two examples in Zionism's history of political cynicism

American Jewish War Veterans were among those effecting a boycott that threatened to
bring the Nazi regime to ruin, until that boycott was broken by the Zionist establishment.

note from Tom Suarez :

The record of Zionist-Fascist collaboration is very much in the news these days. To whatever small extent this collaboration is acknowledged by the pro-Zionist mass media, it is explained as the horrific necessity of an impossible moral quandary.

Although the horrors of World War II most certainly presented terrible moral dilemmas for the Allies, such soul-searching fails to explain the Zionists’ deals with the Axis powers. Indeed, the Zionist leadership’s record regarding at-risk Jews is not good; consistently, the Zionist project was the priority. Jews and Jewish persecution served Zionism’s racial-nationalist ambitions — not the other way around.

Zionism’s working relationships with the Italian Fascists and the German Nazis form but part of this evidence, but that evidence alone is powerful enough to threaten the prevailing Zionist narrative. This is the reason why Ken Livingstone’s comments, however clumsy and imprecise, elicited such outrage.

So callous were the Zionist leadership to the calamity of fascism in Europe that it sought to keep Jews from joining the Allied struggle until it served Zionist needs (hence the so-called Jewish Brigade, not formed until the summer of 1944), and it ran a theft ring of Allied weapons, “as if paid by Hitler himself,” as one British official bitterly described it.

It is worth noting that the Foreign Secretary in the years leading up to 1948, Ernest Bevin, was uniformly hated by the Zionists — but it was only after he publicly distinguished between Jews and Zionists that he became a specific target of Zionist assassination.

Today, only Palestinians remain victims of Israeli assassination, but anyone shining daylight on Zionism are targets for character assassination. Such daylight would expose that it is Zionism itself, not most victims of its smears, that is anti-Semitic.

the "Jerusalem Agreement", a foiled deal between Lehi ('Stern Gang') and the Italian Fascists

from Suárez,
State of Terror (pages 58-59):

(...) Lehi made little distinction between the Allied and the Axis powers, and therefore saw no reason to restrain its terror during the war. “Sensible Jews”, the group reasoned, “may well look to remain in a relatively good position in Palestine after a German victory”. In late 1940 Stern sought a Nazi-Lehi alliance, and when the Nazis failed to respond he sent his friend and fellow ex-Irgun member Nathan Yellin-Mor to try again. Yellin-Mor, a future Knesset member, advocated striking the British in Palestine while Britain was weakened battling the Nazis—obviously weakening that battle as well.101

The Italian fascists were also wooed by Lehi and, briefly, by Weizmann, who met with Benito Mussolini with the idea that a relationship with the fascists might serve as a bargaining chip against the British. Lehi, however, pursued a formal agreement with the fascists during the war, and was allegedly providing the Italian Commission in Syria with military information.

Lehi’s collusion with the Italian fascists was codified in the “Jerusalem Agreement 1940”. It proposed that the fascists help them overthrow the British in Palestine, and then use “all the means in its power to liquidate the Jewish Diaspora”—that is, for the fascists to destroy all non-Palestinian Jewish communities on Lehi’s behalf and forcibly transfer their populations to the Zionist settlements. The agreement, dated 15 September 1940, required the signatures of the Italians and the “Provisional Jewish Prime Minister”. In a comical stroke of bad luck, however, the contact through whom Lehi was negotiating was also engaged as an Irgun spy, and learning of the negotiations, the Irgun tried to secure the document to embarrass its rival. “Some hitch”, a British Security Officer wrote, “the nature of which is not known”, kept the document from being signed. Lehi’s sympathies veered again to the Nazis.102

These “pro-Axis terrorists”, as the London Times referred to Lehi, sought, in their command group’s words, to “clean the city streets from every person who wears a uniform which means he is British”. While ‘wearing a uniform’ automatically marked someone as an enemy, anyone seen as an obstacle was vulnerable. Most victims of Zionist assassinations (i.e., targeted rather than indiscriminate), whether by Lehi, the Irgun, or the Hagana, were Jews.103

(Scroll down for documents related to the Jerusalem Agreement in the National Archives [Kew], WO 275/121)

101. Lehi ‘Pro-Axis’, TNA, KV 5/34, 430x, ‘C.O. file 75969 (7a)’; FO 371/40125,
Inward Telegram 372; For Nazi collaboration, see also Rogan, The Arabs, 248,
and Brenner, 51 Documents; Exploiting Britain’s vulnerability during the war,
see Yellin-Mor, MS letter, in Brenner, 51 Documents, 307; This differed from
Ben-Gurion’s plan only in that Ben-Gurion advocated striking right after
D-Day, rather than during the war.
102. TNA, KV 5/34, 7a, KV 5/31, 143a; WO 275/121, ‘The Stern Group’.
103. Targeting anyone in uniform is implicit in most relevant TNA documents; see
also Ben-Yehuda, Assassinations, 190; Regarding most targets of assassination were
Jewish, the numbers demonstrate this, and also see Friedmann, Crime, 162.

the Haavara transfer agreement between the Jewish [Zionist] Agency and the Nazis (successful)

Extract from Suárez, State of Terror (pages 46-48):

(...) The increasing ethnic disenfranchisement was described by a young American named Paul Siegel in 1937, based on what he learned from “a couple of fellows” who had “been in Palestine since the beginning of Jewish colonization there”. They had left Palestine because of their political beliefs and, like Siegel, were in Spain fighting against Franco’s emerging fascism.77

“They have been giving me”, Siegel wrote home, “some first-hand information about the place [Palestine] that I’m sure will interest ... the Siegel family”.

[Jewish settlers’] chauvinism towards the Arabs is even greater than that of Hitler Germany toward the Jews. No Arabs are allowed in Jewish cities—there is not a single Arab in Tel Aviv. No Arabs are permitted to work for Jews. If a Jew & an Arab are seen walking together, both are punished [by the Jewish settlers], tho the Arab is punished much more severely than the Jew. No Arabs are allowed in the Jewish Trade Unions.78

Siegel, who died in the fight against Franco, wrote that the “small minds [of ] Hitler, Mussolini and Franco ... could not see that the people of the world will not submit to their terror and hatred any longer”. That refusal to submit to terror had led to an international boycott of Germany, which faced economic ruin from poor exports— until the boycott was broken by the Zionists in 1933, just after the Nazis came to power, in a scheme formalised as the Haavara Transfer Agreement. The idea was that Jews leaving Germany for Palestine would be able to recover some of their assets by using those assets to purchase German manufactured goods, which they could then resell. It was first tried in May of 1933, four months after Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, by a Zionist citrus firm named Hanotaiah.

The Nazis saw a formal transfer arrangement with the Zionists as their only way to defeat the debilitating boycott. Encouraged by Germany’s Gestapo, Foreign Office, and Interior Ministry, Zionist representatives lobbied to break the anti-Nazi boycott, justifying the betrayal by saying that they did not wish to take “political positions” that might compromise their settler project:

Zionism must concern itself exclusively with the building of the National Home in Palestine, and cannot afford to take political positions against individual states.79

And so in August, 1933, the World Zionist Congress approved the Haavara Transfer Agreement. The Agreement is spun as the result of pained soul-searching over an impossible moral dilemma: enable some Jews to leave Germany while empowering the Nazis, versus a boycott that might spare millions—or might save no one. The point of the Agreement, however, was not getting out the people themselves, but getting part of their assets out with them, much of which went to the Zionist settlement project.*

Rescue for its own sake was never part of Jewish Agency policy, and nothing in its history suggests that its decision to break the boycott was based on a tortured balancing of the moral quandary. The settler project remained the guiding factor, and so the Agreement restricted Jewish evacuation only to Palestine. Four years later, the Nazis still wooed a contact in the Hagana, Feivel Polkes, with the lure that they would pressure Jewish groups in Germany “to oblige Jews ... to go exclusively to Palestine, and not to other countries”.80

Polkes met with Adolf Eichmann in Berlin and claimed that he could supply intelligence on the British, French, and Italians, as well as help the Nazis secure a source of oil—in exchange for channelling Jewish emigrants (only) to Palestine. Polkes welcomed Eichmann at Haifa’s port when he visited Palestine in October of 1937, but had only got so far as to give him a tour of a kibbutz when the British learned of the Nazi official’s presence. Expelled from Palestine, Eichmann went to Egypt, accompanied by Polkes.

Nazi files captured by the US at the close of World War II shed some light on what Eichmann learned from his Hagana host. “In Jewish nationalist [i.e., Zionist] circles”, Eichmann reported, “people were very pleased with the radical German policy”, since it helped achieve “a [ Jewish] numerical superiority over the Arabs”. It was however difficult to get German Jews to stay in Palestine once there, as most wanted to go elsewhere. To prevent this, “those Jews coming from Germany, after taking away their capital, should be put in a communal settlement”. The Hagana’s records on Polkes are closed.81

* There are other flaws in the alleged ‘moral’ rationale for breaking the anti-Nazi boycott. If at-risk Jews were the actual driving concern, and if it made sense to buy their freedom even though doing so strengthened the Nazis, the capital that the Agency received from the deal would have been put into buying the freedom of Jews without the minimum assets necessary for participation in the Haavara scheme, not building the settler state. Further, according to Brenner (Age of Dictators), “two-thirds of all German Jews who applied for certificates [during Nazi rule] were turned down” by the Zionists in favour of ‘better’ settlers from the US and UK who were at no risk. He also states that between 1933-1939, fully 60% of the money invested in Zionist settlement came from breaking the anti-Nazi boycott.

77. TNA, CO 733/250/1, pencilled ‘2’, ‘9’; regarding Zionists’ refusal to work with
Palestinians, see also reference in Report on his Britannic Majesty’s Government
on the Administration Under Mandate of Palestine and Transjordan for the year
1926, 60, which cites strikes stemming from “the refusal of Jewish labourers
to work with Arabs” (TNA, CO 1071/306).
78. MS letter, Paul Siegel, July 18 1937, Albacete, Spain. Elmer Holmes Bobst
Library, NY. Downloaded Nov 1, 2011. I am grateful to Prof. Francis Manasek
for bringing this letter to my attention. For references to the violence and
chaos within the Jewish settlements, see e.g., TNA, WO 169/183.
79. Nicosia, Third Reich, 53. Business interests also led some German Jews even
to refute claims that the Nazis were ill-treating Jews; see Nadan Feldman,
‘The Jews Who Opposed Boycotting Nazi Germany’, Haaretz, 20 Apr 2015.
80. Nicosia, Third Reich, ch 3, and 50, 63; Black, Transfer Agreement; Brenner,
51 Documents; Polkehn, ‘Secret Contacts’, 72; When on 8 September 1939
Haavara announced its closing, it had transferred US $35 million, which
is about $600m in 2016 dollars, using the value of 1936 dollars (see Jewish
Telegraphic Agency, 10 Sept 1939); Brenner, Age of Dictators, Kindle 2559-
2561; My thanks to Joseph Massad, Professor of Modern Arab Politics and
Intellectual History, for his email correspondence regarding the Brenner
reference, May 2016.
81. Brenner, 51 Documents, 115-118; Nicosia, Third Reich, 62; It is not clear to
what extent Polkes was operating independently or representing the Hagana.
Brenner, quoting the custodian of the Hagana records, said the files on Polkes
are closed “because it would be too embarrassing” (51 Documents, 111, 117).
There is inconsistency in records as to whether Polkes went with Eichmann
to Egypt, or met him there again after travelling separately.

The following images are of documents held by the National Archives (Kew) relating to the Jerusalem Agreement of 1940: