Regarding the accuracy of an article... (blood, America, mission, experience)

[Jaiket]

The cold-blooded stance of the Zionists in the face of the Holocaust
By Yossi Schwarz

This was linked to a thread in the general debates section. I finished reading it and found it somewhat disturbing. For example:

Why then did the Israeli state not remind any one the role of the US government during Bush's visit but rather presented it as a real homage to the victims of the Nazis? The answer is very simple: The Zionist movement was a partner to this crime. Its policy was to settle Palestine with Jews and those Jews they could not use were as good as dead.

If anyone has any doubts about this it is sufficient to quote Ben Gurion when he informed a meeting of Labor Zionists in Great Britain in 1938: "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative."[1]

As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the US Congress proposed to set up a commission to merely "study" the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principle American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.

This is the same Rabbi Wise who, in 1938, in his capacity as leader of the American Jewish Congress, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in US immigration laws which would enable Jews to find refuge in the USA. He stated: "It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference. (...) It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws."[2]

I've had some experience of finding Zionist quotes (e.g. Ben Gurion) to be fabrications or taken out of context. The person who posted it originally, while genuine enough, is not know for producing verifiable material, and the source marxism.org has a mix of writing ranging from useful to bizarre and worse. My intention is to look into it to see if the article is accurate (facts, context etc). I figured it might be fruitful to ask in here.

Is there anyone here with knowledge on these subjects? I'd appreciate any pointers.