For some decades the consensus has been that the greatest calamity to befall the Jewish people has been the Nazi Holocaust, in which six million Jews met their cruel demise. Therefore, if you want to make a Jew happy, tell him that far fewer than six million Jews died in that holocaust. Surely, once you explain that there are difficulties with the official account of those events, he will eagerly and joyously soak up every word you have to say on the matter.
Alas, this is not likely to be the case. Instead of paying attention to what you have to say, he will probably mock you and call you a "neo-Nazi". Not only will your words not be heard, but you will be persecuted for saying them. In some countries, you can get thrown in prison for speaking them. This is because the Nazi Holocaust has morphed into a religion of its own - the vast majority of Jews pay far more credence to the official account of the holocaust than they do to the Torah. Even if you don't actually dispute the official version, but suspect less than noble intentions for those who promote it, you can lose your job and become a pariah. Just ask Norman Finkelstein.
Many years ago, I decided to abstain from reading about the holocaust or watching any movies about it. To do so would only bring me pain and I saw no benefit in torturing my soul over a past I could do nothing about. I even refrained from asking the survivors I've known about their experiences. Some of them bore the infamous numbers tattooed onto their arms. This was testimony enough. Recently, however, a friend sent me the book "Debating the Holocaust" by Thomas Dalton, ph.D. I reasoned that reading about how so many Jews did not die would not cause depression - and I was right.
At the beginning of the book, Dalton feigns impartiality and tells us how he is going to present both sides of each issue. However, as the book progresses, it becomes clear that the author favors the revisionist side. If his claims about the tactics of the pro-"orthodox" camp are accurate, then we should not blame him for this. After all, if one side of a debate ignores the most powerful arguments of the other while focusing only on the weakest ones - and doesn't even do a good job at that - is that side worthy of equal respect?
One of the statistics, cited in the book, that I found most shocking was the sheer number of books about the holocaust that are published each year. They run into the tens of thousands if we include all languages. At this rate, it would not be surprising if each holocaust victim ended up having his own book eventually. A recent visit to the largest book store in the U.S., Powell's Books, verified this. There were dozens of holocaust books and, indeed, they seemed to outnumber those on Judaism proper. Will I make it my life's mission to disprove the official account of the holocaust? Will I spend years poring over those countless books in order to gain more insight? No and no. I am perfectly content with the knowledge that far fewer Jews may have been victimized than I'd been led to believe until now. This is a comforting thought.
Even after reading the book, I am not 100% convinced that the revisionists are correct. But, in my mind, the single most damning piece of evidence against proponents of the traditional view is that they resort to throwing revisionists in prison, assassinating their character, destroying their careers and disrupting their meetings. To me, this behavior is tantamount to an admission that they are being deceitful. To them I say, "if you have nothing to hide, then meet the revisionists in open debate, read their books and answer their objections." I've seen this kind of cowardice before. It is the default tactic of those whose views are based on emotion rather than reason. Since they lack solid arguments to use in a debate, they resort to thuggery and book-burning.
I am glad that there are those who fight for the truth. I applaud people like Thomas Dalton and Norman Finkelstein - because the holocaust continues each day and its victims continue to pile up. These are the Palestinians who are murdered, tortured and whose houses are demolished. The Jewish children who are raised to believe the whole world is out to get them and who are made to relive the suffering of those "six million" who perished. The American and European taxpayers whose money is extorted to perpetuate the racket that the holocaust industry has become.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Science and sensitivity
In Race and Human Evolution, Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari build a case for multiregional evolution. In this scenario, “humanity is an evolving subdivided species with geographically distinct populations.” According to their theory, modern races can trace some of their ancestry to very ancient local forebears. “This Multiregional evolution is a gradualist model, with the primary tenet that humans are a single polytypic species and have been for a very long time into the past… No speciation events seem to separate us from out immediate ancestors, and cladogenesis, the splitting of one species into two, last characterized our lineage at the origin of Homo sapiens some 2 million years ago, when members of what we once called “Homo erectus” first appeared in East Africa. For 2 million years, from the end of the Pliocene until now, ancient and modern Homo sapiens populations are members of the same species.” The multiregional model, not to be confused with polygenism, holds that the various human populations intermingled sufficiently, over the eons, to both transmit all advantageous genes to all populations and to ensure that the human species did not divide further into separate species.
One may surmise that, since the fossil evidence clearly implies that modern human populations are (at least partly) descended from earlier “proto-human” populations that inhabited the same areas, somebody had to address this in such a way as to preserve the orthodox view that racial differences are superficial. There are too many morphological similarities between Neanderthals and modern Europeans (which show a clear chronological transition) to be due to mere chance. The same is true of Asian populations and Asian “proto-humans”. Taken at face value, this evidence throws the whole “race is only skin deep” dogma into disarray. Wolpoff and Caspari tackle this problem creatively by claiming that all hominids, dating back to Homo erectus, are the same species: modern humans.
How do Wolpoff and Caspari define “modern human”? Well… first they start with the “precept” that all living humans are modern:
and:
Here we need to ask, from a purely scientific standpoint, why is it not possible that some contemporary human populations are not entirely “modern”? After all, even according to other anthropologists, it is quite possible that a properly educated Neanderthal could read, write and otherwise function in our society. This alone does not necessarily mean that they are “modern” humans. It is even possible that aliens from outer space might be able to function in human society (perhaps even better than we do) even though they are not human at all. If we examine the overall performance of Australian aborigines in modern times, one could easily imagine Neanderthals doing at least as well. It would appear that their average I.Q. is around 60, among the lowest in the world. To be sure, the term “modern”, even in the world of anthropology, can be a very subjective one. But, if it is to have any meaning at all, let it be based on science. Not sensitivity to the feelings of “living populations”.
One may surmise that, since the fossil evidence clearly implies that modern human populations are (at least partly) descended from earlier “proto-human” populations that inhabited the same areas, somebody had to address this in such a way as to preserve the orthodox view that racial differences are superficial. There are too many morphological similarities between Neanderthals and modern Europeans (which show a clear chronological transition) to be due to mere chance. The same is true of Asian populations and Asian “proto-humans”. Taken at face value, this evidence throws the whole “race is only skin deep” dogma into disarray. Wolpoff and Caspari tackle this problem creatively by claiming that all hominids, dating back to Homo erectus, are the same species: modern humans.
How do Wolpoff and Caspari define “modern human”? Well… first they start with the “precept” that all living humans are modern:
We know that in spite of its incessant use, “modern human” has proven to be an elusive and slippery term to define. There is no consensus on definitions of modernity… We don’t know how “modern human” is defined, because not only are different definitions contradictory, but when definitions of modernity have been proposed for skeletal remains, the inadvertent consequence has been that the definitions successfully excluding archaic groups also exclude some members of contemporary populations, and this, of course, will not do. We must begin with the precept that all living humans are modern! (pg. 344)
and:
This is why it has proved impossible to provide an acceptable definition of modernity. Repeated attempts at a definition based on skeletal variation have failed because when they were applied to skeletal samples, it was found they did not include all recent or living people. How could this happen? It comes back to the importance of Neandertals, because these anatomical definitions are based on the assumption Neandertals were not modern humans. Indeed, they were constructed to exclude Neandertals. However, when the definitions were applied to populations around the world, it was quickly discovered that significant numbers of Holocene and recently living Aboriginal Indigenous Australians were not “modern”. This problem, of course, is not with the Aboriginal Indigenous Australians who are each and every bit as modern as the authors of the definitions, but with the definitions themselves and their focus on Neandertals.
Here we need to ask, from a purely scientific standpoint, why is it not possible that some contemporary human populations are not entirely “modern”? After all, even according to other anthropologists, it is quite possible that a properly educated Neanderthal could read, write and otherwise function in our society. This alone does not necessarily mean that they are “modern” humans. It is even possible that aliens from outer space might be able to function in human society (perhaps even better than we do) even though they are not human at all. If we examine the overall performance of Australian aborigines in modern times, one could easily imagine Neanderthals doing at least as well. It would appear that their average I.Q. is around 60, among the lowest in the world. To be sure, the term “modern”, even in the world of anthropology, can be a very subjective one. But, if it is to have any meaning at all, let it be based on science. Not sensitivity to the feelings of “living populations”.
Statism versus unfettered immigration
Some libertarians naively believe that unfettered immigration would be a good thing and that the State is wrong in limiting the movement of people. So claims Manuel Lora in his strike-the-root column. Of course not all libertarians agree with him; many argue that the best solution would be a total lack of public property. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in Democracy: The God that Failed, argues for complete private ownership of lands. If all lands are private, then any "immigrants" would be trespassers and dealt with accordingly. One problem with this solution is that, presumably, leftists would also be allowed to own property. They could then proceed to invite multitudes of undesirables. Another difficulty is that the people of any particular society may actually want there to be communal land. Are we to force them into private ownership?
The underlying flaw in Lora's logic is that he completely ignores the concept of group rights. The rights of an individual are important - but each individual is partly defined by which groups he belongs to. If you negate the group, then you also negate an important part of the individual. If you completely destroy the culture of an Amazonian tribe, for example, but leave the shaman intact, what really remains of the shaman? His identity was closely linked to that of his tribe. Without his tribe, his life may be meaningless. Even if you went about alienating the rest of his tribe by persuasion, so that each individual acted of his own free will, nevertheless you have violated the rights of the individual shaman.
The word "libertarian" implies a belief in liberty and liberty should be valued not only on the individual level, but also on the group level. Unfettered immigration violates the liberty of successful societies because it will always lead to a large influx of "refugees" from less successful societies. In the end, there would be no successful societies as they would all have descended to the lowest common denominator. That Lora can recommend massive immigration from countries like Haiti - and blame all their problems on socialism - reveals a woeful ignorance of racial reality.
In conclusion, even though the State is responsible for much evil in the world, it does have legitimate functions. One of those functions is to protect its indigenous citizens from being overrun by foreigners. It might even be said that this is its primary function. This claim is eloquently made by Frank Salter in his book On Genetic Interests. I highly recommend it.
The underlying flaw in Lora's logic is that he completely ignores the concept of group rights. The rights of an individual are important - but each individual is partly defined by which groups he belongs to. If you negate the group, then you also negate an important part of the individual. If you completely destroy the culture of an Amazonian tribe, for example, but leave the shaman intact, what really remains of the shaman? His identity was closely linked to that of his tribe. Without his tribe, his life may be meaningless. Even if you went about alienating the rest of his tribe by persuasion, so that each individual acted of his own free will, nevertheless you have violated the rights of the individual shaman.
The word "libertarian" implies a belief in liberty and liberty should be valued not only on the individual level, but also on the group level. Unfettered immigration violates the liberty of successful societies because it will always lead to a large influx of "refugees" from less successful societies. In the end, there would be no successful societies as they would all have descended to the lowest common denominator. That Lora can recommend massive immigration from countries like Haiti - and blame all their problems on socialism - reveals a woeful ignorance of racial reality.
In conclusion, even though the State is responsible for much evil in the world, it does have legitimate functions. One of those functions is to protect its indigenous citizens from being overrun by foreigners. It might even be said that this is its primary function. This claim is eloquently made by Frank Salter in his book On Genetic Interests. I highly recommend it.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Race-realism on the sly
There is no doubt that many mainstream scientists are fully aware of racial differences in I.Q. and temperament. Most of them, of course, cannot speak out publicly since this would place in jeopardy their careers and even their safety. Being intelligent people, some of these scientists throw out a hint here and there. Apparently they believe that the masses are smart enough to understand such hints and be nudged, ever so slowly, to a more sensible attitude about race than the moronic racial equalitarianism we are fed constantly. They are, of course, wrong. The vast majority of people are far more interested in sports, reality T.V. shows or the love lives of celebrities than such lofty matters.
One such hint I've noticed recently is the notion that the human brain has been evolving, at an accelerated rate, for the last ten thousand years or so. This qualifies as a "hint" because, by all accounts, racial distinctions have been around for at least ten thousand years and probably for as long as thirty or forty thousand years.
Here is an excerpt from a reputable scientific journal:
So, if civilization has been a catalyst for evolution - and it is obvious that various human populations experienced widely different levels/types of civilizations, including none at all - then it stands to reason that different human populations (races) have evolved differently over the last ten thousand years. Of course, a cursory glance at a Bantu versus a Swede should tell any sensible person that this is the case but the novelty here is the focus on the brain.
Of course, try to get one of those scientists to openly admit what he was hinting at and you'll get silence... or worse.
One such hint I've noticed recently is the notion that the human brain has been evolving, at an accelerated rate, for the last ten thousand years or so. This qualifies as a "hint" because, by all accounts, racial distinctions have been around for at least ten thousand years and probably for as long as thirty or forty thousand years.
Here is an excerpt from a reputable scientific journal:
Modern life's pressures may be hastening human evolution
By Robert S. Boyd, McClatchy Newspapers – Wed Apr 8, 1:49 pm ET
WASHINGTON — We're not finished yet. Even today, scientists say that human beings are continuing to evolve as our genes respond to rapid changes in the world around us.
In fact, the pressures of modern life may be speeding up the pace of human evolution, some anthropologists think.
Their view contradicts the widespread 20th-century assumption that modern medical practice, antibiotics, better diet and other advances would protect people from the perils and stresses that drive evolutionary change.
Nowadays, the idea that "human evolution is a continuing process is widely accepted among anthropologists,'' said Robert Wald Sussman , the editor of the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis ...
It's also the topic of a new book, "The 10,000 Year Explosion,'' by anthropologists Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran of the University of Utah , Salt Lake City .
"For most of the last century, the received wisdom in the social sciences has been that human evolution stopped a long time ago,'' Harpending said. "Clearly, received wisdom is wrong, and human evolution has continued.''
In their book, the Utah anthropologists contend that "human evolution has accelerated in the past 10,000 years, rather than slowing or stopping. . . . The pace has been so rapid that humans have changed significantly in body and mind over recorded history.''...
Another anthropologist, John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison , said, "Our evolution has recently accelerated by around 100-fold.''
A key reason, Hawks said, is the enormous growth of the world's population, which multiplies the size of the gene pool available to launch new varieties...
The American Association of Physical Anthropologists
So, if civilization has been a catalyst for evolution - and it is obvious that various human populations experienced widely different levels/types of civilizations, including none at all - then it stands to reason that different human populations (races) have evolved differently over the last ten thousand years. Of course, a cursory glance at a Bantu versus a Swede should tell any sensible person that this is the case but the novelty here is the focus on the brain.
Of course, try to get one of those scientists to openly admit what he was hinting at and you'll get silence... or worse.
Sam Dickson's Amren speech
A friend convinced me to upload my videos of Sam Dickson's speech even though I was only able to record part of it. Half a speech is better than none and I'm sure many of you will enjoy it. He is truly a great speaker - and very intelligent!
Sam Dickson's half speech
Sam Dickson's half speech
Sunday, March 7, 2010
On Eagle's Talons
I have, in my possession, a book called “On Eagle’s Talons”. It tells the tale of child kidnappings, deceit, theft, cultural genocide and murder of Yemeni Jews by the secular Zionist establishment. Following is an excerpt (my translation):
Many of those who read this book, when they raise their heads for a short break between one chapter and the next – will ask themselves, in their bewilderment: “Did these things really happen?” “Could such a crime truly have happened amongst the People of Israel?” and if this really is the case – then it requires a thorough house cleaning and perhaps even a change of values.
Then let me add this: “Indeed this horrible deed was done in Israel”… and much more than what is written here… for it is impossible to find all the material that has been written and printed, the archives and stories about this matter – for it is vast.
Here we have an attempt to present the material in a concise way, partly as a personal story and partly as documentation of events and an outline from the sources.
I strove to cite a source for each claim, so that each reader will be able to clarify, for himself, the details from the sources but even where a source is not cited the narration is still accurate. I didn’t want to add too many footnotes unnecessarily since the goal of this book is to be read and not as a scholarly source that would be limited academics.
The strategy:
The Bahajli family, from Rosh ha’Ayin, arrived at the transit camp in 1949. The father relates that, when they got to the camp, his four month old son was taken from him and transferred to the “infant ward” that had been erected in the camp: “One day we came to see him, and we were told that he was at the hospital. We searched in all the hospitals, but the child was not found…”. After some time had elapsed, the management of the camp requested the infant’s rations coupon (at that time, food was distributed according to coupons). The family turned to the officer of internal affairs and to the national president but they were not answered.
(“Al haMishmar” 07/08/1966)
The Marhabi family relates: “We arrived at Camp ‘Ayn Shomer. It was midnight. We carried with us a few packages that we’d brought from Yemen, and I held my one year old baby, Shoshana. They registered us and we went to the tent. After an hour the nurse came by and told us to give her the baby because it’s forbidden to hold babies in the tent”. The mother went to nurse her daughter in the infant ward until one day the nurse told her: “Ma’am, your daughter has died”. To her question: “How and why and what about the funeral?” the nurse replied: “I don’t know; it’s not my job to deal with dead children…”
(letter from Ginzekha haMedina 12/19/1950)
In “Al haShomer”, a periodical of Mapam (the Israeli Communist party), which was active with new immigrants, we found a shocking opinion from a writer who had a conscience:
Under the heading: “What is the truth regarding medical treatment for the children of the camps (10/05/1949), writes Yirmiyahu Shmueli, about the lax medical treatment that was given to children of the camps and to immigrants in general. He notes that in many cases children died as a result of gross neglect on the part of medical teams and/or mistakes in treatment. The accusations were so severe that the writer demanded the formation of an investigative committee to investigate the crimes.
The director general of the Health Department – Dr. Y. Meir – who was concerned about the ramifications of this letter, invited the writer in order to “investigate the accusations” (or really to explain the severity of the damage that the publicity caused, or is likely to cause…). The director of the Health Department at that time, Hayim Moshe Shapira, was apprised of the problem but still supported his people.
In “Ginzekha haMedina” is preserved a letter by the “Unified Confederation of Yemenite Immigrants”, regarding the disappearance of children from hospitals. The letter was presented to the police commissioner, Bechor Shitreet and to the director of the Health Department. In one case the police “investigated” even then, the complaint of Yihye Suberi about the disappearance of his son. In another instance the newspaper “Davar” published an article (19/29/1950) under the headline “Where are the Babies?” In this article is told the story of a baby by the name of Mosha ban Salim Najar, who was brought to the hospital in Tel-Levinsky (Tel haShomer), and when he recovered – he suddenly disappeared.
The director general of the police at the time, Y. Sahar, appealed to the director of the Health Department with this letter and proclaimed that the police report reveals a serious blight among hospital officials in the transit camps – a situation that requires fixing.
(letter from 11/03/1950)
Maghuri Cohen, a member of the Knesset of the “Herut” party, who is also the son of Yemeni immigrants, brought this up at the Knesset on 11/20/1950 and claimed: “Children were taken from their parents and the parents don’t know where to!”… He also asked: “Is this some kind of business or parcel packages!?” He complained about the director of the Health Department, who ignored his letters and requests on the matter, and the director of the Health Department continued to be silent and to silence others.
In one instance, the Health Department investigated the complaint of Avraham Yosef Yisrael, concerning the disappearance of his daughter, Si’eeda. The conclusion they gave the father in the end was that his daughter had died, but when the family sought her grave, it turned out that “there is no record of such graves”.
The story of Yosef Si’eed from the transit of Rosh Ha’ayin was published in the newspapers. The echoes of this incident were destined to reach the ears of government officials who were responsible for various departments and who dealt with immigrants from Yemen.
A thick smoke of silence accompanied stories of the disappearances of the children of Yemen.
(Haboker, Hatsofeh and Ha’aretz all from 03/07/1952)
On the Matter of The Children of Yemen
Here we shall quote a portion of an article that was published in newspapers from this month.
… a conspiracy of silence surrounds, to this day, the issue of the disappearance of hundreds of Yemenite babies who were taken (by force) from their parents as they arrived in Israel and who apparently were given over for adoption to influential families.
(The profit here was double: a] to remove them from their religion and b] monetary gain)
One of these fathers was ‘Ovadia Si’eed from Moshav Tavuoth. Today he is 65 years old. He arrived in Israel with operation “Magic Carpet” in 1950.
His daughter, Zahara, 10 months old, was taken at the airport from her mother’s arms (by force) by a nurse who worked for the (Jewish) Agency. All traces of her were lost from that day.
For decades her father, ‘Ovadia, tried to trace her whereabouts – in vain! From time to time he would send pleading letters to tens of Knesset members requesting an investigation into the issue of the disappearance of the children of Yemen – in vain!
“Ha’aretz” continues to tell of the commerce that took place in Brazil with babies who were taken from their parents, and demands, in their naivety, an investigation into the disappearance of the children of Yemen. (As if the thieves will investigate themselves?!).
“Are we beasts whose children’s fate is up for grabs?” asks the unfortunate father.
Not only did they make no serious effort to find the babies but they also afflicted the parents with false illusions!
In one letter from the director of population registration of the Department of the Interior, which was sent to the poor father, he says that his daughter, Zahara, is registered as somebody who immigrated in April, 1950 and that there is no other information. However, in a letter from the Immigration and Registration Department in the same office it is recorded that Zahara left Israel in 1963.
What response will the religious officials and Knesset members have?
There was a period when Jewish children were kidnapped by the Russian Tsar Nikolai to serve in his army in 1827 in order to estrange them from their religion. From that time, for over 120 years such kidnapping have not been known among the nations – the State of Israel renewed the tradition.
The investigator, Dov Levitan, who arranged a comprehensive investigation into the matter, notes in his investigation that each complaint was treated as an isolated incident despite the multitude of cases and their breadth. No attempt was made to connect the cases or to see them as a wider problem. This was first made clear at the end of 1952, during an internal investigation of the investigative branch of the police department. According to this investigation, which examined six cases of children disappearing from Yemeni households, the police were not able to solve even one case!
Yeshurun Shiff of the investigative branch turned, in writing, to the director general of the Department of Health, as he notes: “We shouldn’t be indifferent to this unfortunate situation and I believe that it will cause waves within the public”. That is to say: The fear was from full revelations to the public and this was what caused him to write the letter. Among the official reasoning for this communiqué, notes the writer that, if the public finds out and the newspapers report the matter properly, there will be shame and anger”.
Perhaps this communiqué was partly to serve as an official alibi? For we see, a case such as this necessitates a large police investigation within the Health Department and not just being satisfied with a “warning” and an invitation for “internal clarification” to answer the charges.
A Yemeni mother and a Medical Professor
Hundreds of children born to Yemeni mothers have disappeared. Most of them got death certificates. However the heart thinks otherwise.
There is a more logical suspicion: that the children did not die but were given over for adoption.
By Eliezer Davidson
This week the newspapers published a very important fact. It regards Mrs. Sarah Aharon, who turned to the High Court of Israel.
Mrs. Aharon, who emigrated in 1949 from Yemen during operation Magic Carpet, is convinced that the son she bore when she arrived in Israel, did not die – as the government claimed – but rather was given for adoption.
This legal plea focuses the spotlight once more on one of the shameful chapters of the immigration of the Jews of Yemen to Israel.
257 additional Yemeni Children disappeared in the early 50s
It is known that 30 of them are still alive and now efforts are being made to locate them * 170 of them do not appear within Department of Internal Affairs records at all * the number of missing children has now reached 599
- By Amos Nevo of “Yediot Aharonoth” –
257 new incidents of children who disappeared during the great migration from Yemen to Israel in the early 50s, were revealed over the last few months. With this, the number of missing Yemeni children reaches 599.
This new information is now being checked by the Public Council for Finding Missing Yemeni Children. Dov Levitan, from the University of Bar Ilan, who is researching the topic, says that the latest findings have made it clear that 50 children of the 257 new cases have died. 170 have no record within the Department of Internal Affairs and 30 are still alive. Now efforts will be made to locate them. Until now it was known that 342 Yemeni children were missing; only four of them were found alive. In the wake of these new efforts Yehoshua Kahana, manager of registration of citizens at the Department of Internal Affairs, has given an official statement to the head of Internal Affairs and an advisement to set up a governmental investigative council to get to the bottom of these disappearances. A similar advisement was tendered about a month and a half ago by the Internal Council of the Knesset to President Shimon Perez.
The report raises the specter of dedicated doctors working under adverse conditions and attacks those who organized the immigration for “lack of protocol” in registration. He also attacks the parents for “not understanding what was said to them”, even though the Health Department and those in charge gave the parents “all the information”. Dr. Yahel also emphasizes two incidents where parents did not demand their children from the WIZO Institute. It seems that, in those cases, the people of WIZO “granted themselves permission” to give those children over to adoption. Here we must note that during those difficult times, when the Yemenis lacked modern work skills as mentioned above, there were those who worked far from home and only returned to the camp after months had elapsed.
From the report we can see that Dr. Yahel was aware of the claim that the Ashkenazim sold the Yemenis to Ashkenazi families for adoption. In response to this he writes: “Had there been an attempt to take children without permission, it would have been by parents seeking to take the children of others because of the chaos that reigned”…
The researcher Levitan adds his notes to the report:
A) If it is true that the Health Department was not responsible for negligence and crimes at all – then why were the requests for information, of 1949-1952, not answered?!
B) Not only this, but why was “TOP SECRET” written on the report?
C) From the letter, it is implied that the Health Department was aware of the claims. If so – why did it not counter them, and disprove them, at that time?!
The researcher Levitan agrees that the questions remain unanswered, however there are explanations to these questions, and they are: the chaos that reigned, at the time, within government offices where there was a free for all. Not only this but – the general attitude that prevailed in certain corridors that Yemeni Jews are their own private property.
500 missing aged 35-40. Their 400 families were told that they had “died”. Most were even told how they were buried, but this “deceased” refuses to be forgotten. In one week those 400 Yemeni Families, whose children disappeared through mysterious circumstances, are to gather together and demand that interest in this matter be renewed publicly. “Firstly we shall find those lost children, then we shall take care of whoever needs to be taken care of” – says Yosef Yighal –head of the local council of Rosh ha’Ayin who is responsible for the gathering. Whoever is involved with these things and recognizes the new circumstances has what to be worried about – an old/new “A social bomb” is about to explode in Israel.
On Eagle’s Talons
The Entire Truth About Operation Flying Carpet
INTRODUCTION
Many of those who read this book, when they raise their heads for a short break between one chapter and the next – will ask themselves, in their bewilderment: “Did these things really happen?” “Could such a crime truly have happened amongst the People of Israel?” and if this really is the case – then it requires a thorough house cleaning and perhaps even a change of values.
Then let me add this: “Indeed this horrible deed was done in Israel”… and much more than what is written here… for it is impossible to find all the material that has been written and printed, the archives and stories about this matter – for it is vast.
Here we have an attempt to present the material in a concise way, partly as a personal story and partly as documentation of events and an outline from the sources.
I strove to cite a source for each claim, so that each reader will be able to clarify, for himself, the details from the sources but even where a source is not cited the narration is still accurate. I didn’t want to add too many footnotes unnecessarily since the goal of this book is to be read and not as a scholarly source that would be limited academics.
Chapter One
Where is Yosele?
New and instructive details about the disappearances of the children of Yemen
The strategy:
The Bahajli family, from Rosh ha’Ayin, arrived at the transit camp in 1949. The father relates that, when they got to the camp, his four month old son was taken from him and transferred to the “infant ward” that had been erected in the camp: “One day we came to see him, and we were told that he was at the hospital. We searched in all the hospitals, but the child was not found…”. After some time had elapsed, the management of the camp requested the infant’s rations coupon (at that time, food was distributed according to coupons). The family turned to the officer of internal affairs and to the national president but they were not answered.
(“Al haMishmar” 07/08/1966)
The Marhabi family relates: “We arrived at Camp ‘Ayn Shomer. It was midnight. We carried with us a few packages that we’d brought from Yemen, and I held my one year old baby, Shoshana. They registered us and we went to the tent. After an hour the nurse came by and told us to give her the baby because it’s forbidden to hold babies in the tent”. The mother went to nurse her daughter in the infant ward until one day the nurse told her: “Ma’am, your daughter has died”. To her question: “How and why and what about the funeral?” the nurse replied: “I don’t know; it’s not my job to deal with dead children…”
(letter from Ginzekha haMedina 12/19/1950)
One thread leads to – the health department
In “Al haShomer”, a periodical of Mapam (the Israeli Communist party), which was active with new immigrants, we found a shocking opinion from a writer who had a conscience:
Under the heading: “What is the truth regarding medical treatment for the children of the camps (10/05/1949), writes Yirmiyahu Shmueli, about the lax medical treatment that was given to children of the camps and to immigrants in general. He notes that in many cases children died as a result of gross neglect on the part of medical teams and/or mistakes in treatment. The accusations were so severe that the writer demanded the formation of an investigative committee to investigate the crimes.
The director general of the Health Department – Dr. Y. Meir – who was concerned about the ramifications of this letter, invited the writer in order to “investigate the accusations” (or really to explain the severity of the damage that the publicity caused, or is likely to cause…). The director of the Health Department at that time, Hayim Moshe Shapira, was apprised of the problem but still supported his people.
In “Ginzekha haMedina” is preserved a letter by the “Unified Confederation of Yemenite Immigrants”, regarding the disappearance of children from hospitals. The letter was presented to the police commissioner, Bechor Shitreet and to the director of the Health Department. In one case the police “investigated” even then, the complaint of Yihye Suberi about the disappearance of his son. In another instance the newspaper “Davar” published an article (19/29/1950) under the headline “Where are the Babies?” In this article is told the story of a baby by the name of Mosha ban Salim Najar, who was brought to the hospital in Tel-Levinsky (Tel haShomer), and when he recovered – he suddenly disappeared.
The director general of the police at the time, Y. Sahar, appealed to the director of the Health Department with this letter and proclaimed that the police report reveals a serious blight among hospital officials in the transit camps – a situation that requires fixing.
(letter from 11/03/1950)
Maghuri Cohen, a member of the Knesset of the “Herut” party, who is also the son of Yemeni immigrants, brought this up at the Knesset on 11/20/1950 and claimed: “Children were taken from their parents and the parents don’t know where to!”… He also asked: “Is this some kind of business or parcel packages!?” He complained about the director of the Health Department, who ignored his letters and requests on the matter, and the director of the Health Department continued to be silent and to silence others.
In one instance, the Health Department investigated the complaint of Avraham Yosef Yisrael, concerning the disappearance of his daughter, Si’eeda. The conclusion they gave the father in the end was that his daughter had died, but when the family sought her grave, it turned out that “there is no record of such graves”.
The story of Yosef Si’eed from the transit of Rosh Ha’ayin was published in the newspapers. The echoes of this incident were destined to reach the ears of government officials who were responsible for various departments and who dealt with immigrants from Yemen.
A thick smoke of silence accompanied stories of the disappearances of the children of Yemen.
(Haboker, Hatsofeh and Ha’aretz all from 03/07/1952)
On the Matter of The Children of Yemen
Here we shall quote a portion of an article that was published in newspapers from this month.
… a conspiracy of silence surrounds, to this day, the issue of the disappearance of hundreds of Yemenite babies who were taken (by force) from their parents as they arrived in Israel and who apparently were given over for adoption to influential families.
(The profit here was double: a] to remove them from their religion and b] monetary gain)
One of these fathers was ‘Ovadia Si’eed from Moshav Tavuoth. Today he is 65 years old. He arrived in Israel with operation “Magic Carpet” in 1950.
His daughter, Zahara, 10 months old, was taken at the airport from her mother’s arms (by force) by a nurse who worked for the (Jewish) Agency. All traces of her were lost from that day.
For decades her father, ‘Ovadia, tried to trace her whereabouts – in vain! From time to time he would send pleading letters to tens of Knesset members requesting an investigation into the issue of the disappearance of the children of Yemen – in vain!
“Ha’aretz” continues to tell of the commerce that took place in Brazil with babies who were taken from their parents, and demands, in their naivety, an investigation into the disappearance of the children of Yemen. (As if the thieves will investigate themselves?!).
“Are we beasts whose children’s fate is up for grabs?” asks the unfortunate father.
Not only did they make no serious effort to find the babies but they also afflicted the parents with false illusions!
In one letter from the director of population registration of the Department of the Interior, which was sent to the poor father, he says that his daughter, Zahara, is registered as somebody who immigrated in April, 1950 and that there is no other information. However, in a letter from the Immigration and Registration Department in the same office it is recorded that Zahara left Israel in 1963.
What response will the religious officials and Knesset members have?
There was a period when Jewish children were kidnapped by the Russian Tsar Nikolai to serve in his army in 1827 in order to estrange them from their religion. From that time, for over 120 years such kidnapping have not been known among the nations – the State of Israel renewed the tradition.
The investigator, Dov Levitan, who arranged a comprehensive investigation into the matter, notes in his investigation that each complaint was treated as an isolated incident despite the multitude of cases and their breadth. No attempt was made to connect the cases or to see them as a wider problem. This was first made clear at the end of 1952, during an internal investigation of the investigative branch of the police department. According to this investigation, which examined six cases of children disappearing from Yemeni households, the police were not able to solve even one case!
Yeshurun Shiff of the investigative branch turned, in writing, to the director general of the Department of Health, as he notes: “We shouldn’t be indifferent to this unfortunate situation and I believe that it will cause waves within the public”. That is to say: The fear was from full revelations to the public and this was what caused him to write the letter. Among the official reasoning for this communiqué, notes the writer that, if the public finds out and the newspapers report the matter properly, there will be shame and anger”.
Perhaps this communiqué was partly to serve as an official alibi? For we see, a case such as this necessitates a large police investigation within the Health Department and not just being satisfied with a “warning” and an invitation for “internal clarification” to answer the charges.
News Clips
A Yemeni mother and a Medical Professor
Hundreds of children born to Yemeni mothers have disappeared. Most of them got death certificates. However the heart thinks otherwise.
There is a more logical suspicion: that the children did not die but were given over for adoption.
By Eliezer Davidson
This week the newspapers published a very important fact. It regards Mrs. Sarah Aharon, who turned to the High Court of Israel.
Mrs. Aharon, who emigrated in 1949 from Yemen during operation Magic Carpet, is convinced that the son she bore when she arrived in Israel, did not die – as the government claimed – but rather was given for adoption.
This legal plea focuses the spotlight once more on one of the shameful chapters of the immigration of the Jews of Yemen to Israel.
257 additional Yemeni Children disappeared in the early 50s
It is known that 30 of them are still alive and now efforts are being made to locate them * 170 of them do not appear within Department of Internal Affairs records at all * the number of missing children has now reached 599
- By Amos Nevo of “Yediot Aharonoth” –
257 new incidents of children who disappeared during the great migration from Yemen to Israel in the early 50s, were revealed over the last few months. With this, the number of missing Yemeni children reaches 599.
This new information is now being checked by the Public Council for Finding Missing Yemeni Children. Dov Levitan, from the University of Bar Ilan, who is researching the topic, says that the latest findings have made it clear that 50 children of the 257 new cases have died. 170 have no record within the Department of Internal Affairs and 30 are still alive. Now efforts will be made to locate them. Until now it was known that 342 Yemeni children were missing; only four of them were found alive. In the wake of these new efforts Yehoshua Kahana, manager of registration of citizens at the Department of Internal Affairs, has given an official statement to the head of Internal Affairs and an advisement to set up a governmental investigative council to get to the bottom of these disappearances. A similar advisement was tendered about a month and a half ago by the Internal Council of the Knesset to President Shimon Perez.
Report of negligence by the Health Department
From the report composed by Mr. Yahel – manager of the hospital division of the Health Department – it is recognized that he understood the hint and what was expected of him.
The report raises the specter of dedicated doctors working under adverse conditions and attacks those who organized the immigration for “lack of protocol” in registration. He also attacks the parents for “not understanding what was said to them”, even though the Health Department and those in charge gave the parents “all the information”. Dr. Yahel also emphasizes two incidents where parents did not demand their children from the WIZO Institute. It seems that, in those cases, the people of WIZO “granted themselves permission” to give those children over to adoption. Here we must note that during those difficult times, when the Yemenis lacked modern work skills as mentioned above, there were those who worked far from home and only returned to the camp after months had elapsed.
From the report we can see that Dr. Yahel was aware of the claim that the Ashkenazim sold the Yemenis to Ashkenazi families for adoption. In response to this he writes: “Had there been an attempt to take children without permission, it would have been by parents seeking to take the children of others because of the chaos that reigned”…
The researcher Levitan adds his notes to the report:
A) If it is true that the Health Department was not responsible for negligence and crimes at all – then why were the requests for information, of 1949-1952, not answered?!
B) Not only this, but why was “TOP SECRET” written on the report?
C) From the letter, it is implied that the Health Department was aware of the claims. If so – why did it not counter them, and disprove them, at that time?!
The researcher Levitan agrees that the questions remain unanswered, however there are explanations to these questions, and they are: the chaos that reigned, at the time, within government offices where there was a free for all. Not only this but – the general attitude that prevailed in certain corridors that Yemeni Jews are their own private property.
The “deceased” who refuses to be forgotten
500 missing aged 35-40. Their 400 families were told that they had “died”. Most were even told how they were buried, but this “deceased” refuses to be forgotten. In one week those 400 Yemeni Families, whose children disappeared through mysterious circumstances, are to gather together and demand that interest in this matter be renewed publicly. “Firstly we shall find those lost children, then we shall take care of whoever needs to be taken care of” – says Yosef Yighal –head of the local council of Rosh ha’Ayin who is responsible for the gathering. Whoever is involved with these things and recognizes the new circumstances has what to be worried about – an old/new “A social bomb” is about to explode in Israel.
The nature of money and taxation
There are many books, and articles, on libertarianism. Most of them seem to fit into two basic genres: 1) deep libertarian theory/thought and 2) collections of anecdotes illustrating the abuses of government. While the second genre seems to be somewhat popular for mass consumption, the general public tends to ignore the first genre. Horror stories of government abuse, such as those found in John Stossel's books and "Lost Rights" by James Bovard (which I just got finished reading) make people angry - but they don't do a good job of educating people as to the basic tenets of liberty. Much is assumed and people rely on their innate sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately, that sense has been compromised through generations of government education and trashy television.
Here I just wanted to remind people what "money" really is and why taxation equals slavery. If I perform a service for somebody, I get paid in "money". So, in this sense, "money" is just a means to store credit for my labor - to be used at a later time. If we had agreed, instead, that the beneficiary of my labor would repay me with his own labor, then money would not be necessary for this transaction. It is only because I wish to use my labor-credit later on (or with somebody else) that money is used in this instance. Whether I get paid in precious metal, coins or pieces of paper, the value of that "money" is only symbolic. In the final analysis it is only an IOU. It holds the value of my labor for later use.
When I use that money later on, I am actually trading my labor. What if I got that money for goods instead of services? It's the same thing. The goods can only be created via labor - either through transforming them from raw material into a useful product or by transporting them to those who need them. Either way, labor is necessary. If I used money to buy those goods and then resold them, it still all goes back to labor no matter how many times the original labor is removed. "Labor" can be hard, back-breaking physical work or it could be talking or writing. It's all still labor. I can receive the labor of somebody else through gift or inheritance.
If somebody takes my money, then really they are taking my labor. If somebody steals my money, it's the same thing as stealing my labor. It means that I had worked for free. If I consent to such takings, then I would be volunteering my labor - doing the other party a favor. If the taking is not by my consent, then it turns out that I was being forced to work for free. In other words, I was a slave.
We often hear people claim that they consent to taxation. That they consider their contribution to be a sign of good citizenship. I believe that most of them are lying because their actions say otherwise. They do anything in their power to minimize their taxes, spending countless hours finding imaginative techniques to increase their "deductions". Most people would avoid paying taxes altogether if they could. There are some taxes that almost nobody actually pays because it is so easy to hide those taxable activities from the government. Use tax is a good example of this.
Many will ask, "how could society function without taxes?". Much has been written to answer this question and I will not address it here. But, even if taxation is necessary, we could reword the question thus: how could society function without slavery? I'm sure some ancient Romans asked the same question. Slavery is slavery, whether it is "necessary" or not.
I highly recommend Jonathan Gullible . For those who lack the time, or inclination, to read the whole thing, there is a short animation you can watch.
Here I just wanted to remind people what "money" really is and why taxation equals slavery. If I perform a service for somebody, I get paid in "money". So, in this sense, "money" is just a means to store credit for my labor - to be used at a later time. If we had agreed, instead, that the beneficiary of my labor would repay me with his own labor, then money would not be necessary for this transaction. It is only because I wish to use my labor-credit later on (or with somebody else) that money is used in this instance. Whether I get paid in precious metal, coins or pieces of paper, the value of that "money" is only symbolic. In the final analysis it is only an IOU. It holds the value of my labor for later use.
When I use that money later on, I am actually trading my labor. What if I got that money for goods instead of services? It's the same thing. The goods can only be created via labor - either through transforming them from raw material into a useful product or by transporting them to those who need them. Either way, labor is necessary. If I used money to buy those goods and then resold them, it still all goes back to labor no matter how many times the original labor is removed. "Labor" can be hard, back-breaking physical work or it could be talking or writing. It's all still labor. I can receive the labor of somebody else through gift or inheritance.
If somebody takes my money, then really they are taking my labor. If somebody steals my money, it's the same thing as stealing my labor. It means that I had worked for free. If I consent to such takings, then I would be volunteering my labor - doing the other party a favor. If the taking is not by my consent, then it turns out that I was being forced to work for free. In other words, I was a slave.
We often hear people claim that they consent to taxation. That they consider their contribution to be a sign of good citizenship. I believe that most of them are lying because their actions say otherwise. They do anything in their power to minimize their taxes, spending countless hours finding imaginative techniques to increase their "deductions". Most people would avoid paying taxes altogether if they could. There are some taxes that almost nobody actually pays because it is so easy to hide those taxable activities from the government. Use tax is a good example of this.
Many will ask, "how could society function without taxes?". Much has been written to answer this question and I will not address it here. But, even if taxation is necessary, we could reword the question thus: how could society function without slavery? I'm sure some ancient Romans asked the same question. Slavery is slavery, whether it is "necessary" or not.
I highly recommend Jonathan Gullible . For those who lack the time, or inclination, to read the whole thing, there is a short animation you can watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)