Israeli concentration camps you do not learn about at school

Published by carolyn on Wed, 2018-08-01 14:27

I received this article from “Hendrik”. I cannot vouch for its reliability but I don't think it is saying anything that is stretching the truth. Seems pretty much what we've known all along. So I decided to post it as a reminder in this time of heightened Jewish screaming to censor/ban “holocaust denial” on social media, including in the United States, that Jews do plenty of denying accusations of brutality leveled against them. 

They might say, "but our camps had no gas chambers; we didn't exterminate the inmates." Well, the German camps didn't have homicidal gas chambers either, only small ones for fumigating clothing and mattresses for the purpose of saving lives and keeping inmates healthy. This website has spent a lot of time proving that there is zero evidence that any Jew died from gassing exposure. It never happened. So the point here is to 'Never Forget' all suffering inflicted on innocent people.  -Carolyn

Did you know that Israel also had concentration camps? You probably have not learned this at school

We all know the German concentration camps during the Second World War. But during the history lesson at school you probably did not learn anything about the 22 concentration and work camps that existed in Israel between 1948 and 1955.

Thanks to the work of the Palestinian historian Salman Abu Sitta we now know more about these camps, said Yazan al-Saadi writing for the newspaper Al-Akhbar English.

A study on the camps has appeared in the
Journal of Palestine Studies, which is based on information collected during the 1948 war by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Only way to establish a Jewish state

The information from the ICRC was released in 1996 and discovered by chance in 1999 by one of the authors.

The documents show that Israel put thousands of Palestinian civilians in concentration camps and used them for forced labor.

The documents show that Zionist leadership saw the expulsion of the Palestinian civilian population as the only way to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. [This I know is true. How is this any different from the “Nazis” decision that the only way for Germans to control their own state was to expel the Jews? In the German situation, same as in the Palestinian, it was the Jews who were the newcomers, or invaders. In Palestine, however, the Zionists put on a false mantle of the 'original people.' They are still trying to convince the world that they have an ancient religious claim to the land of Palestine. -cy]

British officers

The first camp, located about 13 kilometers from Jaffa, was called Ijlil and consisted largely of tents. The camp was surrounded by fences with barbed wire, watchtowers and a gate with guards.

Besides Ijlil there were four other 'official' concentration camps, namely Atlit, Sarafand, Umm Khalid and Tel Letwinsky, near Tel Aviv.

All camps were led by British officers who were left behind after the British army had withdrawn from Palestine in May 1948.

The guards were former members of the Irgun and Lehi, two Zionist paramilitary organizations who were known as terrorist organizations.

In addition to the five recognized camps there were at least 17 concentration camps that are nowhere mentioned in official sources and that have been
discovered on the basis of testimonies from prisoners.

[Sounds familiar. If we are to believe the testimony of every Jew (think Claude Lanzmann's 8-hour film “Shoah”) then why not believe the testimony of every Palestinian too?]

Palestinian civilians were abducted and detained on a large scale. They had to survive in the camps under miserable conditions. [Worse than German conditions, you can be sure.]




Thanks, Carolyn, for this fresh and new perspective on Israel's concentration camps.  The Jewish Forward corroborates Hendrick's article and offers some grizzly details from the Palestinian captives who were there then.  
Of course, Israel through the Forward wants to say that whatever happened was "insignificant."  But the admission clearly goes to show that the claim of the Jews' innocent victimhood is false.

Nathan Guttman's article is a whitewashing. Instead read this one by Yazan al-Saadi.

Yup, Gutman's article is a whitewashing and an under-reporting of the facts.  
I really like the last paragraph especially of Yazan al-Saadi's article:  
"The study essentially shows the foundations and beginnings of Israeli policy towards Palestinian civilians that comes in the form of kidnapping, arrest, and detainment. This criminality continues till this day. One merely has to read the reports on the hundreds of Palestinians arrested prior, during, and after Israel’s latest war on Gaza mid-summer of this year."  
I wish this information were available in book form and not just published in the Journal of Palestine Studies.  I mean this is absolutely astonishing and stunning information that deserves worldwide attention.  But what (((publisher))) would take on this study if not the Palestinians themselves?  I never knew of this information before.  I had never heard of these events before.  Sixty years have passed and the information is only just coming out now.  I'm glad it is.  It needs to be disseminated.  

I never knew of this information before.  I had never heard of these events before.

Who has? The Big Question is "Why is negative news about Jews and or Israel buried, while bad news about Jews' perceived enemies is played up to the hilt, even invented and wildly exaggerated? Likewise, complaints about that lack of coverage don't get heard.

When information negative for Jews and or Israel has already come out (like the Protocols, the bloody Bolshevik Revolution, or the guilt of Alfred Dreyfuss and Leo Frank) it is passionately denied and classified as antisemitism. The media overwhelmingly takes up the antisemitism cry.

The media is the biggest power player here. The Jews were smart enough to know they were too few to directly control democratic governments, so they used their ill-gotten wealth to buy up newspapers, then TV and all other communication outlets. Now they are the largest, loudest voice that the people hear. This is the first thing that needs to be changed.

When Donald Trump (bravely) talks about "fake news" and "the media is the enemy of the people" (Wow to that one!), he is not only dead right but he is doing more for us White Western people than we could ever repay in a million years. We should simply pick up the cry.

Those of us who attack* this man on far less important grounds (or no more than their own paranoia) should be seen as "our" enemy. Think about that. Not you specifically, Joey, but that's directed at everyone.

* I don't include criticism of particulars, which is always okay. I mean disparage as overall not one of us -- working for the other side.

Like the Americans had their internment camps for the Japanese in WW2, the Germans had internment camps for holding Jews.

The "Auschwitz internment camp" is more accurate don't you think?

The terminology that is used should be accurate. Why use the terminology and definitions of the enemy and liars?

I agree.  I never use the term "concentration camp" when speaking of WWII.  The term is too charged and immediately brings to mind the intended images.  Instead, I say labor camp or internment camp.  It's important to speak as literally as possible and call a thing what it is in order to start changing the narrative.

Good questions, Bill, and this has been discussed quite a bit. Why does the enemy dictate the terminology we use? Because of their control of the media. It's difficult to not use the words that we're hearing and seeing everywhere. "Gay" is in the same category; pretty soon, in spite of our best intentions, we all cave in and use it in general conversation.

But Auschwitz 1 was a labor camp, and labor camp is the most accurate description of most German camps, especially the smaller ones. Auschwitz 2-Birkenau was an internment and transit camp for the most part, but could also be called a concentration camp because many people were 'concentrated' in a limited space. Auschwitz 3-Monowitz was definitely a labor camp, housing workers for the large Buna-rubber plant there.

To call all of Auschwitz a "Death camp" or "Extermination camp" is totally wrong and misleading, of course. The lies that support this are innumerable - such as, of those who had jobs, the purpose was to work them to death! As though their work had no value, was only a means to kill them.

Another catch-all word is Holocaust. No one can define it. The word didn't show up until the 1970's and the purveyers of the myth had to come up with three main 'pillars' to describe it, none of which are true! The 6 million, the gas chambers and the 'Plan.' But because the word Holocaust has become a household name, recognized across the planet, we all use it in order to simply refute it.

It's a perplexing problem, but I would say we are not together enough for us all to get on the same page in our terminology. 'German internment camps' would be okay for almost everything except Auschwitz, which was the largest, most multi-use camp. See, which is devoted to Auschwitz truth. Also my booklet which can be read in full here.

Thank you, Carolyn, for posting this as it permits me to visit yet another interesting website, this time in Dutch ( Flemish ), my mother tongue. One can learn a great deal from comments left by the readers of the site.
Dank U! :-)


"Many Japanese internees were temporarily released from their camps – for instance, to harvest Western beet crops – to address this wartime labor shortage."

Interned Japanese held by the Americans during WW2 were permitted to work apparently. So the term "internment camp" could include being a "labor camp."

Those 1948 'Nakbah' Israeli laws, which expropriate property, continue to inspire governments throughout the world seventy years later.
Case in point is the Assad regime, whose 'Law Number 10' aims at expropriating the homes of millions of refugees outside of Syria. Those returning to Syria won't have homes to go to.

Legal experts have been quick to liken the recently introduced legislation to the Israeli Absentees' Property Law.


That law was brought in after the 1948 war to allow arriving Israelis to move into the homes of millions of Palestinians forced off their lands.


"Just like the 'Absentees Law' allowed Israelis to take over the properties of Palestinians forced off their lands in 1948, Assad's new law could see the state confiscating the lands of millions of displaced and refugee Syrians," said Ayoub.


In recent years, the Absentees' Law has been used by right-wing groups seeking to increase Jewish presence in East Jerusalem, which is traditionally dominated by Arab neighbourhoods.

And then we have the case of South Africa. The Blacks will use law to expropriate the Whites. Ironically, the white South Africans supported Israel through the seventies and eighties, and saw themselves as being like the Israelis - a small settler minority surrounded by millions of hostile natives. But now, in 2018, the plight of the South Africans mimics the Palestinians' more.
But then, what did the South Africans expect. As you've pointed out more than once, in your talks on Maurice Bardèche and the Nuremberg trials, any sort of racialism and nationalism (as practised by whites, that is) has become in effect forbidden by international law: the rulings of Nuremberg are binding for all white countries. Apartheid was instituted in 1948, and at the time the South Africans foolishly believed that they could buck Nuremberg. They were going up against the spirit of the age - the new cult of the 'religion of humanity', 'the conscience of humanity' and the 'human person'.