Israeli Rabbi Calls for Execution Of All Palestinians

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Israeli Rabbi Calls for Execution Of All Palestinians

Postby admin » Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:02 am

Israeli Rabbi Calls for Execution Of All Palestinians
By Press TV
Global Research
24 January 2016
Copyright © Press TV, 2016




A senior Israeli rabbi says Tel Aviv should execute Palestinians instead of arresting them and “leave no one alive” in order to establish safety in the occupied Palestinian territories, Palestinian media report.

“Israeli army has to stop arresting Palestinians,” Shmuel Eliyahu said in a message posted on his Facebook page on Tuesday, adding, “but, it must execute them and leave no one alive,” Palestine News Network reported.

As chief rabbi of the city of Safed, Eliyahu is known for his racist behavior and remarks about Arabs and Muslims. He had earlier urged the Israeli regime to take “revenge” against Arabs in order to restore what he called Israel’s deterrence.

Israeli rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu

He also described Palestinians as the enemy of Israel and claimed that they “must be destroyed and crushed in order to end violence.”

“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand. And if they do not stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million,” the Jerusalem Post quoted him as saying in 2007.

In 2012, he was charged for making racist statements as he called the Arab culture “cruel” and accused Arabs of having “violent norms” which “have turned into ideology.”

Eliyahu alleged that Arabs steal farm equipment belonging to Jews and blackmail farmers.

“The minute you make room for Arabs among Jews, it takes five minutes before they start to do whatever they want,” he purportedly said.

However, the Israeli Justice Ministry dropped the charges against him, claiming that reporters ‘may’ have changed his statements.

Back in December, the Jerusalem Post quoted Eliyahu as saying,

“Should we leave them (Palestinians) alive in order to then free them in another gesture to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas? The fact that they still have a desire to commit … attacks shows that we are not operating strongly enough.”

On his Facebook page, he also called for the prosecution of those Israeli forces that keep Palestinians alive, saying, “We must not allow a Palestinian to survive after he was arrested. If you leave him alive, there is a fear that he will be released and kill other people… We must eradicate this evil from within our midst.”

So, What's New?

CHAPTER ONE: "A Flash of Lightning from the North"

IN EARLY TIMES warfare was total, constrained only by limits of weapons technology, transport, and communication. No distinction was made between combatants and civilians. Defeated enemies might be sacrificed to gods or enslaved, women raped and/or forced into marriage. Captured cities were looted and destroyed. Territory was taken by right of conquest. Scorched-earth policies where countryside and dwellings were razed were common, for example, in the long Peloponnesian Wars between Athens and Sparta in the late fifth century B.C.E.

However, as societies developed, they began to think about regulating the conduct of war. Several verses from chapter 20 of the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy show the beginning of such thinking:

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it ... If it makes thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies ...

When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege.

The next chapter of Deuteronomy stipulates that a victor may take a "beautiful" captive woman if he has "a desire unto her" but thereafter "if you have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."

In the sixth century B. C. E. , in chapter 2 of his classic book on the art of war, Sun Tzu advises that captive warriors must be kindly treated and kept but suggests that the taking of booty should be permitted to maintain the morale of troops. In the first century B. C. E. the Roman orator, lawyer, and politician Cicero praised the conduct of wars that was "mild and marked with no unnecessary cruelty" while again allowing the destruction or seizure of enemy property.

In time, Christian thinkers began to discuss the justification for and conduct of wars at least when they were between Christians. Both Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C. E.) and Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 C. E.) considered what constituted a "just" war. Saint Augustine thought that war was a crime if fought "with a malicious intent to destroy, a desire to dominate, with fierce hatred and furious vengeance." Conversely, it became a moral duty if fought "in a just cause" to turn wrong into right. Saint Thomas Aquinas believed war could be justified provided three conditions were satisfied: that there was a just cause, that it was begun on proper authority, and that it was waged with the right intention for "the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil" -- conditions sufficiently general to leave considerable room for debate.

In the Islamic tradition the first caliph, Abu Bakr, suggested "rules for guidance on the battlefield" including: "Do not commit treachery ... Do not mutilate dead bodies ... Do not kill women or children or an aged infirm person ... Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees ... Do not slaughter [your enemy's] sheep or camels except for food ... Do not destroy an inhabited place." This guidance amplified the Koran itself which requires that in combat Muslims only strike back in self-defense against those who strike against them and, once the enemy ceases to attack, Muslims also should stop fighting.

Over centuries in Europe a system of uncoded customs and traditions concerning war evolved covering matters such as the status of treaties and ambassadors, and arrangements for the safe conduct of the latter together with heralds and other envoys. However, they did little to mitigate the horrors of warfare for the individual soldier or civilian. These reached a peak in the Thirty Years War starting in 1618 between the Catholics of the Holy Roman Empire and their neighboring Protestant states, with other countries such as Sweden and France also intervening. Armies routinely lived off the land, killing, raping, and looting, even digging up graveyards for the jewels buried with the dead. After the capture of Magdeburg, a center of Lutheranism, by the Catholic general Count Tilly, the city was destroyed and some twenty-five thousand of its thirty thousand inhabitants killed, the majority of the survivors being women who had been taken to the enemy camp to be raped. Even when order was restored the few surviving males were forced to buy back their womenfolk and ransom themselves. Those unable to do so had to march with their captors as forced laborers.

Writing during this period the Dutch jurist and diplomat Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) published a series of works that make him usually considered "the father of international law." One of his early works, De Mare Liberum, dealt with the freedom of the seas, suggesting they were open to all to conduct their trade -- a proposition adopted by the Dutch but opposed by other thinkers and indeed nations, such as the British, who argued that the sea could be annexed by a state just as land could be. Disputes about free trade and freedom of the seas led to two Anglo-Dutch wars in the mid-seventeenth century after the English forbade any goods from entering their country except on an English ship. States reached a compromise in the early eighteenth century that the extent of the sea to which a nation could lay claim was the distance that a cannon shot could travel to protect it, which in turn evolved into the three-mile territorial limit. Nevertheless, the freedom of the seas and the ability of belligerents and others to impose restrictions on it remained a subject of controversy through the Napoleonic Wars and into the First World War, being among other things a prime cause of the Anglo-American War of 1812 and a source of tension between the Union side and Britain in the American Civil War.

Grotius's major work was, however, De jure belli ac pads (About the law of war and peace) published in 1625, and prompted Grotius said by his belief "that there is a common law among nations which is valid alike for war and in war ... Throughout the Christian world I observed a lack of restraint in relation to war ... I observed that men rush to war for slight causes, or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken up there is no longer any respect for law divine or human; it is as if in accordance with a general decree, frenzy had openly been let loose by the committing of all crimes." His work was in three volumes; the first two looked at the justification for war, the third at its conduct. Grotius quoted a comment from Cicero that "people are apt to call lawful what they can 00 with impunity" and then argued that what they should think about is not the rigor of the law but what is "becoming to one's character." He maintained that humanity and morality are as crucial to the declaration and conduct of war as to any other sphere of life and he recognized three "just causes" for war -- self-defense, reparation of injury, and punishment -- and argued that once war has begun all parties should act humanely and are bound to do so whether or not their cause is just.

Over the next two centuries debates continued about the legitimacy of the causes and conduct of war, interacting toward the end of that period with the concept of the "civilized" nation as opposed to the barbarian one, which had developed in discussions about the United States Constitution as well as in Europe. (The earliest use of the word "civilization" in its modern sense dates from the late 1750s.) By the mid-nineteenth century a fairly general consensus had emerged about the justification for wars between civilized nations. Much more latitude was at least tacitly given to the treatment of "barbarian" states and individuals.

Few would have dissented from the definition of a just war quoted by an Englishman, Henry Lushington, in opposing his country's first (and disastrous) intervention in Afghanistan in 1838-42:

The received code of international morality is not even in the nineteenth century very strict. One principle, however, seems to be admitted in the theory, if not the practice of civilized men, that an aggressive war -- a war undertaken against unoffending parties with a view to our own benefit only -- is unjust, and conversely that a war to be just must partake the character of a defensive war. It may be defensive in various ways ... either preventing an injury which it is attempted to inflict, or of exacting reparation for one inflicted, and taking the necessary security against its future infliction but in one way or other defensive it must be.

Another major step in the codification of laws about war followed what was intended to be a business trip by thirty-one-year-old Henry Dunant, a chubby banker from Geneva, to visit Emperor Napoleon III of France. At the time Napoleon was leading his army with that of his Piedmontese allies against the forces of Austro-Hungary commanded by their emperor Franz Ferdinand. On June 24, 1859, the two armies clashed at Solferino on the north Italian plains in the last major battle in Europe fought under the direct and personal command of reigning monarchs. The French and their allies were the victors but more than thirty-five thousand men from both sides lay dead or wounded when Dunant arrived that evening. At sunrise the next day, Dunant went to the battlefield and was appalled: "Corpses were strewn over roads, ditches, ravines, thickets and fields; the approaches to Solferino were literally thick with dead ... The wounded ... were ghostly pale ... The most badly hurt had a stupefied look ... Others were shaken by spasmodic trembling ... Some had gaping wounds already beginning to show infection [and] begged to be put out of their misery ... Many were disfigured, limbs stiffened, their bodies blotched with ghastly spots, their hands clawing at the ground." (The French had four veterinary surgeons for every one thousand horses but only one doctor for every one thousand men.) Dunant put aside all thoughts of business and began organizing help for the wounded, irrespective of nationality, with the assistance of some local people and four English tourists, a Parisian journalist, a French count, an ex-naval officer, and a chocolate manufacturer called Philippe Suchard.

On his return to Geneva Dunant wrote A Memory of Solferino and paid for the book's publication. In it he proposed societies of volunteers to help the wounded of all sides in war and "some international principles, conventional and sacred, which once agreed and ratified would form the basis for these national societies to help the wounded." His book was widely praised throughout Europe and beyond. Subsequently Dunant and four other prominent citizens of Geneva established an international committee for the relief of the wounded. The committee oversaw the establishment of kindred national organizations and then persuaded the Swiss government to sponsor an international governmental conference to draw up a convention on the treatment of the wounded.

The conference met in Geneva's town hall in August 1864. Within a fortnight the members had agreed to a convention requiring the care of all wounded irrespective of nationality, and neutrality for medical staff, hospitals, and ambulances. To ensure that humanitarian helpers and facilities were recognized, the delegates agreed on the use of a red cross on a white background (the Swiss flag's symbol with its colors reversed) to distinguish them. Quickly thereafter the national and international organizations became known as the Red Cross.

Although Britain and the United States were among the sixteen states represented at the conference, they were not among the first to sign up to the new convention. Florence Nightingale, who had done so much to improve the treatment of the wounded during Britain's war in the Crimea a few years previously, wrote that it would be "quite harmless for our government to sign ... It amounts to nothing more than a declaration that humanity to the wounded is a good thing. It is like an opera chorus. And if the principal European characters sing,

We never will he cruel more,
I am sure, if England likes to sing too,
I never will he cruel more,
I see no objection.

But it is like vows. People who keep a vow would do the thing without the vow. And if people will not do it without the vow they will not do it with."

Britain signed the convention in 1865. Clara Barton, who had performed a similar role to Florence Nightingale and emerged with equal heroine status from the Union side in the American Civil War, was an avid supporter and her advocacy was a major factor leading to the United States' ratification of the convention though not until March 1882. It is symptomatic either of the slow speed and extent of communication or the chauvinism of the inhabitants of Geneva and quite probably both that in their deliberations the five founding members of the International Committee claimed not to have known the details of either Nightingale's or Barton's work. They professed themselves similarly unaware of the "Sanitary Commission" that on the Union side in the U.S. Civil War had much improved the care of the wounded, establishing convalescent homes and a corps of stretcher bearers as well as regular inspection of hospitals.

The Union side also issued guidance to troops on the conduct of warfare, developed by Francis Lieber, a German-born university professor who had emigrated to the United States after being wounded at the Battle of Waterloo. He concluded that the destruction of people and property was acceptable if essential to victory; however, cruelty to prisoners of war, torture, use of poison, and wanton destruction as well as "any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult" were not. "Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings responsible to one another, and to God."

The Civil War established another milestone in the law of war by the conviction and execution of Captain Henry Wirz, the Confederate commandant of the Andersonville, Georgia, prisoner of war camp who was judged responsible for the death of Union soldiers in the camp "in violation of the laws and customs of war." The court set a precedent for future such trials by refusing to accept the validity of the defendant's plea that he was only following orders.

When in June 1866 Austro-Hungary and Prussia went to war, Louis Appia, one of the original five founding members of the International Committee wore the first Red Cross armband in Schleswig. By that time Henry Dunant had left the organization he had done so much to establish. He was never astute in commercial matters and probably distracted by the demands of his humanitarian work on his time and attention. In autumn 1865 one of his businesses -- a bank called Credit Genevois -- went into liquidation with large debts, and the bankruptcy court declared that Dunant had "knowingly swindled" shareholders. Dunant resigned from the Red Cross and departed Geneva forever, pursued by the malice of his creditors and more surprisingly by that of another of the five founding members, Gustave Moynier. Now the president of the organization, he had long felt animosity to Dunant, partly at least due to jealousy of his charisma and celebrity. Moynier did his best to rewrite the history of the Red Cross, expunging Dunant's name and contribution wherever he could and warning any who would listen against further involvement with him.

After the agreement of a humanitarian approach to those involved in war when it broke out, as the nineteenth century drew toward its close, public attention began to turn toward preventing wars or at the very least regulating the methods used in their conduct to comply with the concept of what civilized values permitted. Peace unions sprang up in industrialized countries and international peace congresses were held where individuals and groups such as the Quakers urged alternatives to war such as the use of arbitration to resolve disputes between nations. As early as 1874 a nongovernmental conference of experts held in Brussels produced a draft code of laws on war and in 18g4 the campaigning British journalist William Thomas ("W. T") Stead proposed that the great powers should jointly pledge not to increase their military budgets until the end of the century.

Nevertheless, what the French newspaper Le Temps called "a flash of lightning from the north" shocked governments on August 24, 1898, when entirely unexpectedly at his weekly meeting with foreign ambassadors in Saint Petersburg, the Russian foreign secretary Count Mikhail Muraviev handed to them a call on behalf of Czar Nicholas II for the convening of an international conference to consider "the grave problem" of the development of "military forces to proportions hitherto unknown." His note stated:

The intellectual and physical strength of the nations, labour and capital are for the major part diverted from their natural application and unproductively consumed. Hundreds of millions are devoted to acquiring terrible engines of destruction, which though today regarded as the last word of science, are destined tomorrow to lose all value in consequence of some fresh discovery in this field. National culture, economic progress and the production of wealth are either paralysed or checked in their development. Moreover, in proportion as the armaments of each power increase, so do they less and less fulfil the object which the government has set before themselves.

Many were surprised that such an initiative should come from autocratic, backward Russia. Some welcomed it as "an omen for the coming new century" or, as an American journalist wrote, possibly "the most momentous and beneficent movement in modern history -- in all history." W. T. Stead brought out a new weekly, War Against War, launched an international peace crusade, and toured European capitals urging support for the proposal. Most, however, looked cynically for the motive, agreeing with Britain's Prince of Wales that it was "some new dodge of that sly dog M[uraviev] who put it into the Tsar's head." The ailing Russian economy could not in their view finance the latest weapons and therefore Russia had decided on the initiative.

Germany, only united since 1871 following its victory over France in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War in which it had seized from its defeated enemy the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, had none of Russia's economic worries but great political and imperial ambitions. The thirty-nine-year-old mercurial, sometimes vacillating, sometimes impulsively unreasoning Kaiser Wilhelm II, among whose titles was that of "Supreme War Lord," was stunned that Nicholas had "put a brilliant weapon into the hands of our democrats and opposition. Imagine a monarch dissolving his regiments and handing over his towns to anarchists and democracy." He compared the invitation to the conference to a Spartan proposal during the Peloponnesian War that Athens agree not to rebuild its city walls and asked, "what will Krupp pay his workers with?" (Friedrich Alfred Krupp's company was then Europe's biggest business and at the forefront of artillery development.) Inclined as often to see issues between nations as personal ones between their rulers, Wilhelm alleged Nicholas was trying to steal the limelight from his own planned visit to Jerusalem. As a confidant of the kaiser put it, "he [Wilhelm] simply cannot stand someone else coming to the front of the stage."

However, with vibrant peace unions in many countries and with no desire to appear enemies of peace, all invited nations felt compelled to accept the czar's invitation even if many privately sympathized with the kaiser when he said, "I'll go along with the conference comedy but I'll keep my dagger at my side during the waltz."

CHAPTER TWO: "Humanising War"

ONE HUNDRED AND eight delegates from twenty-six countries assembled in May 1899 in a red brick Dutch royal chateau -- "the House in the Woods" -- just outside The Hague, which as the capital of the Netherlands, a neutral country, the nations had chosen as the venue. Thus began the city's association with the laws of war, just as the conference in Geneva began that city's association with the Red Cross. The head of the American delegation, Andrew White, was not alone in thinking that no similar group had ever met "in a spirit of more hopeless scepticism as to any good result."

The agenda had two main components -- how to avoid war by the use of arbitration and the limitation of armaments, and how war should be conducted if it did break out. Each delegation had strict guidance from its government on how best to protect its interests. The British, for example, were told prohibiting or restricting innovations in weaponry would "favour the interests of savage nations and be against those of the more highly civilised."

Members of the press, soon to be considerably annoyed by being excluded from the formal sessions of the conference, and what would now be called "lobbyists" of all sorts thronged The Hague. The head of the German delegation, Count Munster, complained to his foreign minister, "The conference has brought here the political riffraff of the entire world, journalists of the worst type, baptised Jews like Bloch and female peace fanatics." In Munster's mind journalists "of the worst type" would have included W. T. Stead who was in The Hague to chronicle the conference and to campaign for his views. Ivan Bloch was a Russian railway magnate who believed that any future wars would be "suicide" and who was author of a newly published peace-promoting treatise in six volumes. Said to have influenced the czar, it prophesied the stalemate of trench warfare leading to a prolonged conflict whose intolerable human and economic costs would exhaust the belligerents or plunge them into social revolution. On the eve of the conference an international women's movement had organized demonstrations for peace in many of the countries involved and some of its members were in The Hague. Among the foremost female peace campaigners was the Czech Bertha von Suttner who considered peace "a condition that the progress of civilisation will bring about by necessity." The hotel in which she stayed for the conference flew a white flag in honor of her and her views.

Even mild-mannered Andrew White complained that "the queer letters and crankish proposals which come in every day are amazing ... The Quakers are out in full force ... The number of people with plans, schemes, notions, nostrums, whimsies of all sorts who press upon us and try to take our time, is enormous and when this is added to the pest of interviewers and photographers, life becomes serious indeed." To his regret the pressure of work imposed by the conference required that "for the first time in my life I have made Sunday a day of work."

White and the head of the British delegation, Sir Julian Pauncefote, both had members of their teams who were difficult to control and whose views were often at variance with their governmental instructions. Both the chief mavericks represented their country's navy. The Briton was fifty-eight- year-old Admiral Jacky Fisher, destined to play an important part in the events of spring 1915. From relatively humble beginnings -- his father was a failed coffee planter -- he had made a spectacular rise through the navy for which he advocated less bureaucracy, less ship painting, and far fewer time-wasting drills and in their place far more training, far better gunnery, heavier armaments, a broader officer-recruitment base, and a new emphasis on torpedoes and defenses against them.

Both charismatic and tactless, Fisher made friends and enemies equally quickly. He stood out at The Hague not only for his opinions but also for his white top hat and tireless skills on the dance floor. His language was colorful and exaggerated. The existence of politicians had "deepened his faith in Providence. How else could one explain Britain's continued existence as a nation?" His bold scrawl, usually in green ink, was full of exclamation marks, and double and triple underlinings, and he frequently admonished his addressee to burn his letters after reading to protect his confidences. He signed letters "Yours till hell freezes" and "Yours till charcoal sprouts."

At every opportunity Fisher derided the objective of humanizing war as naive:

The humanising of war? You might as well talk about humanising Hell! The essence of war is violence! Moderation in war is imbecility! ... I am not for war, I am for peace. That is why I am for a supreme Navy. The supremacy of the British Navy is the best security for the peace of the world ... If you rub it in both at home and abroad that you are ready for instant war ... and intend to be first in and hit your enemy in the belly and kick him when he is down and boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any) ... and torture his women and children, then people will keep clear of you.

He believed all nations wanted peace "but a peace that suits them." An enemy's realization of the horrors of war coupled with conviction about Britain's readiness to fight were the best deterrents of all. It was his duty, Fisher said, to see that his country, and in particular its navy, were prepared.

He was similarly dismissive of the delegates' debate about the freedom of the seas and the lights of "neutral shipping":

Suppose that war breaks out, am I am expecting to fight a new Trafalgar on the morrow. Some neutral colliers try to steam past us into the enemy's waters. If the enemy gets their coal into his bunkers, it may make all the difference in the coming fight. You tell me I must not seize these colliers. I tell you that nothing that you, or any power on earth, can say will stop me from sending them to the bottom, if I can in no other way keep their coal out of the enemy's hands; for to-morrow I am to fight the battle which will save or wreck the Empire. If I win it, I shall be far too big a man to be effected by protests about the neutral colliers; if I lose it, I shall go down with my ship ... and then protests will effect me still less.

Fisher was seconded in such opinions by another fifty-eight-year-old, the American naval delegate Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, already a renowned naval strategist. An admirer of Admiral Horatio Nelson, he had propounded in his 1890 book The Influence of Sea Power Upon History and subsequent works that "control of the sea, by maritime commerce and naval supremacy means predominant influence in the world ... [and] is the chief among the merely material elements in the power and prosperity of nations."

Andrew White in his summary of the conference observed that Mahan "prevented any lapses into sentimentality ... When he speaks the millennium fades and this stern severe actual world appears." Mahan reiterated that "the object of war was to smite the enemy incessantly and remorselessly and crush him by depriving him of the use of the sea," strangling the enemy into submission by cutting off his trade, including the neutral's right to trade with him. With such powerful opposing voices as Mahan and Fisher arguing against the conference's generally pacific purpose of introducing restrictions on warfare, the delegates thought it better to leave unaltered the by now time-honored body of custom and practice relating to war at sea known as the "Cruiser Rules," the origins of some parts of which dated back even beyond Grotius to the time of Henry VIII. Other parts, such as a ban on privateering, were more recent. [i] The consensus embodied in these "rules" prohibited enemy warships sinking on sight merchant vessels of whatever nationality. They had to be stopped and searched for "contraband" and only if contraband were found could they either be sunk -- after their crews had been given time to take to the boats -- or seized as prizes. To effect such searches warships were allowed to blockade their enemies' ports.

The delegates made no headway either on disarmament against broad and implacable opposition vociferously led by Germany, satisfying themselves with the platitudinous resolution "that the restriction of military budgets, which are at present a heavy burden on the world, is extremely desirable for the increase of the material and moral welfare of mankind." When the Russian delegation proposed that all states should agree "not to transform radically their guns nor to increase their calibres for a certain fixed period" the British objected that effective verification would be impossible since new armaments could easily be concealed. Captain Mahan opposed international control and verification in principle because they would breach national sovereignty.

During the long debates about arbitration Mahan stated his belief that "the great danger of undiscriminating advocacy of arbitration, which threatens even the cause it seeks to maintain, is that it may lead men to tamper with equity, soothing their conscience with the belief that war is so entirely wrong that beside it no other tolerated evil is wrong." Despite such objections, although no state would commit itself to put every dispute in which it became involved to arbitration, none wanted to be seen as warmongering. Consequently, the conference in its resolutions encouraged the use of arbitration and established at The Hague a permanent Court of Arbitration ready and willing to consider all cases submitted to it by those involved. Even the kaiser, who considered arbitration "a hoax" that a state could use to gain time to build up its forces to improve its position before war eventually began, felt forced to agree to the arbitration provision. However, in doing so he wrote in the margin of one of the relevant documents, "I consented to all this nonsense only in order that the Tsar should not lose face before Europe, in practice however I shall rely on God and my sharp sword! And I shit on all their decisions."

-- A Higher Form of Killing: Six Weeks in World War I That Forever Changed the Nature of Warfare, by Diana Preston

The comments come as tensions have been running high across the occupied Palestinian lands in recent months over Tel Aviv’s imposition of restrictions on Palestinian worshipers’ entry into the al-Aqsa Mosque compound in East al-Quds (Jerusalem) in August last year.

More than 160 Palestinians, including women and children, have been killed by Israeli forces since the beginning of last October.

The original source of this article is Press TV
Site Admin
Posts: 21449
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Israeli Rabbi Calls for Execution Of All Palestinians

Postby admin » Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:01 am

Part 1 of 2

The Talmudic Roots of Jewish Supremacism (Excerpt)
by Dr. David Duke
OCTOBER 4, 2013



“When I first read extensive sections of the Talmud, even with the Jewish published translations in front of me, I did not want to believe they were authentic.

I approached another Jewish acquaintance, Mark Cohen, and gave him a page of these quotations. He seemed equally upset by them. By the look on his face, I knew instantly that he was completely unfamiliar (and unsympathetic) with this Talmudic writ. He offered to ask his rabbi about their authenticity. The rabbi confirmed that the quotations were genuine but claimed that those views were not currently held by most Jews of today.

I willingly believed this, and I still believe it is true of the average Jew. At the same time, however, knowing that such passages existed helped me to understand why there has been so much anti-Jewish sentiment over the centuries.”

Powerful and enigmatic, intelligent and creative, idealistic on the one hand and materialistic on the other, the Jewish people have always fascinated me. Few teenagers growing up in the middle 1960s, as I did, could have avoided acquiring a positive image of Israel and the Jewish people. Because of my years of Sunday school, my perception of the Jews was even more idealized than most. I was 11 years old when I saw the classic movie, Exodus.80 It made such an enduring impression on me that for a few months its beautiful theme song became my favorite, one that I would often hum or sing.

I remember an episode of embarrassment when my sister and her teenage friends stumbled upon me loudly singing the stirring words, “This land is mine, God gave this land to me.” Heroic Israel inspired me. It was as if the Israelites of the Bible had transported themselves to modern times to live out their Old Testament adventures again. The televised image of Israel strongly reinforced my acceptance of the idea that Gentile intolerance had caused every historical conflict with Jews.

After I had discovered the extensive Jewish leadership of early Communism, which I had hoped was an uncharacteristic blight on Jewish history, I began to ask questions one dared not ask in polite society about this interesting people and religion. I had read about the many persecutions of the Jews throughout history, including their great suffering now called the Holocaust (in the mid-60s that term had not yet been appropriated by the Jews to apply exclusively to their sufferings during the Second World War — holocaust merely means, as it always has, large scale destruction, especially by fire).

Mark Twain wrote, “Every nation hates each other, but they all hate the Jew.” Somehow I found the impertinence to ask why. In a historical context, almost every major nation of Europe had expelled them in the past, some repeatedly, after renewed waves of Jewish immigration. What was it, I wondered, about the Jewish people, that inspired such hatred?

Normally, when we study historical conflicts between nations or peoples, we do it dispassionately. For instance, in examining any war from long ago, we list as objectively as possible, the grievances and rationales of the opposing sides. When studying the War for Southern Independence, every American school child learns the Southern arguments for secession and the Northern arguments for forced union. In contrast, when studying the many historical disputes between the Jewish people and others, only the Jewish point of view is acceptable.

In early 1995, Congressman Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, fired his newly appointed congressional librarian, Christina Jeffrey.81

He fired her for having once suggested that history students, when studying the Holocaust, should also study the German point of view on the subject. She was fired in spite of her high standing in her profession and notwithstanding her long and cozy relations with the powerful Jewish ADL (Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith). The very suggestion that there could be another side to any issue affecting Jews is decried as “anti-Semitic.” In both the entertainment and news media, the only permissible opinion is that Jews are always innocent victims persecuted by intolerant Christians and other “anti-Semites.” Maybe they were always innocent, and all the other peoples of the world were always unjust, I thought. But they weren’t so innocent in the Russian Revolution. I realized I could not evaluate the issue fairly until I had read about both sides.

Are Jews a Race?…They Certainly Think So!

One of the first things I discovered that is that while Gentiles who call the Jews a “race” are condemned, Jewish leaders have for centuries routinely called themselves a race. The leader of American Jewry in the 1930s, Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, said it succinctly in this dramatic statement,

“Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.”82

Right up to the present day, there are many statements illustrating how Jewish leaders matter-of-factly view themselves not just as a religion, but as an identifiable race, genetically distinguishable from other peoples.

The former Israeli Prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking to Jewish group in southern California said:

“If Israel had not come into existence after World War II then I am certain the Jewish race wouldn’t have survived…I stand before you and say you must strengthen your commitment to Israel.”83

An editorial entitled “Some Other Race” in the New York weekly Forward (A very prestigious Jewish publication) urges Jews to list themselves on the U.S. Government census form as arace. It goes on to suggest: “… On question eight [of the form, which asks about race], you might consider doing what more than one member of our redaktzia [editorial staff] has done: checking the box ‘some other race’ and writing in the word ‘Jew’.”84

Charles Bronfman, a main sponsor of the $210 million “Birthright Israel,” an organization specifically committed to preventing inter-marriage between Jews and Gentiles, expressed the need to preserve the Jewish genetic character as expressed in the Jewish DNA. Bronfman is brother of Edgar Bronfman, Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress. He said,

“…you’re losing a lot — losing the kind of feeling you have when you know [that] throughout the world there are people who somehow or other have the same kind of DNA that you have.”85

Imagine for a moment if President George Bush would speak to a group of White college students and tell them how great it is for them know that others in the world share their White DNA, and that they should not lose it by intermarrying with other races. Bush could live to 100 years old and still never live down a remark like that!

During his campaign for President in 2000, Bush spoke before dozens of Jewish organizations and Synagogues that oppose inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews. The media only had praise for those appearances. In contrast, Bush faced universal criticism by the Jewish media by simply speaking at a conservative Christian university (Bob Jones University) that quietly opposes racial intermarriage. After the media unleashed a storm of criticism, Bush had to quickly apologize and then passionately condemn Bob Jones University for its position. Of course, within a few days, Bush was again speaking before many Jewish groups that stridently oppose intermarriage, yet no one in the media dared object to these appearances, or to even point out this blatant double standard.

Judaism Views the Bible as Racial Supremacism

Looking for answers to the Jewish view on race, I returned to where I had first learned my respect for the Jews: in the Holy Bible. I went back and reread the Old Testament, paying close attention to the relationships between Jews and non-Jews. In contrast to the universalism of the New Testament, the Old Testament is extremely ethnocentric. It repeatedly identifies the Israelites as a “special people,” or a “Chosen People,” and it painstakingly traces the genealogical descent of the Children of Israel. Many thought-provoking passages forbid the intermarriage of Jews and other tribes. In the book of Exodus, Moses responds to Israelites who had sexual relations with Moabite women by ordering that the Moabites be executed. In Ezra, God commanded those who married non-Israelites to cast off their wives and even the children of such unions.86 Some of the bloodiest writings I have ever read detailed the Jewish people’s annihilation of their tribal enemies.

The massacres of Canaanites, Jacobites, Philistines, Egyptians, and dozens of other peoples are gruesomely recorded in the Bible. In today’s terminology, we describe the slaughter of entire peoples as genocide. Old Testament Jews spared neither men, women, children or even the animals and pets of their enemies.87 The following are just a few among dozens of similar passages found in the Old Testament:

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword . . . (Joshua 6:21)88

Then Horam, king of Gezer, came to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and all his people, until he had left him none remaining.

And they took Eglon, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein. (Joshua 10:32-34)89

And they took Hebron, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and the souls that were therein; he left none remaining. (Joshua 10:37)90

For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and His fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, He hath delivered them to the slaughter.
Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcasses, and the mountains shall be melted in their blood. (Isaiah 34:2-3)91

But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, (Deuteronomy 20:16)92

As a Christian, I could not explain what appeared to be celebrations of genocide. I acknowledged that God is unfathomable and unknowable. However, I could not help but have sympathy for those who where massacred, including thousands of innocent men, women and children. It is easy to imagine how the few who survived those bloody, merciless massacres felt about the “Jews.” Of course, the Jews were not unique in their pursuit of ethnic cleansing; many other early peoples had committed genocide on their enemies.

With the coming of Jesus Christ and his advocacy of love and kindness as recorded in the New Testament, the Old Testament advocacy and record of genocide is little recollected by modern churches. When a modern Christian stumbles across passages of the Old Testament condoning genocide, he usually dismisses them as the sad happenings of a remote biblical era, one now mitigated with the New Covenant of love that Christ brings to those who accept his message.

The Israelite record on racial integrity and supremacy is quite clear:

Neither shall thou make marriages with them; their daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (Deuteronomy 7:2-3)93

. . . For thou art a holy people unto the Lord Thy God: the Lord Thy God has chosen thee to a special people unto himself, above all people that are on the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)94

Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever, that ye may be strong and eat of the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. (Ezra 9:12)95

Members of racial groups might argue about their comparative history, or abilities, or spirituality. But to suggest that God favors one people over all others — even to the point of advocating and condoning genocide to make way for the “Chosen”? Certainly, that must be the apex of racial supremacy.

Modern Christianity deals with the ethnocentric and genocidal parts of the Old Testament by focusing on the loving aspects of the New Testament. One example is the way that Jesus Christ reversed Old Testament law such as “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” to “turn the other cheek.” The Jewish religion, however, had no comparable figure in its history to moderate the extreme ethnocentrism of the Old Testament. Perhaps the Jewish teacher who offered the greatest moderation toward Gentiles was Maimonides, considered by most Jews as the foremost figure of European Judaism. Even Maimonides decreed that Jewish physicians should not save the life of a Christian unless not saving him would “cause the spread of hostility against the Jews.”96

The early spread of Christianity by the Apostle Paul encouraged Christians to become more tolerant of different ethnic groups. Paul himself was a Jewish Pharisee who converted to Christianity and preached much of his life to Gentiles of diverse nationalities. The Christian faith had intolerance for other beliefs and other Gods, but no bias against other tribes. Evangelists of the ancient world themselves came from assorted peoples and preached across the known world. Of course, Christians could and often did harbor xenophobic tendencies, but their nationalistic or ethnocentric attitudes found their origins in their own cultures, not in the teachings of the New Testament. The book of Galatians makes the point quite well that the chosen people, “neither Jew or Greek,” are now those who accept the salvation of Jesus Christ.97Salvation in the ancient world became based upon acceptance of faith, not simply on blood.

The Jewish religion had an evolution quite different from that of early Christianity. The Jewish people and their religion were entwined. Belief in God was necessary to preserve the tribe as much as preserving the tribe was important to safeguarding the religion. However, according to the Zionist State of Israel, race is far more important than religious belief. A prospective immigrant does not have to practice or believe in Judaism to immigrate to Israel; in fact he can be an outspoken atheist and Communist. He must only prove Jewish descent. Protection of the ethnic identity of the Jewish people became the main reason for Judaism’s existence.

In the Middle East (and later throughout the world) the Jews mingled with many peoples, and yet they preserved their heritage and their essential customs. They are the only ethnic minority in Western nations that has not assimilated after thousands of years. In Babylon, they lived under slavery and then under domination for hundreds of years and developed a code that enabled them not only to survive, but to prosper while living as a minority in an alien society. When they emerged from their Babylonian sojourn, they were stronger, more organized, and more ethnocentric than ever before.

The Talmud: A Jewish-Supremacist Doctrine

In rejecting Jesus Christ and the love and tolerance he preached, Judaism proceeded on its path of chauvinism. It culminated in the pages of the Talmud, an encyclopedic exposition of Jewish law and custom, compiled by hundreds of rabbis over the centuries. The American Heritage Dictionary describes it as “constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism.” The Talmud was first transcribed in Babylonian times, and the oral tradition is many centuries older. By the Sixth Century AD it was written down, becoming the most important religious work of the Jewish people and the chief canon of their religion. In it they finally codified their most chauvinistic tendencies.

Herman Wouk, the very popular Jewish writer,98 describes the influence of the Talmud as follows:

The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs, or ceremonies we observe — whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists — we follow the Talmud. It is our common law.99

As a 16-year-old, during one of my visits to the Citizens Council offices, I had found a book called The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling.100 It interested me because the large format of the book contained complete photocopied pages from parts of the Talmud officially compiled by Jewish scholars. I remember skipping Dilling’s commentary and going right to the translations. One of the first passages I read really surprised me. It said,

A heathen [Gentile] who pries into the Torah [and other Jewish Scriptures] is condemned to death, for it is written, it is our inheritance, not theirs. (Sanhedrin 59a)101

If a 16-year-old boy reads something forbidden like that, he is certain to read on. The passage was completely alien to everything I had always understood about religion. Why would they not want all men to read their holy words the same way Christians want to “spread the good news?” Just what is in these scriptures that would oblige the Jews to kill a Gentile that read them? Why would public knowledge of Jewish scriptures be dangerous to Jews? I went to the library and found some old translations of parts of the Talmud. It was not long before I came across other, even more amazing passages such as:

Balaam [Jesus] is raised from the dead and being punished in boiling hot semen. Those who mock the words of the Jewish sages and sin against Israel are boiled in hot excrement. (57a Gittin)102

When I asked my Jewish friend’s rabbi about the passage, he told me that Balaam was not Jesus. He sounded very convincing, but that very evening, I looked up Balaam in the Jewish Encyclopedia and was shocked to read that Balaam was a pseudonym for Jesus. Because Christian scholars periodically obtained copies of the Talmud, Talmudic scribes hoped to deceive them by using the name Balaam to denote Jesus.

In The Jewish Encyclopedia, under the heading “Balaam,” it says,

“…the pseudonym ‘Balaam’ given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a.”103

The Jewish Encyclopedia under the heading “Balaam,” it says,

“…the pseudonym ‘Balaam’ given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a.”

The Talmud repeatedly uses obscure words to denote Gentiles with an assortment of names such as Egyptian, heathen, Cuthean, and idolater. In the most popular English-language translation of the Talmud, called the Soncino edition, the practice is illustrated by the fifth footnote of the book of Sanhedrin. It reads,

“Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the original goy…”104

Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word “Min” or “Minim.”105 The footnotes of the Soncino edition of the Talmud as well as passages in the Jewish Encyclopedia blatantly mention this intentional artifice.

The Encyclopedia Judaica also notes that,

In rabbinical literature the distinction between gentile (goy, akkum) and Christian (Nazeri) has frequently been obscured by textual alterations necessitated by the vigilance of censors. Thus ‘Egyptian, ‘Amalekite,’ ‘Zadokite (Sadducee),’ and ‘Kuti’ (Samaritan) often stands in place of the original Nazeri, as well as goy, akkum, etc. Probably when Resh Lakish stated that a gentile (akkum, etc. in existing texts) who observed the Sabbath [Saturday rites] is punishable by death (Sanhedrin, 58b), he had in mind Christians … Numerous anti-Christian polemic passages only make real sense after Nazeri has been restored in place of the spurious Kuti or Zadokite.”106

In other passages in the Talmud I discovered a possible reason why some of the Talmud’s writers had forbidden Gentiles to read it. The Talmud’s words are vitriolic:

• Only Jews are human. [Gentiles] are animals. (Baba Mezia 114a-114b.)107
• For murder, whether of a Cuthean [Gentile] by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty. (Sanhedrin 57a)108
• Even the best of the [Gentiles] should be killed. ( Babylonian Talmud)109
• If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there. (Moed Kattan 17a.)110
• Gentiles’ flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses.111
• If a heathen [Gentile] hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hit-ting a Jew is hitting God. (Sanhedrin 58b.)112
• If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no li-ability; but if an ox of a Canaanite [Gentile] gores an ox of an Israelite…the payment is to be in full. (Baba Kamma 37b.)113
• If a Jew finds an object lost by a heathen [Gentile] it does not have to be returned. (Baba Mezia 24a; Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b.)114
• God will not spare a Jew who ‘marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean [Gentile]… (Sanhedrin 76a.)115
• What a Jew obtains by theft from a Cuthean [Gentile] he may keep. (Sanhedrin 57a.)116
• [Gentiles] are outside the protection of the law and God has ‘exposed their money to Israel.’ (Baba Kamma 37b.)117
• Jews may use lies (‘subterfuges’) to circumvent a [Gentile]. (Baba Kamma 113a.)118
• All [Gentile] children are animals. (Yebamoth 98a.)119
• [Gentiles] prefer sex with cows. (Abodah Zarah 22a-22b.)120
• The vessels of [Gentiles], do they not impart a worsened flavor to the food cooked in them? (Abodah Zarah 67b.)121

It astonished me to read such unmitigated hatred from the chief writings of the Jewish religion. It was obvious that these quotations were all authentic, because the copies I read were published by Jewish organizations. I could not find any rational explanation for such writings being in the Jewish sacred books. In fact, it became clear to me that most Americans do not even know that such writings even exist.

These quotes were hard for me to believe, as they will be for many readers. However, if anyone doubts their authenticity, an easy way to verify the Talmud’s extreme hatred against Gentiles is by reading the Jewish Encyclopedia. In the article “Gentiles,” it makes very clear the Talmud’s hatred toward non-Jews. Under the subtitle “Discrimination against Gentiles,” on pages 617-621, it clearly shows the Talmud’s attitude toward non-Jews. Here are some excerpts:

. . .they held that only Israelites are men, . . . Gentiles they classed not as men but as barbarians. (B.M. 108b). . . Another reason for discrimination was the vile and vicious character of the Gentiles. . . . “whose flesh is like the flesh of asses and issue is like the issue of horses . . .” The Gentiles were so strongly suspected of unnatural crimes that it was necessary to prohibit the stabling of a cow in their stalls (Ab. Zarah ii.

1). . .”The Torah outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast.. . . ” The almighty offered the Torah to the Gentiles nations also, but since they refused to accept it, He withdrew his shining legal protection from them, and transferred their property rights to Israel. . . the presumption is that the Gentile obtained possession by seizure. . . The property is considered public property, like the unclaimed land of the Desert. 122

The 1907 edition of the Funk & Wagnall’s Jewish Encyclopedia mentions a quotation of Rabbi Simon Ben Yohai (a giant of Talmudic literature) that is “often quoted by anti-Semites.” The quotation reads:

“Tob shebe-goyim harog” — “The best of the Goyim is to be killed.”

It says that the rabbi’s utterance results from persecution, describing this anti-Gentile statement as a reaction of a rabbi “whose life experiences may furnish an explanation for his animosity.” Yet the passage continues revealingly, “In the connection in which it stands, the import of this observation is similar to that of the two others:

‘The most pious woman is addicted to sorcery’; ‘The best of snakes ought to have its head crushed.’ ”123

The Talmudic quotations I reproduce here are by no means taken out of context. It is true that the Talmud is comprised of many writings and has many “commentaries” throughout. It also sometimes actually has disputes on certain issues. However, there is no mistaking the decidedly anti-Gentile tone that dominates it throughout. The exhortation that “the best of Gentiles should be killed,” for instance, is located in at least three different sections.

Imagine the reaction if a prominent Christian pronounced that “the best of the Jews should be killed.” Would not such a statement be forcefully condemned? Imagine the media opprobrium that would be heaped on the offending words and its author. Perversely, if one exposes the intolerance in the Talmud, he is the only one likely to face accusations of religious prejudice and intolerance.

When I first sought to read the Talmud, I noticed a strange thing. I had a hard time finding a copy. It is not sold in bookstores, and most libraries don’t have copies. Admittedly, the Talmud is a few times the size of the Bible, but certainly, in mass quantities, the Talmud could be printed for a nominal cost, much like the Bible is, on thin paper and in inexpensively bound volumes. As the most holy writ of one of the world’s major religions, there must be significant human interest in it. Why then must one usually go to a synagogue or pay hundreds of dollars for an original Soncino edition? One must ask why it is not readily available for the public to read. The answer is probably found in the fact that the Jewish organizations that oversee the distribution rights to such writings don’t want them widely read. When one reads the Talmudic books, one can understand their reasoning.

As an idealistic teenager, I was totally unprepared for this dark side of a faith that I had always respected. My impression had been that the Jewish faith had no animosity toward Jesus Christ. I was always told that they had much respect for Him as a prophet or at least as a great teacher but simply did not accept Him as the Messiah. It disturbed me to have come across violently obscene descriptions of the Savior and of Christians in the Talmud. Among other things, Christ is described as a charlatan, a seducer and an evil-doer. It accuses Christ of having sexual intercourse with his donkey124 and it describes the Virgin Mary as a whore.125

When I first read extensive sections of the Talmud, even with the Jewish published translations in front of me, I did not want to believe they were authentic. I approached another Jewish acquaintance, Mark Cohen, and gave him a page of these quotations. He seemed equally upset by them. By the look on his face, I knew instantly that he was completely unfamiliar (and unsympathetic) with this Talmudic writ. He offered to ask his rabbi about their authenticity. The rabbi confirmed that the quotations were genuine but claimed that those views were not currently held by most Jews of today.

I willingly believed this, and I still believe it is true of the average Jew. At the same time, however, knowing that such passages existed helped me to understand why there has been so much anti-Jewish sentiment over the centuries. It also offered insight into the anti-Gentile animus that dominated Judaism. It should be noted that all rabbis study the Talmud. How would Jews react if Christian preachers studied Mein Kampf as part of their holy writ, but excused it by saying that the book has no effect on their current attitudes?

It may sound shocking to the uninformed, but any open-minded reader who reads both Mein Kampf and the Talmud would find the Talmud to be the more wrathful of the two, for despite Hitler’s vitriolic language against the Jews, few of his statements approach the hatred reflected by Talmudic quotes such as “The best of the Gentiles should be killed. In Mein Kampf Hitler asks the question of whether or not Jews are “Germans,” whereas the Talmud states that Gentiles are not even human beings but animals.

I looked up Anti-Semitism in the major encyclopedias. All of them attempted to explain historical Anti-Semitism purely as Christian intolerance toward Jews. Sometimes, they even suggested that Christians persecuted Jews simply because the Gospels blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Christ. They never even suggested that one of the sources of Anti-Semitism could have been the hateful and ethnocentric attitudes of the Jews themselves as expressed toward Gentiles in their own religious laws.

Even during the life of Jesus Christ, the forces of organized Jewry opposed the kindhearted teacher who spoke of the power of love and reconciliation, rather than of the militant anti-Roman measures hoped for by the Pharisees. The New Testament records faithfully the intense Jewish terror used to suppress the early Christian faith. In one of the Gospels’ most chilling verses it is written:

Howbeit that no man spake openly of him [Christ] for fear of the Jews.” (John 8:13)126

From the early centuries of Christianity, some Gentile scholars became fluent in Hebrew. They developed bitterness toward Jews based on the contents of the Talmudic writings. Down through the intervening centuries, dozens of popes issued edicts and encyclicals condemning Judaism. They expressed outrage, not because the Jews crucified Christ, but because of the Talmud’s vicious anti-Gentile and anti-Christian passages. Here is short selection of some Popes’ views about the Jews:

Gregory IX. Condemned the Talmud as containing “every kind of vileness and blasphemy against Christian doctrine.”

Benedict XIII. His Bull on the Jews (1450) declared, “The heresies, vanities and errors of the Talmud prevent the Jews from knowing the truth.”

Innocent IV. Burned the Talmud in 1233 as a book of evil.

John XXII. Banned the Talmud in 1322

Julius III. Papal Bull Contra Hebreos retinentes Libros (1554) ordered the Talmud burnt “everywhere.”

Paul IV. Bull Cum Nimis Absurdum (1555) powerfully condemned Jewish usury and anti-Christian activities.

Pius IV. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings.

Pius V. Expelled all Jews from papal states. (1569)

Gregory XIII. Said in a Papal Bull of 1581, “Moved by an intense hatred of the members of Christ, they continue to plan horrible crimes against the Christian religion with daily increasing audacity.”

Clement VIII. Condemned Jewish genocidal writings.

Not only did the founders of the Catholic Church take this dim view of the Jews, I was amazed to find that the great reformer and founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, shared the same passionate opposition toward them.

As a teenager, I had a great admiration for Martin Luther, and I was keen to find out what the founder of Protestant Christianity had to say about Jews. A mail-order catalogue of books on the Jewish question at the Citizens Council office listed a translation of a book by Martin Luther with the abrasive title The Jews and Their Lies.127
Site Admin
Posts: 21449
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Israeli Rabbi Calls for Execution Of All Palestinians

Postby admin » Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:02 am

Part 2 of 2

The great Martin Luther was a biblical scholar who read Hebrew. He had thoroughly researched the books of the Talmud in their original language, and he had reacted to them with revulsion. Going on to read compilations of Luther’s sermons and writings, I was astonished at his passionate anti-Jewish tone:

They have been taught so much deadly hatred against the Gentiles by their parents and Rabbis since their earliest youth and continue to feed their hate during all the years of their lives, and this hatred has saturated their very blood and flesh, fills the very marrow of their bones and has become inseparable from their whole being. (Weimar 53, pgs. 482-483)

Their Talmud and their Rabbis teach them that a murder shall not be regarded as a sin whenever a Jew kills a Gentile, but only if a Jew murders a brother in Israel. Neither is it a sin to break an oath sworn to a Gentile. . .The Jews of our days still keep to these doctrines and follow the example of their fathers, taking every opportunity to practice their deliberately false inte

Maybe mild-hearted and gentle Christians will believe I am too rigorous and drastic against the poor, afflicted Jews, believing that I ridicule them and treat them with such sarcasm. By my word, I am far too weak to be able to ridicule such a Satanic breed. (W. 32, pg. 286)

You should know that the Jews blaspheme and violate the name of our Savior day for day…they are our public enemies and incessantly blaspheme our Lord Jesus Christ, they call our Blessed Virgin Mary a harlot and her Holy Son a bastard and to us they give the epithet of Changelings and abortions. If they could kill us all they would gladly do so, in fact, many murder Christians. . . (Luther’s last sermon, a few days before his death in February 1546) (Erlanger 62, pg. 189)

There were many tribes, nationalities and conflicting religious sects that migrated to the great cities of the Roman Empire. Yet, of all these groups, only the Jewish tribe has elicited such relentless hostility throughout the centuries. Only the Jewish tribe never assimilated into the Roman population. Could their own Talmudic practices and their disdain for non-Jews have had something to do with the enmity they generated? It seemed logical to me that these things contributed to anti-Jewish sentiments in the West.

The Contrast of Christian and Jewish Holy Days

The contrasting holidays of Christianity and Judaism illustrate the dichotomy between the two religions. Christmas and Easter celebrate universal themes offering hope and salvation for all mankind. Christmas officially commemorates the birth of the Savior and celebrates the desire for “peace on Earth and goodwill toward men.” Easter, a more somber occasion, represents the promise of universal salvation through the Resurrection of Christ. While Christians celebrate universal goodwill on their holy days, Jews celebrate historic military victories against their despised Gentile enemies.

Near the time of Christmas, the Jews celebrate Hanukkah, a celebration of their military victory in 165 BC over their hated enemy, the Greek-descended King Antiochus IV of Syria. The victory finds its remembrance by the miracle of the long-burning oil lamps in their recaptured temple. As Christians enter the Lenten Season and prepare for the celebrations of Christ’s offer of salvation, the Jews celebrate Passover, a holiday that is, again, based on an ancient conflict between Jew and Gentile. Passover is an unambiguous reference to the night when the spirit of death harmlessly “passed over” Jewish homes and descended into the homes of their hated Egyptian enemies, killing every firstborn male from newborn to elderly in all of Egypt. It may shock one to realize it, but this is a joyous celebration of mass infanticide and murder of the strong among the non-Jews.

Another important Jewish holiday is the Feast of Lots, called Purim. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language describes it as follows:

Purim A Jewish festival marked chiefly by the reading of the book of Esther and eating of hamantaschen, that is celebrated on the 14th day of Adar in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews in Persia from destruction by Haman.128

The festival celebrates the Jewish massacre of thousands of Persians along with their Prime Minister Haman and his 10 sons. It even includes the symbolic eating of the supposed anti-Semite’s ears (Haman’s ears — hamantaschen) in the form of three-sided cookies. Another of the favored Purim foods is Kreplach, which are dough pockets again shaped in a triangle to denote Haman’s ears, but these snacks are filled with chopped meat, symbolizing the beaten flesh of Haman. Another Purim celebration has Jews beating willow branches in the synagogues as they imagine themselves flogging Haman. The following description of these practices comes from a Jewish culture organization called Jewish Art in Context, but is found in numerous books about Jewish culture and religious holy days. The second description is from a Jewish cooking guide called “Bon Appetit.”

c. Special Delicacies

1. “Haman Taschen” (Oznei Haman = Haman’s Ears).

2. “Kreplach”: chopped meat covered with dough, also triangular in shape. The name has received a popular etymology: “Kreplach are eaten only on days on which there is both hitting and eating: Yom Kippur eve — the custom of Kaparot, Hoshanna Rabba — the beating the willow branches, Purim — the (symbolical) beating of Haman.”129

The reason Kreplach are eaten on Purim is interesting (if a bit of a stretch). Kreplach is also traditional for Yom Kippur … and for Hoshannah Rabah (the seventh day of Sukkot).

On these days it was traditional for there to be some sort of beating. On Yom Kippur in ancient times, men would be flogged before Yom Kippur and we beat the willow branches on Hoshannah Rabah.

On Purim, we beat out the name of Haman. So Kreplach became traditional for Purim. (Phillip Goldwasser from “Bon Appetit”)130

Upon learning these things, I realized that if any group other than Jews had similar ceremonies; Jews would label them hateful and barbaric. Imagine if White Christians were to yearly observe a ritual in which they made and ate cookies shaped to represent the ears of Martin Luther King and held a holy ceremony in which they symbolically whipped him! Purim has been celebrated annually since long before the time of Christ and has certainly been important in the fomenting of hatred and suspicion of Gentiles in the hearts and minds of Jewish children. This repulsive ceremony is analogous to Christian churches teaching our children to symbolically beat the Jewish Pharisees who condemned Jesus and then eating foods symbolizing the pulverized body parts of the Jewish priests. Of course, such activities would be completely antithetical to the spirit of Christianity, yet such revengeful attitudes form the very core of Jewish tradition.

Zionism as Racism

After 2,000 years of conflict, the Jewish prayer “Next Year in Jerusalem” finally became expressed in an open political movement called Zionism. In 1862, Moses Hess, teacher of Karl Marx and the spiritual father of both Zionism and Communism, wrote Rome and Jerusalem. In it, he expressed the familiar Talmudic values.

We Jews shall always remain strangers among the Goyim [Gentiles]. . . . It is a fact the Jewish religion is above all Jewish nationalism. . . . Each and every Jew, whether or not he wishes it, is automatically, by virtue of his birth, bound in solidarity with his entire nation. . . . One must be a Jew first and human being second.131

If Adolf Hitler had ever said the words “One must be a German first and a human being second,” would not those words be repeated often as proof of his depravity? For some compelling reason, no one dares to condemn such words when they come from the important Jewish leader who laid the foundations of both Zionism and Communism.

I began to survey Zionist literature, from the writings of Moses Hess to the present day, and repeatedly I encountered the same supremacism expressed in the Talmud.

A prominent Zionist historian, Simon Dubnow, wrote the Foundation of National Judaism in 1906. In it, he expressed sentiments that would certainly be described as anti-Semitic had they come from a Gentile.

Assimilation is common treason against the banner and ideals of the Jewish people. . . . But one can never ‘become’ a member of a natural group, such as a family, a tribe, or a nation…A Jew, on the other hand, even if he happened to be born in France and still lives there, in spite of all this, he remains a member of the Jewish nation, and whether he likes it or not, whether he is aware or unaware of it, he bears the seal of the historic evolution of the Jewish nation.132

In 1965, Moshe Menuhin, an Israeli who was born into an extremely prominent Hasidic family, dared to write an exposé of the Jewish hypocrisy. He wrote a fascinating book called The Decadence of Judaism.133 He was a graduate of a yeshiva in Jerusalem and was the father of the prominent Israeli musical performer Yehudi Menuhin.

Menuhin documents the influential modern Zionist writer Jakob Klatzkin addressing the world at large in his 1921 German-language book Krisis und Entscheidung (Crisis and Decision). Klatzkin writes:

We are not hyphenated Jews; we are Jews with no qualifications or reservations. We are simply aliens; we are a foreign people in your midst, and, we emphasize, we wish to stay that way. There is a wide gap between you and us, so wide that no bridge can be laid across. Your spirit is alien to us; your myths, legends, habits, customs, traditions and national heritage, your religious and national shrines [Christianity], your Sundays and holidays. . . they are all alien to us. The history of your triumphs and defeats, your war songs and battle hymns, your heroes and their mighty deeds, your national ambitions and aspirations, they are all alien to us. The boundaries of your lands cannot restrict our movements, and your border clashes are not of our concern. Far over and above the frontiers and boundaries of your land stand our Jewish unity. . . . Whosoever calls the foreign [Gentile] land a fatherland is a traitor to the Jewish people. . . . A loyal Jew can never be other than a Jewish patriot…. We recognize a national unity of Diaspora Jews, no matter in which country they may reside. Therefore, no boundaries can restrain us in pursuing our own Jewish Policy.134

Before the Second World War Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, urged German Jews to immigrate to Palestine, using the following blunt words:

Judaism can have nothing in common with Germanism. If we go by the standards of race, history, and culture, and the Germans do have the right to prevent the Jews from intruding on the affairs of their volk. . . The same demand I raise for the Jewish volk as against the German. . . . The Jews are divided into two categories, those who admit they belong to a race distinguished by a history thousands of years old, and those who don’t. The latter are open to the charge of dishonesty.135

Even Judge Louis Brandeis, the Zionist who sat on the American Supreme Court, said it succinctly: “Jews are a distinct nationality, whatever his country, his station, or his shade of belief, he is necessarily a member.”136

Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, expresses the true causes of what he calls the Jewish Question:

The Jewish Question exists wherever Jews are to be found in large numbers. Every nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly, anti-Semitic. . . Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed it is bound to increase because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed. . . . Its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards — that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.137

The Jews’ exclusivity, their resistance to assimilation, their alien traditions and customs, their often questionable economic practices, and their carefully nurtured hateful attitude toward other peoples and religions, – all these factors have contributed to a reaction from the Christian world that at times became extreme. With each persecution the Jews suffered, their own distrust and antipathy toward Gentiles became intensified in their own writings and in patterns of behavior that engendered still more persecution. A cycle of recrimination began that still continues as we embark on the early years of the 21st Century.

A whole generation of Jews is now growing up inundated with stories of Gentile perfidy. Not only are the Germans and Eastern Europeans blamed for the Holocaust, but now there are many Jewish-authored books arguing that all the Western nations share in the guilt, as well as President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Catholic Church, and, indeed, the entire Christian world.138

I discovered that to draw attention to the writings of the Talmud and to quote the very words used by modern Jewish leaders and writers, invites the charge of Anti-Semitism. It seemed to me that if repeating the words of Jewish leaders is Anti-Semitism, then there must be distasteful elements in the words themselves. Maybe one should consider the historical Jewish attitude toward Gentiles pertinent to assessing the causes of Anti-Semitism.

Bernard, a popular Jewish intellectual in France in the 19th Century, investigated his people’s role in age-old conflict with other peoples. In the widely circulated book L’Antisemitisme, he wrote:

If this hostility, this repugnance had been shown towards the Jews at one time or in one country only, it would be easy to account for the local causes of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred with all the nations amidst whom it ever settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belonged to diverse races . . . it must be that the general causes of Anti-Semitism have always resided in Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it.139

Some might argue that the anti-Gentile tone of the Talmud and the founding Zionists has little relevance to the Jews of today. The evidence, however, is that the core of Judaism, orthodoxy, is steadily becoming more, rather than less extreme against Gentiles than in previous generations. The Encyclopedia Judaica140 says as much in its articles on the subject.

Perhaps this development could have been predicted with the advent of modern film. Cinema and television wield an enormous influence on human emotions. Jewish producers create endless accounts of the persecutions of Jews, all the way from the Torah to the Holocaust. Thousands of well-crafted films, from The Ten Commandments141 to Schindler’s List,142 graphically remind Jews of Gentile perfidy, while softening Gentiles to Jewish causes. The incessantly repeated horrific stories of the Holocaust can only serve to heighten the suspicions of the average Jew toward Gentiles while underscoring the need for Jewish solidarity.

Modern Jewish Supremacism

As I read more and more of the historical accounts of Jewish ethnocentrism, I wondered how much of this applied to modern day Jews. I began to devour modern Jewish books and publications. I chose their most popular and respected newspapers, books, and magazines. Because I was now beginning to see a double standard, I began to look for corroborating evidence, and what I found fascinated me. In fact, finding it was easy, and it still is. Prominent Jews still proudly write and publish articles about their suspicion and condemnation of Gentiles. They boast of Jewish moral, spiritual and genetic superiority. Even admissions of control over key positions in media and government in Gentile nations are in their contemporary literature. Any reader of publications meant for Jewish consumption will find material no less anti-Gentile than the 1500-year-old Talmudic writ I quoted. It is seldom as brazen as the old material, but the underlying themes are inevitably present and sometimes even unvarnished hatred just spills out.

Many examples of what I am talking about can be found in the largest Jewish newspaper outside of Israel, The Jewish Press,143 which sets the tone of Jewish religious and cultural attitudes more than any other newspaper. One of its primary religious authorities is Rabbi Simcha Cohen, who has an instructional Dear Abby-type of column called “Halachic Questions.” Not long ago, Rabbi Cohen instructed his readers that the Talmud denotes Gentiles as “animals” (as outlined by Talmudic writings from Gemara Kiddushin 68a and Metzia 114b).144 In another section he discusses how a Jewish woman is not designated as a prostitute if she has premarital sex with a Jew, but she is a whore if she has any sexual relations with a Gentile, even if she is married.

Marriage to a Gentile can never be sanctified or condoned, such a liaison classifies the woman as a zona…common parlance interprets the term zona to refer to a prostitute….

Indeed, premarital sex of a Jewish woman to a Jewish man does not automatically brand the woman a zona…. A Jewish woman becomes a prostitute or zona in the eyes of the Talmud only when she marries or otherwise has sexual relations with a non-Jew.145

Another major Jewish publication, the Jewish Chronicle, in an article called “Some Carefully and Carelessly Chosen Words,“ revealed that the Jewish term for Gentile woman is the offensive Yiddish word shiksa — meaning “whore,” from the Hebrew root, sheigetz(“abomination”). It also pointed out that a little Gentile girl is called shikselke, meaning “little female abomination.”146 How would Jews react if Gentiles casually referred to Jewish women and little girls as “whores” and “little whores”?

Moreover, not only Christians but also non-Christians of all races are regarded as “supernal refuse” (garbage) by Talmud teachers such as the founder of Habad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Shneur Zalman. The Habad is a powerful movement within Hassidim. The New Republic magazine, which has a mostly Jewish staff, had some revealing admissions in a May, 1992 edition.

…there are some powerful ironies in Habad’s new messianic universalism, in its mission to the gentiles; and surely the most unpleasant of them concerns Habad’s otherwise undisguised and even racial contempt for the goyim.

As for the goyim…Zalman’s attitude (was): ‘Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.’

…Consequently, references to gentiles in Rabbi Shneur Zalman’s teachings are invariably invidious. Their (non-Jews) material abundance derives from supernal refuse. Indeed, they themselves derive from refuse, which is why they are more numerous than the Jews, as the pieces of chaff outnumber the kernels…All Jews were innately good, all gentiles innately evil.

…Moreover, this characterization of gentiles as being inherently evil, as being spiritually as well as biologically inferior to Jews, has not in any way been revised in later Habad writing. (The New Republic)147

It is true that all Jews do not have the extreme views of the Habad, who are an integral part of the Jewish Orthodox Religion. However, imagine if a movement existed within the Catholic or Methodist church claiming that Jews or Blacks are pieces of garbage who are “totally evil” and have “no redeeming qualities.” Would there not be a great outcry? The Jews have demanded that the Catholic Church take out of their liturgy anything the Jews deem as offensive, and the Catholics as well as other Christian denominations have done so. Yet, no one dares to insist that the Jewish faith should expunge references to Gentiles as “innately evil with inferior souls.”

As I began to look at these issues from a new perspective, I saw that Judaism is centered in the preservation of Jewish heritage and the advancement of Jewish interests.

In examining some of the encyclopedias and biographical reference works compiled by rabbinical authorities, I found prominent Jews listed who were self-proclaimed atheists and Communists — as mentioned in the last chapter. Leon Trotsky, one of the main atheist perpetrators of the Russian Revolution, and Herbert Aptheker, the “atheist” chief theoretician of the Communist Party USA, are proudly listed in Jewish directories such as Who’s Who in World Jewry148 and Who’s Who in American Jewry.149 These books are compiled by the leading rabbinical organizations of America.

The Jewish religion, as codified by the Talmud, is less concerned with an afterlife than with the survival and power of the Jewish people. Driven by the belief that Jews are the “Chosen People,” Judaism is held together by chronic recitals of past persecutions. In a world that renounces racism, Judaism is the only creed on Earth being praised for fostering genetic exclusion, elitism, ethnocentrism, and supremacism. Modern Israel is the only Western state that is openly theocratic, unashamedly proclaiming itself to be a nation whose purpose is to advance one religion and one unique people. Israel defines Judaism as the state religion, with little separation of church and state in its civil and religious laws. In spite of their religious state, most Jews in Israel identify themselves as “secular.” But, even the nonreligious Jews of Israel and America support the Orthodox-run state of Israel, and they support numerous organizations run by Orthodox Jews around the world, as a mechanism for preserving their cultural and racial heritage.

Most of us never see the reality of Jewish chauvinism and power because we have not organized the scattered facts into a coherent whole. Like a child’s connect-the-dot puzzle, most of us have not yet connected the dots and completed the picture. The media erase as many dots as they can from our awareness, and anyone who succeeds in connecting all the dots is bludgeoned back with the ultimate moral weapon: accusations of Anti-Semitism.

Given the Jewish influences that have so much power in this nation’s media and finance, it is amazing that any Gentiles would dare oppose them. One accused of being an anti-Semite faces an intractable enemy organized around the world — one that will do whatever it takes to discredit, intimidate, jail and destroy him.

After I completed a survey of readings in the Talmud and of the modern Zionist writers, I realized that the Europeans were not the only historical practitioners of racial and religious intolerance. Actually, the Jews have been quite proficient at it themselves. Once I accepted that Jewish ethnocentrism existed, again I asked the question that had arisen after my enlightenment on the “Russian Revolution:” Why were we forbidden to know this?

A Jew can rightly object to slanderous criticism from Christians. Why should I, as a Christian, not be upset by slanderous criticism of my heritage by Jews? If Christians are wrong to voice hateful sentiments against Jews, why are Jews not just as reprehensible for voicing hateful sentiments against Christians? Are the media right in suggesting that Christians have a monopoly on hate, while Jews have a monopoly on charity? Which religion, as judged by the evidence of its own writings, is more motivated by hatred?

Even as I write these provocative words, I harbor no hatred toward the Jewish people. There are intolerant Jews just as there are intolerant Gentiles. It is also true that there are many Jews who respect our Christian heritage. But unless the nonchauvinist Jews are willing to work hard to bring to their own faith and community the same kind of love and reconciliation that Christ taught, the cycle of hatred between Jew and Gentile could fester. Unless they temper their supremacism with acceptance and love, they could suffer a replay of the terrible excesses of the past.

The government, church, and media establishment work zealously to diminish Gentile intolerance of Jews. That objective can be realized only through an equal effort to lessen Jewish chauvinism, suspicion, and anger against Gentiles. As the Israeli human-rights activist Israel Shahak wrote, “Anti-Semitism and Jewish chauvinism can only be fought simultaneously.”

After reading the words of Zionism’s modern founder, Theodore Herzl, I fully realized that there are, as he expressed it, “alien” power brokers in our civilization. These are people who do not share our culture, our traditions, our faith, our interests, or our values. I realized that if I desired to preserve the heritage and values of my people, I would have to defend my people from the intolerant sector within the Jewish community that seeks domination rather than conciliation.

When I was 16, I never suspected that just by pointing out the powerful Jewish elements of anti-Gentilism I would be labeled anti-Semitic. I do not accept that label today, and I still believe that it is no more anti-Semitic to oppose Jewish Supremacism than it is anti-Italian to oppose the mafia.



80 Exodus (1960). dir. Otto Preminger United Artists.
81 Kurtzman, Daniel. (1995). Ousted House Historian Seeks Restitution and a Straight Record. Jewish Telegraphic Agency. October 31.
82 Wise (1938). Dr. Wise Urges Jews To Declare Selves As Such. New York
Herald Tribune. June 13. p.12.
83 (Daily Pilot, Newport Beach/ Costa Mesa, Feb. 28, 2000, front page)
84 in the March 17, 2000, issue 85 (“Project Reminds Young Jews of Heritage,” The Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2000, p. A19)
86 Bible. King James Version. Ezra chapter 9.
87 KJV Numbers 33:55
88 KJV Joshua 6:21
89 KJV Joshua 10:32-34
90 KJV Joshua 10:37
91 KJV Isaiah 34:2-3
92 RSV Deuteronomy 20:16
93 KJV Deuteronomy 7:2-3
94 KJV Deuteronomy 7:6
95 KJV Ezra 9:12
96 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. Laws On Murderers 2,4,11.
97 KJV Galatians 3:26-29
98 The Winds of War, War and Remembrance, and others.
99 New York Herald Tribune. (1959). Nov. 17.
100 Dilling, E. (1980). The Jewish Religion. Los Angeles: CDL Report (Renamed From The Plot Against Christianity)
101 Talmud, Sanhedrin. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.400.
102 Simon, M. Trans. (1936). 57a Gittin. London. Soncino Press. p.261
103 Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Balaam. p.469.
104 Talmud, Sanhedrin. (1935). Soncino Edition. 5th footnote on p. 388.
105 Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1905). Min. p.594.
106 Encyclopedia Judaica. (1978). Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem, Vol.7
107 Talmud. (1935). Soncino Edition.
108 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. p.388.
109 Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Gentile. New York. p.617.
110 Talmud. (1935). Baba Mezia. Soncino Edition. 114a-114b.
111 Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Gentile. New York. p.621.
112 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 58b. p.398.
113 Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.211.
114 Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.666.
115 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 76a. p.470.
116 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 57a. p.388.
117 Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. 37b.
118 Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.664-665.
119 Talmud, Yebamoth. (1936). Soncino Edition. 98a.
120 Talmud, Abodah Zarah. (1935). Soncino Edition. 22a-b.
121 Talmud, Abodah Zarah. (1935). Soncino Edition. 67b.
122 Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Gentile: Discrimination Against Gentiles. p.617-621.
123 Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Gentile. New York. p.617.
124 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 105a-b. p.717.
125 Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 105a-b. p.726.
126 RSV John 8:13T
127 Luther, M. L. (1962).The Jews And Their Lies. Chicago. Christian Press
Translated From The Erlangen And Weimar German Editions. (1483-1546). Works. 1883 D. Martin Luthers Werke; Kritische Gesammtausgabe. Weimar, H. Buhlau, (1883-1985).
128 Random House Websters Unabridged Electronic Dictionary. (1996). “Purim.”
129 Holiday Observances (1997). Jewish Art In Context.
130 Goldwasser, Phillip. (1998). Bon Appetit. Hosted by the Jewish Communication Network on the Internet.
131 Hess, Moses, (1958). 1812-1875. Rome And Jerusalem. Translated By Maurice J. Bloom. New York: Philosophical Library.
132 Dubnow, S. (1906). Foundation Of National Judaism. Translated From Die Grundlagen Des Nationaljudentums. S.M. Dubnow. Berlin : Judischer Verlag.
133 Menuhin, Moshe. (1965). The Decadence Of Judaism In Our Time. New York: Exposition Press.
134 Menuhin, Moshe. (1965). The Decadence Of Judaism In Our Time. 482-483.
135 Attack. (1976). Goldmann quoted in Zionism I: Theory. no.42. (Hillsboro. WV).
136 Brandeis, L. at a speech before the Menorah Society at Columbia University.
137 Herzl, T. (1967). The Jewish State: An Attempt At A Modern Solution Of The
138 Wyman, David S. (1985). The Abandonment Of The Jews: America And The Holocaust, 1941-1945. Pantheon.
139 Lazare, Bernard. (1967). Antisemitism: Its History And Causes; Translated From The French. London, Britons Publishing Co.
140 Encyclopaedia Judaica. (1994). Decennial Book, 1983-1992 Events Of 1982-1992 Jerusalem : Encyclopaedia Judaica.
141 De Mille, C. B. (1956). The Ten Commandments. Hollywood. Paramount.
142 Spielberg, S. (1993). Schindler’s List. Hollywood. Universal.
143 Jewish Press. Brooklyn, NY.
144 The Jewish Press. (1988). Feb. 19. 10A.
145 The Jewish Press. (1988). Feb. 19. 8C.
146 Bermant, C. (1991). Some Carefully And Carelessly Chosen Words, Jewish Chronicle. May 17.
147 New Republic. (1992). May.
148 Who’s Who In World Jewry. (1965). New York : Pitman Pub. Corp.
149 Who’s Who In American Jewry. (1927-).
Site Admin
Posts: 21449
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests