel gets in one year in aid. Please read that sentence again. Ditto for Muslim, but non-Arab, Afghanistan. The difference? Thousands of Americans have lost their lives and limbs for the sake of the latter two--none for Israel.
Additionally, leading American military officials repeatedly state that Israel is the best bargain on the planet for the return it gives back to America in terms of further weapons improvement, invention, and innovation...those Israeli drones, for example. Israeli intelligence services are still rated among the best anywhere as well.
So, there's no doubt that Israel gives America--whether under Obama or his predecessors--the best bang for the buck...if you'll pardon the expression. Obama continues this military cooperation with Israel because it's good for America. And that's how it should be.
That leads us to the real problem with Biden's assertions. And it's the same problem I've written about repeatedly.
Via the armistice lines--not political borders--imposed upon Israel by the United Nations in 1949 after the Arabs invaded it the year before, Israel was made a mere zipper of a state...nine to fifteen miles wide and virtually invisible on a world globe without the aid of a magnifying glass.
The UN did nothing when Israel was attacked in 1948 and only intervened when Israel, at great human cost, finally turned the tide of battle. At that moment, the UN jumped in to prevent further Arab losses and drew up armistice lines which merely indicated the point at which hostilities ceased. The '49 lines only tempted Arabs to attack again and again in the years to come.
One does not have to be a General Patton or Napoleon to see that Israel could be severed in half at its minuscule waist, where most of its population and infrastructure are located.
Thus, after the Arabs renewed attempt at genocide backfired on them big time in '67, the architects of the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 made sure that this official guideline for peacemaking between Arab and Jew contained a provision for territorial compromise in the areas Israel came to occupy in '67. Much has been written about this, but some excerpts from 242's chief architect, Great Britain's Lord Caradon, should suffice for now. Indeed, the Vice President and his boss need to read and re-read them again and again...
It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967 (the day before the war broke out), because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them.
And American presidents echoed this sentiment as well...
Here's President Johnson on June 19th, soon after hostilities came to a close:
A return to the situation on June 4 was not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities. He then called for...new recognized boundaries that would provide security against terror, destruction, and war.
These were President Reagan's remarks on September 1, 1982...
"In the pre-1967 borders (sic), Israel was barely 10-miles wide...the bulk of Israel's population within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."
I think you get the picture...
It was obvious that Israel was never meant to be the 9-15 mile-wide sub-rump state that the armistice lines had left it as, and the '67 renewed Arab attempt on its life finally convinced many in the world that something would finally have to be done to end that travesty.
An Arab state had already been created on almost 80% of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine with the creation of Transjordan--later renamed Jordan--in 1922.
The lands between Transjordan and Israel in its '49 armistice lines were non-apportioned territories of the original 1920 Mandate in which all peoples--not only Arabs--were allowed to live. Just because Arabs claim those were just purely Arab lands does not make them so. Arabs claim this for the entire region as well. A quick look at the valid sources for that period also show that most Arabs were themselves newcomers into the Mandate, entering due to the economic development going on because of the Jews. Even Hamas's virtual patron saint, Sheik Izzedin al-Qassam--for whom its terror squad and rockets are named--was from Latakia, Syria.
In the '48 fighting, Transjordan seized the non-apportioned lands west of the Jordan River--Judea and Samaria, aka, the "West Bank--destroyed dozens of synagogues, and continued the process of making them as Judenrein as it made itself after 1922. Holding both banks of the River, it renamed itself Jordan soon afterwards.
What the Arabs living in the lions' share of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine--Transjordan-- took illegally in 1948, they lost in 1967. And the territorial compromise built into UNSC Resolution 242 (calling for more defensible, secure, recognized, and real borders to replace those suicidal armistice lines) promised that Israel would once again be allowed to have Judeans living in such places as Judea. Jews indeed lived and owned land there until their massacres by Arabs earlier in the 20th century.
Enter Barack Hussein Obama...
Even before his election in 2008, Senator Obama was on record--as I reiterate time and time again--stating that Israel would be crazy (his exact words) to reject the alleged Saudi Peace Plan. This is documented thoroughly in my own book.
It should come as no shock--given the constant fight the Obama Administration has had with Israel over this issue--that the key provision of that Saudi plan calls for Israel to totally abandon the promise 242 made to it.
Instead of a reasonable territorial compromise in Israel's vulnerable narrow waist, Obama demands that Israel return to the '49 armistice lines which did nothing except invite repeated Arab attacks. That's what the settlements issue, housing in east Jerusalem, and so forth are all about. After getting backlash from even Democrat supporters such as Senator Harry Reid on this, Obama then started talking about a possible swap of territories.
242 mentions no "swap." But, it might not be a bad idea for Israel to get rid of some of its Arab 5th column this way if it can. That remains to be seen (and the Arabs are having a fit fearing that they might actually come under Arab rule rather than those of the Jews whom they hate and plot against).
So, that brings us back to the Vice President's assertion that Obama is great for Israel's security.
After Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza a while back, all it got was over ten thousand rockets, mortars, and missiles fired at its southern towns and cities as a thank you from the Arabs. Gaza was a test for peace--one flunked by Arabs with flying colors.
Now, imagine a similar scenario where Jews once again no longer live in at least part of Judea and Samaria. Please look at a map when you contemplate this. At this time, densely-populated, high priority targets such as Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Ben Gurion Airport, the Knesset, Haifa, and so forth then become the targets instead.
Regardless of whatever else Israel gets from an Obama Administration, given the rejectionist nature of its enemies (even its two peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan are in now in dire jeopardy), if it's forced to return to its 9-15-mile wide existence, then to talk about security is absurd. Yet that's exactly what Obama and the perpetually hostile State Department he's working with have in mind.
Anyone pressuring Israel to once again become that previously exposed sardine can of a state is no friend--let alone "best in show" as Biden and his boss claim.
Only those same Jews who still idolize FDR will continue to keep their heads in the sand over what Obama has in mind for Israel. The President's recent comments to the Russian leader about having "more flexibility" after the 2012 election should be pondered real hard by those who claim to care about Israel's future. If you think there have been problems between Obama and Israel up until now, just wait until he doesn't have to worry about getting reelected again...
There is no doubt that much good was created for America under the leadership of FDR. The serious problem discussed here involved his disinterest in saving Jews abroad who were forced to jump onto cattle cars leading them to places like Auschwitz to be turned into lampshades and soap.
Today, in many ways, for Jews it's 1938 all over again.
They're told that if they'd only give the Arabs what they want, there will once again be "peace for our time," cheap oil, etc. and so forth. And, just as there were lots of ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland, are there not also many Arabs in Judea and Samaria? Give Arabs all the latter, and they will be satisfied and leave Israel alone...
Sure--just like Hitler was satisfied with only the Sudetenland.
Unfortunately, it comes down to this...
Jews in America will soon have to make a decision dealing with re-electing a man who is determined to once again force their brethren abroad into making an updated jump onto the 21st century cattle cars. For, given the genocidal nature of Israel's enemies, that's what a return to the pre-'67 Auschwitz/armistice lines virtually amounts to.
Take a good look at what is happening in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere today--what Arabs do to other Arabs--and imagine what they would do to their kilab yahud--Jew dogs--if given half a chance.
Gerald A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs. He has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated many Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world. Visit his website at http://www.geraldahonigman.com/