Transfer agreement with the enemy. Blood for goods. Such a strange and bottomless story with Zionism, its origins and its aims, that its almost impossible to untangle. When Hitler came to power in Germany, there was a controversy between left and right Zionist camps as to relations with Germany. The Revisionists, led by Jabotinsky wanted a moral and economic boycott. Arlosoroff, with the Labor Zionists, was equally attuned to the catastrophe in abeyance that was the Jews destiny there. But do you do business with those who will eradicate your people? Arlosoroff began negotiations with the German government that would enable emigration of Jews to Palestine with their property. The catch was that they would have to use a portion of their assets to purchase German goods which were being subject to boycott; it also effectively meant a selection of those to emigrate who were the wealthiest segment and could afford to effectively buy their way out, leaving the unwashed masses, and particularly the Eastern jews Russia/Poland to fend for themselves and to which they had little sympathy anyway.
This transfer of wealth in the 1930′s seemed to form the backbone of the Israeli secular elite that basically runs the country today, landing as they did with property and connections, and the wherewithal to conduct trade throughout the middle east with German goods; the Schocken family which own Haaretz is representative of this ostensibly liberal democratic view of a small but highly influential group of actors in the Israeli economy.
On June 15, 1933, Arlosoroff tabled his report on his trip at a session of the Mapai, only to be assassinated a few hours later. Mapai, the predecessor of the Labor party, held the Revisionists accountable, but the Revisionists claimed Mapai was using them as a convenient scapegoat, much like the controversy about whether the government was complicit in the Rabin murder, blaming it on a patsy. The Revisionists alleged that the leaders of the underground force of the the Hagana, had played a part in the murder, and that the murder was the result of a collaborative effort at provocation by the British and heads of Mapai designed to marginalize the Revisionists. In any event, why would England condone the Transfer Agreement that held little benefit for them.
( see link at end) …“At the meeting in Zurich, the gathering applauded Weizmann despite hisproclamation that only two million—the young, the idealistic, wouldsurvive the oncoming flood. The others, he said, because of historical developments, would disappear, ‘like dust.’” “Perhaps a British hand was in the murder of Arlozoroff. Perhaps. Butone thing is certain: Dividing Jews in Palestine into two opposing campssuited the British perfectly.” …
…Jabotinsky lived in pre-state Israel briefly in the 1920s before being deported by the British, I repeat, the British, those wicked imperialists who preferred that Ben Gurion lead the Jews. From there Jabotinsky moved to Paris, became heavily involved inMasonry (as exposed in an extensive Ha’aretz Magazine article recently) and connived with the French over the future of the Middle East.In 1933, while Jabotinsky led a worldwide economic boycott of Nazi Germany, Ben Gurion sent his buddy Arlozoroff to Germany to broker a deal known as the “Transfer Agreement”. In return for the Nazis expelling their Jews to Palestine, Ben Gurion and his coterie agreed to use their assets to support the Nazi regime in the face of the international boycott….
…To stanch the Revisionist objection to this utterly immoral arrangement, Ben Gurion falsely blamed them for Arlozoroff’s murder and had three Jabotinsky followers arrested. They were released shortly after, but the damage to Jabotinsky had been done. He and his followers were expelled from the Zionist movement and Ben Gurion’s murderous transfer agreement went through. The most likely motive for Arlozoroff’s murder, also revealedrecently in a long
Ha’aretz Magazine article, was his affair with Madja Goering, Herman’s wife, while in Germany negotiating the transferagreement. This version of events is widely accepted in Germany itself, thanks to a best-selling book there
ch concluded that the Nazis knocked off Arlozoroff, not the Revisionists.Read More:http://www.scribd.com/doc/29426760/Chamish-Save-Israel-Exposes-International-Plot-Against-Israel-2002
In contradition to the above thesis:
( see link at end) …The British police had little difficulty with the crime. The murder took place on a beach; bedouin trackers were soon set to work. Two days later Avraham Stavsky and Zvi Rosenblatt, both Revisionists, were brought in for an identity parade. Mrs Arlosoroff nearly fainted when she recognised Stavsky who, she claimed, held the flashlight. The police raided Abba Achimeir and found his diary. One of his notes told of a party held in his home immediately after the killing to celebrate a ‘great victory’. This prompted the police to arrest him as the mastermind behind the assassination.
The prosecution case was so strong that the defence was forced to resort to desperate measures. While the trio were in jail awaiting trial, an Arab, Abdul Majid, jailed for an unconnected murder, suddenly confessed the slaying, by claiming that he and a friend had wanted to rape Mrs Arlosoroff. He soon recanted his confession, made it again and retracted it for a second time; he claimed that Stavsky and Rosenblatt had bribed him to make his statement. The case came to trial on 23 April 1934. Achimeir was acquitted without having to present a defence; the diary was not enough to prove prior conspiracy. After hearing Rosenblatt’s defence, the court cleared him. Then, by 2 to 1, Stavsky was found guity, and on 8 June was sentenced to be hanged. On 19 July the Palestine Court of Appeal acquitted him on a combination of technicalities. There had been procedural errors pertaining to the tracking. Once that evidence was thrown out, there was no longer any material corroboration to support Mrs Arlosoroff’s accusation. Palestine law, unlike British law, demanded such verification to corroborate the testimony of a single witness in a capital offence. The Chief Justice was plainly displeased; ‘in England… the conviction would have to stand’, and he denounced the defence for the bogus confession,…
The whole interposition of Abdul Majid in this case leaves in my mind a grave suspicion of a conspiracy to defeat the end of justice by the suborning of Abdul Majid to commit perjury in the interests of the defence.
It was not until 1944 that new evidence turned up, but this was not made public until 1973. When Lord Moyne, the British High Commissioner for the Middle East, was assassinated in Cairo in 1944 by two members of the ‘Stern Gang’, a Revisionist splinter group, a Palestinian ballistics expert, F.W. Bird, examined the murder weapon and found it had been used in no less than seven previous political slayings: two Arabs, four British police and the Chaim Arlosoroff murder. Bird explained, in 1973, that he: ‘did not give evidence of the Arlosoroff connection at the time of the trial of the two murderers of Lord Moyne as the chain of evidence of the Arlosoroff exhibits had been broken during the eleven year gap’.
…The entire Revisionist movement, including Jabotinsky, categorically denied that any Revisionists were involved in the crime, but the Labour Zionists never doubted their guilt and when the Court of Appeal released Stavsky, a riot broke out between the two factions in the Great Synagogue of Tel Aviv which Stavsky attended. Throughout the Holocaust period the Arlosoroff murder was one of the Labour Zionists’ principal reasons for denouncing the Revisionists. As Arlosoroff was a prime mover in establishing the Ha’avara agreement, the foundation of WZO policy towards the Nazis’ responsibility for the murder has important implications in considering relations between the Nazis and the Zionists. From the evidence in the case there seems little doubt that Stavsky and Rosenblatt did assassinate Arlosoroff, although in 1955 Yehuda Arazi-Tennenbaum, a former Labour Zionist, and a former Mandatory policeman who had worked on the case, announced that Stavsky was innocent and that the Arab was pressured to recant his confession. However, this testimony was extremely suspect, not least for the fact that it had taken him 22 years to come forth with it. It is much less clear whether Achimeir plotted the murder. Certainly there is not the slightest evidence that Jabotinsky knew about the crime in advance. He claimed to believe in Abdul Majid’s inherently improbable confession, but it is highly significant that in 1935 he insisted on inserting a clause into Betar’s fundamental principles: ‘I shall prepare my arm to defend my people and shall not carry my arm but for its defence.’ Read More:http://holywar.org/txt/Brenner/chapter11.html
What if there was another reason the CIA created a “safe haven” for Nazis?
Von Bolschwing, it is reasonable to assume, had access to the secret memorandum written on June 21, 1933, from the German Zionist Federation to the Nazis which stated in part: “All German Jewish organizations, it was declared, should be dominated by the Zionist spirit.” In 1941, the “Stern Gang,” among them Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel, presented the Nazis with the fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization (NMO) in Palestine:
The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionism activity … is of the opinion that: the NMO in Palestine … offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side. The Iron Wall, London 1984, pp.195-197, The Wall Street Journal December 2, 1976
“Concentration” weren’t the only camps set up by Hitler and the Gestapo. During the 1930s, in cooperation with the German authorities, Zionist groups organized a network of some 40 camps where prospective settlers were trained for their new lives in Palestine. The Transfer Agreement between Hitler’s Germany and international Zionism, implemented in 1933 and abandoned at the beginning of WWII, allowed German Jews to immigrate to Palestine.
As an Eichmann insider in the “Jewish Affairs” office, Von Bolschwing could have had access to other secret memoranda that would explain why the Jew-Hating Nazis were making deals with a commander of the militant Zionist organization Haganah, that allowed Jews to get emigrate to Palestine instead of being gassed in a concentration camp.
Providing a “safe haven” for Von Bolschwing and Nazis who could connect two World Wars and the Holocaust to the Modern State of Israel would be a small price to pay to keep them from talking about The Key to the Secret of the Universe. Katherine Smith, PhD Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Read More:http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2010/12/17/baron-otto-von-bolschwing-ss-veteran-of-