On Jewish 'Traitors': Jack Bernstein
The name of Jack Bernstein is well known both in Nationalist and leftist circles as a jew opposed to Zionism. The main work that appears under his name is of a similar importance in its use as key reading and as a source of citations in Nationalist literature is ‘The Life of an American Jew in Racist, Marxist Israel’. (1) The work itself seems to have been dictated to one Len Martin and is not actually Bernstein’s own writing although it is presumably verbatim: with the necessary tidying up from an oral to written format kept to a minimum. This would seem to be evident in the highly unusual structure of the book: for it is a series of small self-contained arguments/talks on various subjects concerning Israel and Ashkenazi jewry. It in structure is not unlike Reginald Scot’s ‘The Discoverie of Witchcraft’, (2) but in a more contemporary fashion with each section relating to a specific point that the author wishes to make/argue, but these points are not necessarily interconnected, but rather are points of concentration decided by the author and only give the opinions of the author rather than factual argument.
The reason for Bernstein’s popularity on both - and ostensibly opposing - sides of the political spectrum is routed in this structure. In that he takes a strong anti-Zionist pro-Palestinian stance, but at the same time he rejects communism and lampoons the jews as having their origins in Khazaria as well as declaring the Israelis to be fascist. By this mercurial switch between criticism of Zionism as both communist and fascist and questioning the Semitic roots of the Ashkenazim: Bernstein manages to successfully straddle the political fence between the nationalist right and the internationalist left.
What sealed Bernstein’s book in a place where it is cited by both the political right and left as an authority is the supposed circumstances of his death, which is alleged to have been conducted by Mossad: Israel’s foreign intelligence service and notoriously fanatical Zionists. (3) In order to silence so effective a critic who was ‘revealing too much’. I can find no date or particulars of this alleged assassination and nor can I find a short or extensive biography of Bernstein or any detailed source as to the circumstances surrounding his death.
We can however state that - however much importance is ascribed to Bernstein now - it is hard to see why he would have been the target of a successful assassination attempt by the Mossad. Assassination is a weapon of last resort for any intelligence/security service and firstly is only conducted when there is no other option, secondly is usually conducted in such a way as for it not to seem like an assassination and thirdly is preferably conducted in a remote location and even more preferably in a location where the local security services can be persuaded via bribes or threats to look the other way.
Political assassination is not an uncommon strategy among jews - particularly for the violent religious Zionist fringe in Israel itself - (4) but there would seem to be no particular reason why Bernstein would have been such a threat as to expend a large quantity of state resources in killing him.
Bernstein was one of a plethora of critics of Israel and Zionism and there seems no reason why he was especially dangerous and should be dealt with in such an extreme way. Sephardi jews have long complained and criticised the Ashkenazim about their treatment in Israel so Bernstein wasn’t notable in this regard. His arguments that Israel was a fascist/‘Nazi-like’ state were - and are - standard fare on the political left.
His arguments that the Ashkenazim were descended from the Khazars are a point of academic contention, which had then been recently revived by Arthur Koestler’s 1967 book on the subject: ‘The Thirteenth Tribe’. (5) His arguments concerning the alliance between Zionist bankers in New York and Bolshevik/communist jews in the Soviet Union were - and still are - standard fare on the nationalist right.
In short: Bernstein argued nothing that was not argued before, during or after his time: yet he is alleged to have been singled out and targeted quite specifically - presumably as stated because he was especially dangerous - by the Mossad.
Since we don’t seem to have a reasonable motive for the Mossad singling out Bernstein then we must suggest that he wasn’t singled out by the Mossad at all. Particularly as there doesn’t appear to be any record of the manner of his death or what evidences the state the Mossad were involved at all.
A solution to this may be found in some of Bernstein’s first words - which are a ‘challenge to his Zionist brethren’ - in the book, which are as follows:
‘But, if a Jew is the person doing the exposing, you resort to other tactics.
* First, you ignore the charges, hoping the information will not be given widespread distribution.
* If the information starts reaching too many people, you ridicule the information and the persons giving the information.
* If that doesn't work, your next step is character assassination. If the author or speaker hasn't been involved in sufficient scandal you are adept at fabricating scandal against the person or persons.
* If none of these are effective, you are known to resort to physical attacks.’ (6)
Now if we consider the possibility that Bernstein died in - for example - a car accident, which is an infamous method for removing problematic individuals: as it can be made to look like accident and the task is done with the minimum of risk and involvement (as per my comments on assassination above). Then it might be suggested in order to make Bernstein’s work more appealing and his words more authoritative, because if he was dangerous enough to be assassinated by the Mossad then he must - as the logic goes - be on to something very important. The assertion that Bernstein was assassinated by the Mossad - the Israeli intelligence agency that is best known outside of Israel itself and has a considerable mythos of invincibility that makes its involvement in any conspiracy almost de rigueur in alternative political literature of the conspiratorial variety - was promulgated.
These apparent words of Bernstein found in the first pages of the book are then regarded as prophetic by the reader concerning what happened to Bernstein, because he was simply too dangerous an opponent of the Zionist conspiracy to let live (and hence may have had some inkling he would be killed by the Mossad). This then re-enforces the notion in the reader’s mind that Bernstein had something very important to say and that his opinions and testimony should be heard with great reverence and regarded with great authority. This is certainly a reverence and authority that - on the face of it - the work - and Bernstein as an author - do not deserve. Since if we remember that Bernstein is an Ashkenazi jew himself and the opinions he gives on a variety of issues are quite lurid: we begin to understand that it isn’t either admirable or likely useful in many meaningful sense of the term.
If similar assertions were coming from a ‘Holocaust survivor’ they would be regarded - rightly in most cases I would argue - as so much fabricated jewish nonsense, but because they are coming from a jew who is critical of both Israel and the influential jewish establishment: this same kind of lurid testimony is taken as solid evidence of jewish perfidy. Yet this is a hugely problematic double standard which renders the critique of jewry that uses it hypocritical (and inconsistent ergo irrational) as well as open to dismissal by pro-jewish authors via the targeting of this double standard. Anti-jewish thought needs to leave behind this weakness and treat all jews as jews, and as such we must remember once more than Bernstein is first and foremost a jew and however much apparent value we see in what he writes we must always bear this singular fact foremost in our minds.
It is possible that these most important words - and in particular: ‘If none of these are effective, you are known to resort to physical attacks’ - are not Bernstein’s own, but rather Len Martin’s. Since it is an interesting and notable co-incidence that the key part of the emphasis of the authority of Bernstein is the manner of his death - as you will see when he is cited particularly by the nationalist right in that there is generally affixed an addendum to the effect of ‘assassinated/killed by the Mossad’ - as well as this short passage which acts to re-enforce the belief in the importance of Bernstein’s opinions and testimony. This combined with Len Martin’s likely responsibility for spreading the suggestion of Bernstein’s having been assassinated by the Mossad; (7) makes for further suggestion that this first part of Bernstein’s book may not in fact be his, but is rather a deliberate addition by Martin in order to facilitate the authority and hence the sales of the work.
Since if the booklet is taken an authoritative and devastating critique - which can be facilitated by the idea that the author was assassinated by the Mossad for his views [ergo he ‘knew something especially dangerous’] - then the sales of the work will be much higher than if it is just a normal set of opinions. Since the work itself has little value in terms of making an evidenced argument; it has to have another point of interest (or otherwise it is simply akin to reading a long string of assertions by a jew posting on an internet forum) and that point is provided as I have said by the claimed manner of Bernstein’s death.
Hence although it is impossible to definitely say that Bernstein’s assassination by the Mossad did not happen: it does seem very improbable given what evidence we do have and that this assassination has become the main selling point of a work with little else in particular to recommend itself but the mythos of the author’s assassination. Hence in pointing this out we strip Bernstein of his perceived authority and can begin to look at his work as it actually is without having to contend with complaints emanating from the claimed manner of his death.
Bernstein’s political sympathies would appear to lie more with the political left than with nationalism since he takes great pains to detail the so-called ‘Nazi-Zionist collaboration’ as being the cause of the so-called ‘Holocaust’, the discrimination by the Ashkenazim against the Sephardim and the Zionist conspiracy against the Palestinians and Arabs in general as well as the war crimes committed by Zionists/Israeli soldiers during the several conflicts that Israel has been involved in its short existence.
It is all worth saying that Bernstein comes out in this book as a devoted anti-racist - of an apparently liberal/libertarian political persuasion - whom is fighting on behalf of the people of the world against the Zionist Ashkenazi jewish elite whom he styles as the ‘new Nazis’. His motive in this seems to be just as much about ideology as about his own personal circumstances. Since Bernstein brings up his wife Ziva; a Sephardi jewess several times throughout the work to indicate her experiences. Bernstein also often uses his marriage to Ziva as the starting point of the many anecdotes of which the work is made up.
This bring us onto another important point in that much like other ‘Jewish Traitors’ such as Benjamin Freedman and Maurice Samuel; Bernstein is writing from personal perspective and without references. Unlike Freedman - but like Samuel - Bernstein doesn’t claim to have any special knowledge or authority, but rather to have simply been the witness to the behaviours and observations he describes. This makes it very hard to take Bernstein’s points as an actual argument, but rather we have to take what we would normally categorize as arguments as being the opinions of a jew and his anecdotal relation of events as simply being testimony which must be corroborated in the standard way in order for it to be considered of value in an argument.
Using Bernstein to evidence a particular point without noting that this is a jew relating his own personal experience - regardless of the appealing but I would suggest poisoned - evidence that he offers us and hence - because we must remember that Bernstein is a jew first, last and always - without corroboration it must be treated with an extremely sceptical eye. It is also worth repeating that Bernstein does not write from a balanced well-argued perspective, but merely personal opinion and that as with any account of this kind we must pay keen attention to detail.
This detail is essential to understanding Bernstein’s work for what Bernstein is writing here is opinion - which may or may not represent facts and experiences accurately - but what we must try and do is deduce the value of Bernstein from these short opinions and anecdotes. In performing this task we have to look at one particular aspect of Bernstein’s work and that is what he has included in it. Since this detail - more than the actual argument used - is essential to Bernstein’s position for it offers us an insight into Bernstein’s thinking and the sub-text involved in the production of this work.
As I have said above what Bernstein includes mainly relates to his Sephardi jewess wife and his reasoning and thought seem to be centred on her and the treatment she received from his fellow Ashkenazim. One of the very first things he does in the work is to introduce Ziva - properly Fawzia Daboul - his wife to us and gives us some brief biographical ideas about when he met her and her origins as a Sephardi jewess from Iraq. (8) He also elaborates on how he and Ziva courted and how they were married.
After these biographical notes - which are of note because they are Bernstein’s route to the core motivation of his writing - Bernstein reveals to us how he is motivated by his marriage to Ziwa to become opposed to his fellow Ashkenazim. He describes his experience, which leads his thoughts into beginning his case against his fellow Ashkenazim as well as against what he perceives - not unjustly so - as the fruit of their creative labours: Israel.
Bernstein states as follows when leading us into his opinions on the Ashkenazim and Israel:
‘Ziva and I were happy, but our marriage created serious problems. You see, Ziva is a Sephardic Jewess and I am an Ashkenazi Jew. For an Ashkenazi Jew to marry a Sephardic Jew is frowned upon in Israel by the ruling Ashkenazis. To understand why this is the case, you must realize the difference between the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews.’ (9)
This is qualified in the paragraph above the quoted passage by the following statement:
‘Yet, I was happy to leave after 4 months — two months earlier than originally planned. During the time I was working in the Kibbutz, I carried on courtship with Ziva. She was one of the reasons I left the Kibbutz after only 4 months — we were to be married.’ (10)
It is not unreasonable to suggest with these comments - leading into Bernstein’s thoughts on the origin of the Ashkenazim - rather he is motivated by the ill-treatment of his wife as a non-Ashkenazi jewess married to an Ashkenazi jew by his Ashkenazi kin. As Bernstein states: ‘it was love at first sight’, which suggests a strong and passionate romantic relationship between himself and Ziwa. We may presume Ziwa shared his feelings to a significant degree - if not completely - for the reason of Bernstein’s passionate regard for her.
It is also possible to infer from the second passage cited that his relationship with Ziva was arguably a point of friction between Bernstein and the other members of the kibbutz named Ein HaShofet. (11) Since Bernstein’s leaving the kibbutz early in order to marry would be somewhat unusual and in the course of his and Ziwa’s courting we may reasonably suggest she at least once visited him on at Ein HaShofet. This is all the more plausible when we take into account that Ein HaShofet was created by a combined group of Ashkenazi jews from Poland and North America. It is thus quite plausible to suggest that Bernstein may have begun to form his views from the fiction between himself and his fellow kibbutz members.
This may also be suggested by the following comment he makes about the kibbutzim in general:
‘A kibbutz is a farming and sometimes industrial venture. It is important to explain that Israel's Kibbutz system is a Marxist idea brought to Israel by the Ashkenazi Jews who migrated to Israel mainly from Poland and Russia. These Jews are part of that bunch of Jews know as the BOLSHEVIKS.’ (12)
Here Bernstein is lampooning kibbutzim as a form of applied Marxism and as (proto-) Bolsheviks, but notably he states that the idea was brought to Israel by jews from Poland and Russia. Since in Bernstein’s writing the ‘Nazis’ are similar to the ‘Bolsheviks’ in that they all persecute jews in some manner or another (i.e., as totalitarian deniers of freedom to himself and Ziva).
This association of Marxism/Bolshevism with National Socialism can be seen in the following statements by Bernstein:
‘Once out of the service, a number of the ex-service people join the Shin Bet, the equivalent of Hitler's Gestapo. Like the Gestapo, they engage in repressing anyone who acts or speaks out against the Marxist/Fascist government of Zionist dominated Israel.
Like in Nazi Germany, all people in Israel are required to carry identity booklets called "Teudat Zehut" in Hebrew.’ (13)
And then:
‘Concerning Nazism/Fascism, please let me clear a point. Germans are an admirable people — I dare say even great. But in Germany, the general population were victims of the Nazis who through cunning and brutality gained power. In Germany, the average Jews were victims of the Zionist elite who worked hand in hand with the Nazis. Many of those same Zionist Jews who, in Germany, had worked with the Nazis, came to Israel and joined hands with the Zionist/Communist Jews from Poland and Russia. It is the two faces of communism and Nazi-style fascism that rule Israel. Democracy is merely an illusion.
Regarding the tie between the elite Ashkenazi Jew and the Nazis, take a look at the word 'Ashkenazi' — look again 'Ashke-NAZI'.
Interesting isn't it?
There is a great confusion regarding the relationship of fascism to communism. Fascism is national socialism. Communism is international socialism.’ (14)
Here Bernstein makes it quite clear that he is a typical left-learning centrist - i.e., a liberal or a libertarian - who sees National Socialism and Marxism/Bolshevism as being simply ‘totalitarian’. To him they are the same - even if actually opposed to one another - since Bernstein is reasoning from the perspective of that these ideologies impede him from marrying the woman he loves - Ziva - and hence the Ashkenazi jews must also be ‘fascists’ and ‘Bolsheviks’. This is most obviously representing in Bernstein’s puerile notation about the word ‘Ashkenazi’ singling out the ending as the colloquial diminutive term for National Socialism or a National Socialist: ‘Nazi’. It is also plausible to suggest that Bernstein knows that being called ‘Nazis’ would be deeply offensive to Ashkenazi jews - who were (and still are) obsessed with their supposed suffering in the so-called ‘Holocaust’ - and hence allows him to once again attack and emotionally hurt those who are deliberately attacking and emotionally hurting his wife: Ziva.
In light of this when we note that Ein HaShofet was composed of a significant proportion of jews from Poland, (15) put that together with the above lampoons and our discussion of Bernstein’s motivation originating from the treatment of his Sephardi/Mizrahi wife by his fellow Ashkenazim. It becomes quite plausible that Ziva did visit him and that he came into some form of conflict with his fellow Ashkenazi kibbutzim members over his intending to marry her.
Thus we see that Bernstein is using the lurid - and quite possibly hysterical - description of the kibbutzim as a network of Marxist/Bolshevik communities as a tool to attack those who tried - likely repeatedly and in increasingly drastic ways if they did so - to make him break off his engagement to Ziva. This then acts as a reasonable starting point for understanding Bernstein’s work in that when we see him attack the jews: it is because of the experience he has had with discrimination against his wife and he focuses that anger on the Ashkenazim and the state of Israel, which he sees as turning a blind to and even sanctioning this behaviour towards the woman he loves.
This origin of his thought becomes increasingly clear as we move through the text; shortly coming to another passage where Bernstein rails against the Ashkenazim in the context of the treatment that Ziva has received.
Bernstein states as follows:
‘For the first three years of our marriage, it was necessary for us to live with Ziva's aunt. This was because of the critical housing shortage in Israel and because of racism. Housing is allotted as follows:
* Ashkenazi Jews who have lived in Israel for many years are given first choice.
* Second in line are Ashkenazi Jews from Europe — especially if they are married or marry an Israel-born Ashkenazi Jew.
* The next favored are Ashkenazi Jews from the U.S. — especially if they marry an Israeli born Ashkenazi.
* Sephardic Jews have the next choice of whatever housing is left.
* At the bottom of the list are Moslems, Druze and Christians.
Opportunities for employment follow the same pattern: Ashkenazi Jews get the choicest jobs, Sephardic Jews next, and Moslem, Druze and Christians fill the menial jobs with a great many left unemployed. Even through I was an Ashkenazi Jew from the U.S., I was placed lower on the list for housing because I married a Sephardic Jewess.’ (16)
This attack on/description of the discrimination against Sephardi jews by the Ashkenazim - which is not likely to be untrue given that discrimination by the Ashkenazim against the Sephardim and Mizrahim is well documented in both jewish (17) and non-jewish sources - (18) need not have been placed in the context of Bernstein’s own experiences having married a Sephardi/Mizrahi jewess. However he does so frequently talking from the perspective of being engaged in a personal animosity with those who have made the woman he loves want for anything deliberately. For in the above quoted passage Bernstein complains of not being able to gain housing and suitable employment opportunities for the sake of Ziva. Suggesting that Ziva is both the unwilling cause of his present misfortune and that Bernstein apportions the blame on those discriminating against Ziva and not himself; since - as Bernstein states - this discrimination was ‘because he married a Sephardic Jewess’.
This according to Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis would be a simple manifestation of the built-up loathing for those who indirectly/directly questioned Bernstein’s manhood in questioning the suitability of the woman he most desired - Ziva - in the questioning of the legitimacy of the Ashkenazi pre-eminence.
This manifestation of the loathing for those who would question Bernstein’s manhood is manifested most obviously in Bernstein’s assertion that the Ashkenazi jews are not Semites at all, but are rather descended from the Khazars and hence the foundation of Zionist ideology - the key part of the legitimizing argument for the existence of Israel - is thus invalidated and the legitimacy of the Ashkenazim is questioned in their own eyes since the question to many Zionists and Ashkenazim of fundamental importance is whether they are Semitic and the ‘true inheritors’ of Palestine.
Bernstein brings this questioning of the Semitic origins and legitimacy of the Ashkenazim and specifically their assertion of their right as Semites to a homeland in Palestine to its height when he asserts that:
‘These Khazars are now known as Ashkenazi Jews. Because these Khazar Ashkenazi Jews merely chose Judaism, they are not really Jews — at least not blood Jews.’ (19)
And three paragraphs later:
‘At the time, Palestine was inhabited by a half a million Palestinian Arabs and a few Palestinian Jews who are blood related and who had lived together in peace for centuries. With Palestine as their choice for a homeland, European Ashkenazi Jews began migrating to Palestine.’ (20)
These assertions on the part of Bernstein are questioning the legitimacy of Ashkenazi origins, asserting that they are merely converts whom in Judaism are generally regarded as a second class and not full jews originating from the biological line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and therefore as noted above attacking the very root of the central Zionist claim: that jews have a right to have their own state in Palestine. This is especially notable when Bernstein asserts that Ashkenazim are not ‘blood Jews’. Hence they are illegitimate and second class citizens in Judaic law and is further confirmed by Bernstein’s assertion that there were ‘a few Palestinian Jews who are blood-related’ to Arabs and other Semites. Therefore in Bernstein’s conception these few jews are the ‘real jews’, while the Ashkenazim - although they claim to be - are not.
Further to this we find Bernstein stating that:
‘Leading the cry, "We are God's Chosen People" are the Zionist/Marxist (Ashkenazi) Jews who for political purposes chose Judaism and who don't have a drop of biblical Jewish blood in them.’ (21)
This statement - in the section titled ‘God’s Chosen People’ - is the fullest expression of Bernstein’s using an argument as to the potential origins of the Ashkenazim and striking back at them with it. Since - in the above quoted sentence - he brings the logic of the illegitimate - in terms of Judaism - origins of the Ashkenazim through and applies it to Zionism in order to fundamentally undermine Zionism’s claim to have a jewish state in Palestine and thus Israel’s right to existence.
Bernstein’s consistent refrain that the Khazars didn’t accept Judaism for religious reasons, but rather did so for political ones is another point at which Bernstein is undermining the basis for the Ashkenazi claims because although a convert is not well regarded in Judaism; a convert who converts out of nothing but secular concerns is considered far worse. (22) This further demonstrates Bernstein’s need to question the legitimacy of the Ashkenazim and illuminates the reason for doing so again. In that Ziva - in Bernstein’s conception - is the real jew, while he and the other Ashkenazim are not and hence she is better than the Ashkenazim - including himself - which is not an uncommon sentiment from a man who certainly seems to be deeply in love with his wife and is greatly offended and angered by the questioning of her jewish legitimacy by other jews.
This last part of Bernstein’s argument is very important, because it focuses on asserting jewish legitimacy for the woman he loves - Ziva - whose legitimacy as a jew has been questioned by the Ashkenazim. This thus protects Ziva from attack while projecting the very same attack - ostensibly used by the Ashkenazim against her - back onto the Ashkenazim themselves. This projection of the - presumably verbal - attacks on his wife onto the Ashkenazim takes the form of Bernstein’s attacks on Zionism. Both because its main proponents - i.e., Ashkenazi jews - have been the ones who have been responsible for the hurt to his wife - and also because it allows Bernstein to satisfy his own need for revenge - because in calling into question his wife’s legitimacy his fellow Ashkenazim have questioned his own manhood.
This, of course, demands some kind of necessary revenge on Bernstein’s part and hence this is what Bernstein is delighting in doing here by attacking the Ashkenazim in such a way as to potentially deeply hurt them. Hence revenging the presumably deep hurt his wife may or may not have actually felt which may or may not have been openly expressed to Bernstein himself on the cause of that hurt. This is a Freudian frame of reference that Bakan has indirectly asserted was taken by Sigmund Freud from his jewish heritage - especially jewish mysticism - (23) and thus offers the opportunity to understand jewish behaviour in the proper context as well as its underlying psychology and motivation . Hence we are well within our logical bounds to apply it to understanding Bernstein’s actions and reactions as they are indicated in the text.
We see further expression of Bernstein’s very personal animus towards Ashkenazi jews - as well as potentially additional confirmation for there having been an incident between himself and the jewish community of kibbutz Ein HaShofet - when he states as follows:
‘Throughout their history, these Polish and Russian Ashkenazi Jews practiced communism/socialism and worked to have their ideas implemented in these countries.
By the late 1800s significant numbers of these communist/socialist Jews were found in Germany, the Balkans and eventually all over Europe. Because of their interference in the social and governmental affairs of Russia, they became the target of persecution by the Czars. Because of this, migration of these communist/socialist oriented Jews began. Some went to Palestine; some to Central and South America; and a large number of them came to the U.S.’ (24)
As well as:
‘As I explained earlier, most were communist/socialist oriented with some of them being radical Bolshevik communists whose aim is world domination.’ (25)
Bernstein in the above is using the considerable involvement of Ashkenazi jews with radical movements in nineteenth century Russia in order to condemn the Ashkenazim as Marxists/communists and - as has already been said - the allusion to this concerning the Kibbutzim - i.e., being Marxist communes - seems to be based on some negative event between Ziva and the Ein HaShofet community. However as stated the allusion to the Marxist origin of the kibbutzim is due to Bernstein’s perception of Marxism/Bolshevism - as well as ‘Nazism’ - as being totalitarian and hence denying the right to himself and Ziva to be married and happy. It is not so much about the actual ideologies concerned, but more about Bernstein’s perception of them as taking his and Ziva’s ‘freedom’/‘liberty’ away from them.
Bernstein’s own words on this point a very instructive: since he reveals his thought concerning what he considers ‘Nazism’ and ‘Marxist/Bolshevism’ to be in the following sentence:
‘This war-creating country which has been portrayed as 'the only barrier to communism in the Mideast' sell its war products to anyone who has the money — including repressive dictatorships — FASCIST or COMMUNIST.’ (26)
If we note Bernstein’s use of the description ‘repressive dictatorship – Fascist or Communist’; it becomes very clear that the characteristic that Bernstein is thinking of - in his use of adjectives denoting ‘totalitarianism’ - is defined by the loss of ‘liberty’ in Bernstein’s case of course this is the loss of the ability to marry the jewess - i.e., Ziva - he loves.
This attitude is perhaps best further pointed out by noting that both Marxism/Bolshevism and ‘Nazism’ would not in terms of ideology have any objection to an Ashkenazi and Sephardi couple entering into coital relations or marriage. For in Marxism/Bolshevism there is no differentiation between the two groups; since the only differences which matter in Marxism are class distinctions and even then one can be ‘de-classed’ so no objection can be made to inter-ethnic/racial group marriage or breeding.
In ‘Nazism’ - more properly National Socialism - there is no objection to this on the grounds that the two persons concerned are in National Socialist racial science both are classified as jews and hence have every right to mix their blood. As well as since National Socialism focuses on the well-being of the Aryan race and the racial hygiene of the jewish sub-racial groupings is for jews to be concerned with and not National Socialists.
Hence we can reasonably assert that Bernstein’s allusions to ‘Nazis’, ‘Gestapo’, ‘Marxists’, ‘Bolshevism’ among other things are analogies from the popular literature, and Bernstein’s own perceptions, in order to explain what he is feeling and he asserts he experienced in such a way as to make his own work appeal and be more readable (in order that other’s may ‘understand’ and ‘sympathise’ with his perceived ‘plight’). These perceptions centre around the treatment of Ziva and hence can be argued to be merely expressions of feeling, rather than any real condemnation, because of Bernstein’s perception of ‘totalitarianism’ and his own ‘rights’ as a jew.
What Bernstein then proceeds to do is to again attack Ashkenazi jewry - in a way he knows will considerably hurt their sensibilities - by asserting a whole series of connexions between Marxism and Zionism noting that they are in his view the same thing. We should also mention that Bernstein adds in consistent allusion to Nazism in his monologue on the subject. Further confirming the interpretation that I have been arguing here that it is not so much the ideologies, but rather how these ideologies in Bernstein’s perceptions would impinge on his relationship with Ziva.
This use of a communist and Zionist connection, based on their apparent shared jewish heritage, reaches its peak, and perhaps most hysterical, expression in the following section - entitled ‘Communism in Israel’ - which I quote in full:
‘The Zionist controlled news-media in the U.S. has led the American people to believe that Israel is the only barrier holding back communism in the Mideast. This would be humorous if it did not have such serious implications for the United States.
From what I have said so far, you should now realize that Israel is basically a Marxist country mixed with some Nazi-type fascism. A large book could be written about it, but for now I only wish to add:
1. Israel is the only country in the Mideast that allows communist parties to operate — there are three. Ironically, it is the Arab countries which forbid communist parties to operate. (The exception is North Yemen which, through treachery, was taken over by the communists). Some of the Arab countries buy military equipment from communist countries because they can't get enough from the U.S. to offset the huge amounts the U.S. provides Israel. But, that's as far as any Arab/Soviet ties go.
2. The Soviet Union allows a good number of Jews to leave if they promise to go to Israel and Israel welcomes these communist oriented Jews. It must be noted that once out of the Soviet Union, many, if not most, Soviet Jews come to the U.S. instead of going to Israel. It must also be noted that hundreds of thousands of Jews have left Israel since its founding; some sources put the number at one million. Some of these Jews have requested to go back to the Soviet Union rather than live in Israel. Life for these Jews is better in Soviet Russia.
3. The latest scientific developments that the U.S. provides Israel are channeled on to the Soviet Union. The main center through which this scientific information passes is Israel's Weizman Institute in the town of Rehoovot about 40 kilometers south of Tel Aviv.
4. About one-third (1/3) of the knesset belong to one of Israel's communist, socialist or other Marxist oriented parties.
That should put to rest the lie about Israel being the only barrier against Communism in the Mideast.
In fact, it is the Arab countries that form the barrier that has stopped the spread of communism in the Mideast. Israel is one leg of the New York/Moscow/Tel Aviv Triangle which is behind the communist movement.’ (27)
In this above quoted section we can see the attempt to hurt the Ashkenazim - whom Bernstein does rightly associate with Zionism - by Bernstein’s suggestion that Zionism - represented by Israel - and communism - represented by the Soviet Union - are closely aligned with one another. (28) What Bernstein is using is an old anti-Semitic theory - not entirely without factual/historical foundation - that the jews of the Kremlin were closely co-operating with the jews in New York, but adds a third twist that they were further closely co-operating with the Israeli government. This assertion - and his own personal addition - by Bernstein are intended to create the illusion that Ashkenazi jews are in fact the problem that is commonly ascribed as international jewry (hence in common parlance: are to blame).
Since if the Ashkenazim are the jews in the Kremlin, New York and Tel Aviv and therefore the power-brokers and those responsible for all/most of the nefarious activities and crimes ascribed justly or unjustly to jews then it leaves the field open to the Sephardim and the Mizrahim to claim that they had nothing to do with it and hence allow these two jewish ethnic/sub-racial groups to escape the spotlight of anti-Semitic critique for any involvement with these activities and crimes.
In this then we begin to really see another aspect of Bernstein’s motivation for writing this work for if the Ashkenazim are simply to blame for the ills associated with Israel, Zionism and communism then it deflects attention away from other jews. Notably this includes his beloved wife Ziva.
Whom it can be argued he is doing this for in order that she would be able to escape criticism and any realised reprisals on the part of those critical of jews - which Bernstein believes are coming - but what he does not seem to be so sure of is precisely when said reprisals will actually occur. So in order to protect Ziva - and those he has made a larger surrogate for her - he is trying to deflect criticism away from the Sephardim and Mizrahim as well as revenging himself upon the Ashkenazim for their alleged maltreatment of her.
Hence his revenge and his protection of Ziva become one joint action.
This touches on the heart of the meaning of the term: ‘jewish traitor’. In that no jew is really a traitor to jewry, but rather is an agent of it. That jew might seem to be acting against jewry by calling attention to what - in Bernstein’s case - he suggests the Ashkenazim are up to.
However what jewish ‘traitors’ are actually doing is answering the fundamental question that all jews ask themselves - ‘What is best for jews?’ - differently to the majority of other jews. Thus in order to assure jewish survival by either provoking fresh waves of anti-jewish feeling at a target that they feel may cause a more destructive outbreak in the near or distant future if allowed to go unchecked and hence they minimize/prevent that behaviours real consequences for jews (by starting the wave of anti-jewish feeling earlier and making it much easier to nullify as well as less destructive).
Or in the other instance the jewish ‘traitor’ feels that his/her fellow jews are going to be persecuted regardless. The reasoning may change to the jew condemning jews, while suggesting that they themselves or a small group of jews are actually on the anti-jewish side (or are simply ‘different’ or ‘special’ in some way) and hence offer their services as ‘decent’, ‘good’ or ‘former’ jews - much like Benjamin Freedman did - regardless if this means persecuting their own kinsmen: thus allowing them the jewish people to survive - and to rebuild - rather than face the possibility of complete extermination.
Bernstein is enacting a combination of both these two motivations for his jewish ‘traitor’ behaviour in that he both is trying to provoke the storm before it turns into a terribly destructive hurricane, because he sees the activities of his fellow jews and comprehends that resentment is growing and wishes consciously or not to prevent catastrophe. He also - likely because of his feelings for Ziva - wishes to focus the anti-Semitic feelings on the Ashkenazim - whom he also has a great personal enmity to - who are responsible in his mind for many of the activities and crimes that are justly or unjustly suggested to be the result of jewish endeavours and actions. In this once again we note he saves Ziva, and his surrogates for Ziva: Sephardi and Mizrahi jews as well as notably Arabs, while revenging himself on those who have hurt or attacked her.
Bernstein’s attitude to the Arabs is interesting, because he simply denies that there are extensive Arab/Soviet relations beyond military contacts completely ignoring the Soviet Unions role in the Middle East as a countering bloc against the United States of America Since the Soviet Union had failed to gain Israel as an ally, which it has sought to do in Israel’s first years of existence and Israel had become orientated towards the United States of America. The Soviet Union naturally looked to the Arab bloc for allies. Who were becoming deeply disenfranchised by almost unconditional American support for Israel and who correctly identified the source of his support to be anchored in the position and power in the United States of jews - whether devoted Zionists or not - whom were loyal to their jewish ancestry often in contradiction to the best interests of the United States. Hence a Soviet and Arab bloc alliance formed and hence further polarisation between the two camps - Israeli and Arab - occurred.
However the source for this pro-Arab attitude is not hard to find in that Ziva was identified as an Arab by the Ashkenazi, which Bernstein indirectly notes on when he recounts as follows:
‘One day, I entered a cafe in Tel Aviv. The place was crowded and I sat down on the only seat available. Also sitting at this table were 5 Sephardic Jews from Morocco. They learned that I was studying the Hebrew language, so they were helping me with my studies when a blue-eyed, Nazi-type Israeli police officer walked into the cafe.
He ordered me to "Get away from those Kooshim. 'Kooshim' in Hebrew means 'Niggers.'’ (29)
Bernstein’s description of the use of the pejorative word ‘Kooshim’ to describe the Sephardi jews in the café is something that can also be suggested to be in his eyes: a word used to describe Arabs. In that because Bernstein identifies the policeman as blue-eyed there would have been real physical contrast between him and the Sephardim whom he was with.
Hence the policeman looked down the Sephardim because they were darker and probably also because they looked like Arabs. Hence it is possible to suggest that in Bernstein’s mind the Arabs are just like the Sephardim/Mizrahim in that they have been unjustly treated by the Ashkenazim and displaced/massacred by the Ashkenazi creation of Zionism. Hence they like Ziva become a victim of unjustified maltreatment in Bernstein’s mind and his pro-Arab sentiments were likely increased with the added personal dimension that Ziva was originally from a Mizrahi family who resided in Iraq before coming to Israel.
Hence it becomes quite arguable that Bernstein’s pro-Arab comments are the result of this identification of the Arabs with his wife Ziva’s origins as well as the similar treatment - in his eyes - that both Ziva and the Arabs have received from the Ashkenazim and their creation Zionism. Hence it allows Bernstein to also take the side of the Arabs as well as the side of the Sephardi/Mizrahi jews and thus also re-enforce his position by recalling injustice to the Arabs and defending them - rather irrationally as it happen - from the suggestion that they are in alliance with the Soviet Union, which I discussed briefly above.
Hence we can conclude that Bernstein is a jewish ‘traitor’ in that he seeks to revenge himself on the Ashkenazim by both attacking them and manipulating the next wave of anti-Semitism to fall preferably exclusively on them rather than on his wife’s kinsmen: the Sephardim and the Mizrahim: hence protected that which he loves and destroying that which threatens it at the same time. Bernstein’s work is one - as we have discussed - which derives almost entirely from his personal feelings - especially his relationship with his wife Ziva and their experiences together - and not from wide reading and thought.
Bernstein manipulates information throughout the text to suit his own personal agenda and although he presents a very unsavoury picture of Israel - which appeals to many an anti-Semite - the work is marred by his deeply personal motivations, hysterical accusations towards the Ashkenazim, by potential additions from Willie Martin and a lack of precise references. Even as a testimonial it is not worth the paper it is written on, because of all these problems with the text. I suggest that no anti-Semite who wishes to conduct a through critique of this text uses it as evidence of any kind other than of the hysterical and essentially Freudian mentality of the jews and especially of the Ashkenazim.
Bear in mind this work is there to manipulate your thoughts into hating the Ashkenazi and letting the Sephardim and Mizrahim off from any charges laid at their door. Do not presume just because a jew such as Bernstein seems to be on your side that he is indeed so for the jew will always ask this question first and foremost in any interaction he has: ‘what is best for Jews’. Now that is not what is best for Aryans: is it?
References
(1) Jack Bernstein, 1985, ‘The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel: As told to Len Martin’. The full text is available at the following address: http://www.jackbernstein.org/. There is no pagination in this online edition of the work, which I am forced to use due to the lack of a reliable print copy. Hence page references cannot be reasonably given, but I will endeavour to give some indication of which part of the work the quotation/assertions in question maybe found.
(2) Cf. Reginald Scot, 1930, [1584], ‘The Discoverie of Witchcraft’, 1st Edition, John Rodker: London.
(3) For a general, although I suspect not wholly accurate, account please see: Gordon Thomas, 2007, ‘Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad’, 1st Edition, St. Martin’s Griffin: New York; Ian Black, Benny Morris’, 1992, ‘Israel’s Secret Wars: A History of Israel’s Intelligence Services’, 1st Edition, Grove Press: New York and Dan Raviv, Yossi Melman’s, 1990, ‘Every Spy a Prince: The Complete History of Israel’s Intelligence Community’, 1st Edition, Houghton Mifflin: Boston.
(4) Such as the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 by a jewish radical named Yigal Amir.
(5) Cf. Arthur Koestler, 1976, ‘The Thirteenth Tribe’, 1st Edition, Random House: New York
(6) Bernstein, Op. Cit.
(7) Ibid.; since the following note - presumably written by Martin - is included in the text: ‘(This honest and courageous Jew was assassinated some years ago, by MOSSAD).’
(8) Since she was from Iraq she would actually be a Mizrahi rather than a Sephardi jewess, but Mizrahim generally follow the Sephardi religious ritual in Judaism and with Bernstein’s own definition of a jew as a follower of Judaism rather in the more accurate racial sense. This would also correspond with Bernstein’s comments about their being married in a Sephardi synagogue.
(9) Bernstein, Op. Cit.; Bernstein however fails to note that the Kibbutzim, on which he briefly opines, were often also religious as well as socialistic in nature, as well as that some of them were non-marxist and nationalistic in nature. Bernstein’s lurid and apparently hysterical statement that: ‘EACH OF THESE KIBBUTZ ARE AFFILIATED WITH ONE OF ISRAEL'S MARXIST PARTIES ranging from SOCIALIST TO HARD-CORE COMMUNIST’ is patently untrue since as I have said there were highly nationalistic kibbutzim - such as the Gush Emunim who were (and are) - followers of the jewish radical former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel Abraham (Avraham) Kook as well as Marxist and simply religious ascetic kibbutzim. On this point see: Roger Friedland, Richard Hecht, 1996, ‘To Rule Jerusalem’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 200-209.
(10) Bernstein, Op. Cit.
(11) Translated: ‘Spring of the Judge’ and named after the famous jewish supreme court justice: Louis Brandeis. This kibbutz is located in northern Israel near the city of Haifa.
(12) Bernstein, Op. Cit.
(13) Ibid.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Depending on Bernstein’s definition of Poland: this could include parts of the most densely populated, in terms of jews residing there, part of Russia: the former pale of settlement. Russia could also include Poland as it had absorbed it into its territory in the 18th century under Catherine the Great and later absorbed Poland into Russia again with the defeat of National Socialist Germany in 1945.
(16) Bernstein, Op. Cit.
(17) For example Daniel Elazar, 1973, ‘Local Government as an Integrating Factor in Israeli Society’, pp. 21-23 in Michael Curtis (Ed.), Mordecai Chertoff (Ed.), 1973, ‘Israel: Social Structure and Change’, 1st Edition, Transaction: New York contends that such discrimination was significant in the early years of Israel’s existence, but that Sephardim have made strides since then in terms of local influence. However as of 35 years after Elazar wrote those words there is still a strong feeling in Sephardi circles, as well proof of (such as the very recent case of the Beit Yaakov schools in the Israeli city of Eldad), institutional discrimination against them by the ruling Ashkenazim. However when Elazar wrote his words at time roughly congruent with when Bernstein was gleaning his first impressions of Israel it points out that Bernstein’s observation, although certainly exaggerated, is not without a factual foundation.
(18) For example the humanitarian organisation ‘Human Rights Watch’ reported that: ‘Although low income Jewish students--especially new immigrant, Sephardic, or Mizrahi students6--face some of the same challenges related to poverty that Palestinian Arab students do, the government provides disadvantaged Jewish students with a battery of resources designed to improve academic performance and to keep them from dropping out. The remedial and enrichment resources made available for Jewish schools include extra school hours and remedial and enrichment programs, offered both during school hours and after school, as well as truant officers, counseling, and the opportunity for vocational education.’ Human Rights Watch, 2001, ‘Second Class: Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in Israel’s Schools’, 1st Edition, Human Rights Watch: New York. The quotation is available at the following address: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-01.htm
(19) Bernstein, Op. Cit.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Ibid.
(22) For example on this point see the Mishneh Torah, Shoftim, The Law of Kings, 8:14.
(23) David Bakan, 1990, ‘Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition’, 3rd Edition, Free Association: London.
(24) Bernstein, Op. Cit.
(25) Ibid.
(26) Ibid.
(27) Ibid.
(28) In fact they have historically had a deep animosity to one another even in the days before the Bolshevik revolution it was regarded in the jewish community that the young generally had one of two choices in terms of ideologies. Those choices were Zionism or Communism not Zionism and Communism as Bernstein necessarily assumes in his work.