Off Topic: Turning a Blind Eye to Palestinian Bloodlust
Turning a Blind Eye to Palestinian Bloodlust, Front Page Magazine, Joseph Klein, April 22, 2014
(Abbas et al lie and President Obama et al believe them. Might pleasing lies be more consistent with the ideologies of both groups than unpleasant reality? — DM)
President Obama has described Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas as “somebody who has consistently renounced violence.” Just the opposite was on full display once again last week.
There can be no genuine two state solution as long as Palestinian lies and incitement to violence continue.
President Obama has described Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas as “somebody who has consistently renounced violence.” Just the opposite was on full display once again last week. An Israeli father was killed and his pregnant wife and child were injured in a Palestinian terrorist shooting attack, as the family members were on their way to a Passover Seder on April 14th. At first, Abbas was silent, as were President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. Then, after reports surfaced that Abbas had belatedly condemned the attack, his office went out of its way to deny the reports, although the Palestinian minister of religious affairs did manage to say that the killing was “painful.” For Obama’s ears no doubt, the minister added the lie that Palestinians “condemn the death of every human being” and believe that “killing and violence is completely unacceptable,” ignoring praise for the shooting by Hamas’s leader Ismail Haniyeh and the incitement to violence by the Palestinian Authority itself.
Israel took a major chance for peace when it released from prison hardened terrorists with blood on their hands. Israel did so in order to jump start direct peace negotiations with the Palestinians under terms worked out by Kerry. What did Abbas do upon their release? He lit a torch to welcome them home and held celebrations to honor them as heroes. For example, on October 30, 2013, Abbas congratulated 21 terrorists from the West Bank after their release from prison and heralded them on official Palestinian Authority TV as “our heroic brothers.” In December 2013, following a Palestinian Authority-sponsored children’s play in which the children acted out the killing of Israelis and a Palestinian “spy,” Palestinian Authority Minister of Culture Anwar Abu Aisha invited real-life terrorists released by Israel onto the stage and awarded them plaques of honor.
Not surprisingly, these murderers have shown no remorse. One of them, for example, said: “Through the great PA TV, I say to the Israelis: There is no Palestinian who did something for the homeland and his nation who will regret it. We don’t regret what we did and we will not regret what we did.”
No wonder, Israel is reluctant to release yet another batch of murderers. They too would be honored as Palestinian heroes. So much for the lie of the Palestinian minister of religious affairs that Palestinians believe that “killing and violence is completely unacceptable.” They are not unacceptable to Palestinians if the targets are Jews, even children. After all, it was PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein who said on Palestinian TV on January 9, 2012 that “Palestine in its entirety is a revolution… continuing today, and until the End of Days. The reliable Hadith… says: ‘The Hour [of Resurrection] will not come until you fight the Jews. The Jew will hide behind stones or trees. Then the stones or trees will call: ‘Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’”
Apparently, the released terrorists have been serving as role models for conducting more terrorist attacks against Jews. Such attacks – including by explosive devices, small arms fire and Molotov cocktails – increased steadily from 76 attacks in July when Israel published the list of the first 30 prisoners to be released ( they were released in August) to 160 attacks in November 2013. A bomb exploded on a bus near Tel Aviv in December 2013, which fortunately had been spotted on time, avoiding mass casualties. The pre-Passover shooting is part of the pattern, possibly even a prelude to a Third Intifada.
Palestinian Authority controlled television, radio stations and newspapers as well as Internet outlets serve to incite such violence by virtue of their steady stream of hate speech directed at Israel and Jews.
President Obama falsely described Abbas as someone not only committed to renouncing violence but one who “has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side, in peace and security; a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people and a state that allows for Israelis to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors.” This is also a lie.
Abbas refuses to give up the notion that millions of descendants of the original Palestinian refugees have a “right of return” to pre-1967 Israel, while he demands – with Obama’s support – that Israel must itself surrender virtually all land it obtained after defending itself in the 1967 Six Day War. Symbolizing his Palestinian Authority’s true agenda as uttered out of the mouths of babes, an official PA TV children’s show broadcast last December children singing “Oh flying bird,” including these lyrics: “By Allah, oh traveling [bird], I burn with envy. My country Palestine is beautiful. Turn to Safed, and then to Tiberias, and send regards to the sea of Acre and Haifa.”
Abbas gave more flight to the “flying bird” when he declared to Palestinians this January: “You want to return? You will return… I just wanted to remark on this point, that the right of return is a personal right. Even a father cannot forgo his children’s right.”
Of course, there is no “personal right” of descendants several generations removed from the original refugees – many of whom left their homes in Israel voluntarily – to move into pre-1967 Israel unless Israel consents on a case by case basis. According to the original definition by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), Palestinian refugees were “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period June 1, 1946 to May 15, 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” Under pressure from Arab states and their allies, and as a result of the UN bureaucracy’s own desire to turn a temporary relief agency into a permanent institution, the definition of “refugee” was perversely converted into an inheritance handed down from generation to generation until the Palestinians reach their real goal – the extinguishment of the Jewish state.
There can be no genuine two state solution as long as Palestinian lies and incitement to violence continue. Perhaps Caroline Glick’s One-State Israeli Solution is the only workable solution after all.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
April 22, 2014 at 5:15 PM
Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.
April 22, 2014 at 5:24 PM
“The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.
Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese–and no one says a word about refugees.
But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.
Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.”
― Eric Hoffer 1953
April 25, 2014 at 4:57 PM
“THE JEWS ARE A PECULIAR PEOPLE:”
THREE YEAR OLD BRIDES
When Jesus of Nazareth accused the Pharisees of His day of being Satan’s spiritual children, He fully realized what they were capable of. Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia — permitting molestation [raping] of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” (1) Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah”, or binding Jewish law. (2) Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.
References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.
THE PHARISEES ENDORSED CHILD SEX
The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hairsplitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.
Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” (3)
In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia: “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” (4)
OUT OF BABYLON
It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it. [Ashkenazik Shinar (‘sin’) was a stone throw away from Sodom and Gomorrah – Any questions?]
As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married [raped] a three year old girl.
But with expulsion of the Jews [‘Edomites, Pharisees, Ashkenazim, Khazars, Sephardim’] in the 11th century AD, mostly to western Christian lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.
Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.
SEX WITH A “MINOR” PERMITTED
What exactly did these sages say?
The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man” Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22) One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes, “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” (5) Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. (6)
A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised: “…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” (7) The Talmud also says, “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” (8) Clearly, the Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.
SEX AT THREE YEARS & ONE DAY
In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape. [these were the ‘precursors’ of Hillary, Pelosi, Kagan, Napolitano, Ginsburg, Boxer, Albright, Abzug, Goldman, Livni, ad nauseam]
R. Joseph said: “Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his.” (Sanh. 55b)
“A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation …” (Yeb. 57b)
A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanh. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yeb. 60b)
It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them.” (Yeb. 60b)
[The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] “… fit for cohabitation … But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation.” (Footnote to Yeb. 60b)
The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”
The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” (9) But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.
The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage. “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”
NO RIGHTS FOR CHILD VICTIMS
The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age. “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest any more.” (10)
The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for, “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” (11)
In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.
Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.
PEDOPHILIA WIDESPREAD
Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism . This is illustrated from Yeb. 60b:
“There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.”
The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai, “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” (12)
These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yeb. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”
In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” (13) This passage says: “… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”
The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.
A FASCINATION WITH SEX
Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.
The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honored by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known [!!!]. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.
Today, the Talmud’s outspoken pedophiles and child-rape advocates would doubtlessly spend hard time in prison for child molestation. Yet here is what the eminent Jewish scholar, Dagobert Runes (who is fully aware of all these passages), says about such “dirty old men” and their perverted teachings:
“There is no truth whatever in Christian and other strictures against the Pharisees, who represented the finest traditions of their people and of human morals.” (14)
AREN’T THE WORDS OF JESUS MORE APPROPRIATE?
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” (Matthew 23:27, 28.)
Endnotes:
1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
3 Sanhedrin 76a.
4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
5 Sanhedrin 69b.
6 Sanhedrin 55a.
7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
8 Sanhedrin 55b.
9 Sanhedrin 55a.
10 Kethuboth 11a.
11 Kethuboth 11b.
12 Yebamoth 60b.
13 Sanhedrin 76b.
14 Dagobert Runes, A Concise Dictionary of Judaism, New York, 1959.
April 25, 2014 at 4:58 PM
ONE EVIL JEW: BILLY WILDER
Screenwriter and director, Billy Wilder, has had an enormous impact on the public, as substantiated by his numerous Oscars and other film awards. Responsible for famous films like Hold Back the Dawn, Five Graves to Cairo, Double Indemnity, The Lost Weekend, Sunset Boulevard, Stalag 17, Sabrina and The Apartment, Wilder’s cinema successes were granted him as he was just another pawn who was utilized with satanic acumen to help abolish society’s established code of ethics. His own authorized biographer who worked closely with him, Maurice Zolotow, wrote:
“Of course, I did not know what I was getting into when I had started this. It became, as all such journeys have become, a journey to find out the secret springs of this most devious and perverse of Hollywood’s personalities.”
Wilder loved to transport the viewer into the depravity of his own heart and did this by tricking the censors who sought to enforce the old Hollywood Production Code of Hollywood’s “Golden Age.” Wilder recalls, “We had to operate cunningly to outwit the censors and this made us write more subtly.” What subtleties did he scatter throughout his films? Perversion. In his movie, The Major and the Minor, Wilder admits that the motif was child sexuality, stating:
“Ray Milland falls in love with Ginger as a twelve year old child. We had here the first American movie about pedophilia. The Major is sexually aroused by her. He can’t help himself. I was worried that audiences would be shocked by this story, but it seems that they were not.”
This goes to show that if a story is entertaining and “cute,” it can bypass the normal reaction to such filth and translate into apathetic disregard on the slippery slope of corruption. Where did this movie minister of perversion receive his material? Wilder was given his creative material by another supernatural force. In addition to stating that he is “demonically possessed and slightly crazed,” Zolotow reports of Wilder:
“He could not stop his creative machinery from functioning. He was enslaved by his art…One sometimes felt as if one were moved by powerful invisible forces. I forgot to tell you that Wilder never starts a new screenplay without typing two words on the first page: Cum Deo (‘With God’). He has a pantheistic feeling about the universe.”
Demon possession leads many from the truths of God to the pantheistic lies of the New Age movement because Satan uses those who will serve him most faithfully in preparing humanity to embrace him as the god of this world. Wilder’s responses upon completion of his show make it readily apparent which god he aligned himself with. Scientologist screenwriter of the Sound of Music, Ernest Lehman, recalls:
“He looked at the heavens and screeched F— you!” It was…a victory cry, as if he were calling out to God and saying, ‘I completed this picture despite everything you did to make me surrender.'”
Dr. Lycurgus Starkey rightly announced on the NBC network: “His movies have overturned all the sexual mores, glorified promiscuity, glamorized prostitution and elevated adultery to a virtue.” Dr. Starkey was prophetically right in predicting the social effect and outcome of Wilder’s films that we currently face in our day. The atheist author of communism, Karl Marx, explains the reasons why this is so:
“The ideas of the ruling class are, in every age, the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the dominant material force in society is at the same time its dominant intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production.”
The gross immorality in Hollywood that makes its way on the screen and thus influences the masses reflects the lives of those who operate within it. An intimate friend of the late Steve McQueen related:
“He’d kill for a part in a movie…he’d suck anyone’s [expletive]…he’d get f—– or f— anyone who’d get him a part in a show…then he’d wish-he’d pray- that person would have a heart attack or a stroke and die, and then there would be no way for anyone to know how McQueen had got the part.”
This disgusting ambition is what keeps the infamous casting couch warm and desirous hopeful actors willing. Hollywood insider, Phyllis Diller, clarifies this fact:
“The casting couch is the name of the game in Hollywood. I know there are stars, especially women, who have made a career from sexual favors.”
Would you invite a person whom you knew to be ethically bankrupt and an absolute moral degenerate into your home to influentially instruct your wife, your husband, and your children or loved ones? These are the very ones that America invites into their home every night via the television to submissively share their lives with.
Biblically condemned spiritual conundrums regularly occur in Hollywood. Faye Dunaway said that the ghost of Joan Crawford is haunting her. Actress Jean Seberg believed that her “devils” kept her from ever being free. She stated:
“The devils will stop that sort of stuff in a second. They ride right here. (Touching her collar bone with her fingers) Sitting here and here. There’s one on each side…these are both unfriendly influences. They tell me to run my car into other cars, or drive off a cliff.”
A friend later reflected on her life and pin pointed the cause as the “acting classes at Columbia Studios…[which] had the power to influence Jean’s devils.” Like countless others in the Hollywood movie star system, this lead to psychiatric hospitals and suicide. Actor Sal Mineo was in regular contact with psychics and spoke of the “vibrations” of James Dean’s spirit that haunted him, stating, “I’ve got to get him off my back because I don’t want to join him down there.” Mineo was murdered under mysterious circumstances. Is fame worth the extorted fees that Satan demands of his servants of the silver screen?
As Alan Alda declared:
“There’s plenty of money to be had…But you also lose your soul.”
April 25, 2014 at 5:01 PM
THE ORIGINAL TERRORIST’S MANUAL
BOOK OF JOSHUA, A JEWISH TERRORIST MANUAL
The Book of Joshua describes little more than a genocidal campaign against the unsuspecting inhabitants of Canaan. The Canaanites never attacked the Israelites, never enslaved the Israelites, and aren’t described as ever having done anything to warrant mistreatment of any sort. Their only crime was living in the wrong place at the wrong time — land promised to the Israelites by God at the time when God decided to make good on that promise.
JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS: COMMIT GENOCIDE
It’s impossible to know the moral or mental disposition of the Israelites and in fact the text doesn’t really delve into their psychology at all; the length and breadth of their roles consists of obeying or disobeying Yahweh. It is thus to Yahweh that we turn to understand the genocidal actions of the Israelites. Through much of the relevant text only Yahweh is presented as being truly active and, as one might expect, all of the impetus for genocide indeed comes from Yahweh.
Already in Exodus, Yahweh promises that the Canaanites would “melt away” and that he would drive away the Canaanites when the Israelites arrive. By Deuteronomy, Yahweh says:
And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
(Deuteronomy 7:2-3)
Similar instructions appear in subsequent texts and they are clear that not only are the Israelites to make total war on the inhabitants, but they are also prohibited from entering into any sort of peace treaty with any group. There is to be no mercy for anyone, only death.
The Israelites got some practice in this by making war against the Midianites:
And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. …And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. …
And Moses said unto them…Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
(Numbers 31:7-18)
So were the young virgin girls lucky that they weren’t slaughtered like the rest of their people, or were they unlucky that they were essentially taken as sex slaves to be used to satiate the lusts of the soldiers who slaughtered their fathers, mothers, brothers, and older sisters?
The Book of Joshua makes it clear that the Israelites get to the murderous work of genocide and become quite efficient at it:
And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded. …every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe. As the Lord commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses.
(Joshua 11:12-15)
Raphael Lemkin argues in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe that one of the distinguishing features of genocide is not simply mass killing, which happens frequently in war, but the goal-oriented mass killing that is designed to destroy or culture or society with the purpose of replacing it entirely. This is definitely what we see happening in Joshua: the Israelites kill all the people in order to destroy their culture then move in to take over their fields, vineyards, cities, and lands.
YAHWEH IS A BULLY
To be fair to the Israelites, it should be noted that they may have been operating from more than a little fear. Given their experience of what Yahweh did to their enemies, did they really want to become Yahweh’s enemies too? Probably not — and Yahweh certainly made threats about what would happen if they Israelites didn’t do as they were told:
But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them. (Numbers 33:55-56)
This is of course not the only threat issued to the Israelites, but it is the one which most closely associates Yahweh’s actions against the Canaanites with possible action against them: if they don’t follow orders to commit genocide, Yahweh might decide to cause a bit of genocide against them instead.
This doesn’t entirely let the Israelites of the hook for their actions, but insofar as their guilt is mitigated at all, it’s magnified many times over for Yahweh. Not only did Yahweh order genocide to be committed and not only did he actively assist to ensure that genocide was committed, but he threatened his thugs that if they didn’t blindly obey their murderous orders then he’d do the same to them later on.
And even that’s not the worst…
MAKING GENOCIDE EASY
Committing genocide against the indigenous people of Canaan was made easier by the fact that they were willing to fight for their ancestral homes. It’s easier to slaughter people who are trying to kill you, even if you’re the one who started the fight. Had the Canaanites tried to welcome the newcomers and pursue peaceful treaties, genocide might have been harder. Even the most fanatical religious zealot has a harder time slaughtering unarmed, peaceful people.
Apparently Yahweh thought of this and took steps to ensure that nothing like this would interfere with his plans:
There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses. (Joshua 11:19-20)
So Yahweh “hardened” the hearts of the Canaanites to guarantee that they would “come against Israel in battle.” Had he not done that, some of the Canaanites might have chosen a more peaceful solution and the Israelites might have been tempted to befriend them. Instead, they slaughtered everyone.
Where else have we seen this? Not long before, Yahweh did the same thing with the pharaoh in Egypt: every time the pharaoh was about to let the Israelites god, Yahweh hardened his heart to ensure that he would say “no” and keep them a while longer as slaves. This guaranteed that Yahweh would get to kill all the firstborn sons of all the Egyptians as a show of psychopathic power.
This is thus a persistent pattern for Yahweh: order one group of humans to harm a second group of humans, then take away the free will of the second ground and force them to act in a way that ensures conflict can occur. This sounds remarkably like a child torturing small animals and we all know what happens to kids like that.
April 25, 2014 at 5:04 PM
THE SECULAR ZIONIST AGENDA FOR A JEWISH STATE
Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
P.O.B. 1775, Kiryat Arba
90100, Israel
tel and fax: 02-9961252 (within Israel),
972 2 9961252 (from outside Israel)
e-mail: chaimsimons@gmail.com
August 2007
INTRODUCTION
In an article in the English edition of “Mishpacha” in January 2005 appeared the following:
“The Left is still loyal to the State of Israel in varying levels of faithfulness, but it hates Eretz Yisrael. The difference between these two is clear: Eretz Yisrael is a reminder of the Left’s Jewish past, which it wishes to forget. … The Left’s disconnection from the Jewish nation has reached the point where they are prepared for settlers to be killed during the evacuation effort [Gaza area and North Shomron]. Spokesmen of the Left have already announced that this will not be a war of brother against brother since ‘the settlers are not our brothers’.” (1)
Unfortunately this is not a new phenomenon. It has always been an integral part of the secular Zionist agenda. They wanted a Jewish State (according to some of them, even if it were to be in Uganda or Argentina) but it had to be administered according to their programme and perception for the “New Jew.”
***********************************************
NOTE
Although much of the material appearing in this paper can be found in other books or articles, the material is often brought down as secondary or even tertiary sources. In addition, the primary sources are on a number of occasions incorrectly quoted and there are even cases where the quotations given do not occur in the sources given. Therefore the only quotations of statements made by secular Zionists brought in this paper are those which the author of this paper has a photocopy from in the original in his possession. Due to limitations in the disc space, facsimiles of these documents cannot appear in this online copy. In many cases the original documents are no longer extant or could not be located, despite extensive searching. In such cases the information alleged to be contained in them has been completely omitted from this paper.
In the English quotes, Palestine usually appears when referring to Eretz Yisrael and it has of course be left as it appears in the original.
The following words appearing in the Hebrew quotes have not been translated:
Aliyah — Jewish immigration to Eretz Yisrael
Hachshara — Training given to people in preparation for Aliyah
Shlichim – Jewish emissaries sent abroad to Jewish communities
Yishuv – Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael
*************************************************
SELECTIVITY — THE SECULAR ZIONIST WAY
Eretz Yisrael was Divinely given to the Jewish people (2) and every Jew has an equal right to live there. However as we shall see, the secular Zionists thought otherwise.
At the eighteenth Zionist Congress held in Prague in August 1933, Ben-Gurion said
“Eretz Yisrael today needs not ordinary immigrants, but pioneers. The difference between them is simple — an immigrant comes to take from the land, whereas a pioneer comes to give to the land. Therefore we demand priority for Aliyah to pioneers.”(3) (emphasis in original)
The question here is how would Ben-Gurion define an “ordinary immigrant” and how a “pioneer”? From his speech, it is obvious that a person working the land on a kibbutz is a pioneer. However, it would almost certainly appear that an old person coming to spend his last years in the Holy Land or even a Yeshiva student would be classed as a mere “ordinary immigrant”!(4)
A few months later in mid-October 1933 a meeting took place between, amongst others, the High Commissioner for Palestine, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Shertok (Sharett). The Minutes of the meeting were written up by Shertok.
During the course of this meeting Ben-Gurion spoke about the three million Jews then living in Poland and stated that
“Palestine offered no solution for all Polish Jews. Immigration into Palestine was necessarily limited, therefore it had to and could be a selected immigration. Zionism was not a philanthropic enterprise, they really wanted here the best type of Jew to develop the Jewish National Home, but they had to be given sufficient scope to bring over people of whom the country was in need.”(5)
The question which remains is who would decide who was “the best type of Jew”? As will soon be seen, such a Jew was someone who was a secular Zionist!
It was a few years later at the 20th Zionist Congress held in Zurich in August 1937, that Weizmann spelled out more specifically what was meant by “selective Aliyah.”
“I told the members of the Royal [Peel] Commission that six million Jews want to go on Aliyah. One of the members asked me ‘ Do you think you could bring all of them to Eretz Yisrael?’ On this I answered … that two million young people… we want to save. The old people will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They have already become like dust, economic and moral dust in this cruel world.”(6)
A similar rejection of elderly Jews to go on Aliyah was made by Henry Montor, the Executive Vice-Chairman of the United Jewish Appeal for Refugees towards the beginning of 1940. A ship full of refugees not certified by the Zionist organisations, were on the high seas. Many of the passengers were elderly. The captain of the ship required money to bring them to Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Baruch Rabinowitz of Maryland took the matter in hand and tried to get the necessary money from Montor to pay the captain. In his long rambling letter of reply, Montor wrote about the Jewish Agency’s policy of “selectivity” — “the choice of young men and women who are trained in Europe for productive purposes either in agriculture or industry.” With regard to the elderly Jews on board this ship, Montor wrote:
“There could be no more deadly ammunition provided to the enemies of Zionism, whether they be in the ranks of the British Government or the Arabs, or even in the ranks of the Jewish people, if Palestine were to be flooded with very old people or with undesirables who would make impossible the conditions of life in Palestine and destroy the prospect of creating such economic circumstances as would insure a continuity of immigration.”(7)
Maybe it would have been appropriate for him to have renamed his organisation “United Jewish Appeal for Selected Refugees”! At least the donors would then have had a better idea of what they were giving money for.
The secular Zionists were not even ashamed to put out a memorandum in which they quite openly had a section “Who to save”. This memorandum (of April/May 1943) was headed that its distribution was “intended for Zionist functionaries only” and it included instructions “not to pass it on to non-Zionist groups who participate in the Working Committee.”(8) Although it came out under the name of A. [Apolinary] Hartglas, it has been suggested that in fact it was Yitzchak Gruenbaum who actually wrote it.(9) Under this section, he wrote
“…. to my sorrow we have to say that if we are able to save only ten thousand people and we need to save fifty thousand [those chosen] should be of use in building up the land and the revival of the nation…. First and foremost one must rescue children since they are the best material for the Yishuv. One must rescue the pioneering youth, especially those who have had training and are idealistically qualified for Zionist work. One should rescue the Zionist functionaries since they deserve something from the Zionist movement for their work…. Pure philanthropic rescue, for example, saving the Jews of Germany, if carried out in an indiscriminate manner, could from a Zionist prospective only cause harm.”(10)
As can be seen, just as with both Weizmann and Montor, Hartglas was not interested in old people coming to Eretz Yisrael. Even amongst the younger generation, he was only interested in those who would work the land – Yeshivah students were of no use to him.
Further exclusions to Aliyah by the secular Zionists were people who were not members of the Zionist camp. Some Jews who succeeded in arriving in Eretz Yisrael in the second half of 1944 gave evidence on this question.
Pinchas Gross who had been one of the public workers of Agudat Yisrael in Rumania stated
“The first principle of the Zionist Aliyah Committee in Bucharest was not to allow members of Agudat Yisrael to go on Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. This was despite the agreement which had been made before the war between Agudat Yisrael and the Jewish Agency on the Aliyah quotas for members of Agudat Yisrael… Shlichim from the [Aliyah] Committee in Bucharest arrived in Transylvania with large sums of money in order to transfer hundreds of pioneers to Bucharest for the purpose of Aliyah. We also asked for our members the possibility of Aliyah but we were rudely rejected.”(11)
One might think that this money was “Zionist money” and therefore it was proper to reject such a request. However, this was shown not to be the case just a few weeks later when Weissberg who was a member of the Aliyah Committee in Bucharest, gave evidence before the Rescue Committee in Jerusalem. During this evidence he stated
“It is true that the Agudah was not granted equal rights with regards to receiving money for assistance in Rumania. We did not know that the money which arrived from Eretz Yisrael was money from the Rescue Committee in which all the Yishuv participated. We thought that the money was Jewish Agency money…. I must inform you that help was not given to the pioneers and youth of Agudat Yisrael. We did not know that Agudah is a partner in matters of rescue and in particular in matters of Aliyah. Also regarding the Aliyah of the pioneers of Agudah, we did not know that they were entitled to go on Aliyah, until we arrived in Eretz Yisrael.”(12)
We can thus see that the secular Zionists did nothing to even inform the Agudah what they were entitled to, let alone implement such an entitlement.
There were also others who had been misled in believing that the money was “Zionist money”. For example, the Vishnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Eliezer Hager, testified that when he asked why the ultra-Orthodox were not receiving any money, received the answer, “This money is Zionist and it is set aside solely for Zionists.”(13) (emphasis in original)
Pinchas Gross further stated
“The ultra-Orthodox youth were not at all considered for this [financial] assistance either in their home town or for the possibility of Aliyah. We applied… for assistance for our youth who before the war did a period of Hachshara and were no less fit for Aliyah than other pioneers — but we did not even receive an answer. The excuse was that the money was Zionist money and was solely for them.”(14)
This attitude of the secular Zionists in their use of public money for their kith and kin and of their “priorities” did not pass without comment, even from non-Orthodox sources.
Dr. Judah Leon Magnes in addressing a meeting of the Rescue Committee in July 1944 was very critical of those who wanted
“first of all to save the Zionists, and afterwards, if possible — also the others, but above all the Zionists. I spoke to somebody…. The man said… we will save our men…. I said to him … the others are also Jews. He said: It is so, they are Jews, but this is a universal argument, a perpetual argument and we will not give in on this.”(15)
Magnes’ comments on the necessity for non-selectivity when doing rescue work are illustrated by the work performed during the Second World War by Recha Sternbuch, who succeeded in rescuing thousands of Jews from the Nazis. Recha was associated with the strictly Orthodox Agudat Yisrael party. However, unlike the secular Zionists, she rescued Jews (and even some non-Jews) regardless of their level of religious observance or Zionist party affiliation.(16)
ZIONISM — AND ONLY THEN JEWISH LIVES
A few months after the beginning of the Second World War the Zionists received entry visas to Eretz Yisrael for 2,900 German Jews. It was necessary to have a meeting with the British Colonial Secretary, Malcolm MacDonald, in connection with these visas and in November 1939, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Shertok met to discuss this question. Ben-Gurion strongly opposed such a meeting with MacDonald and he told Shertok that
“our political future is more important than saving 2,900 Jews.” Shertok, who completely disagreed with Ben-Gurion, commented in his diary, “he [Ben-Gurion] was prepared to forgo them [the 2,900 Jews].”(17)
Even in July 1944, which was towards the end of this war, when the Holocaust was still in full progress and its implementation was already well known, Ben-Gurion still had the same attitude. A meeting of the Executive of the Jewish Agency was held in Jerusalem at the beginning of July 1944. On its agenda was the subject of the rescue of Jews.
Rabbi Baruch Yehoshua Yerachmiel Rabinowicz, the Munkaczer Rebbe in Hungary, was involved in this rescue effort and the question of a meeting with him was mentioned at this Jewish Agency meeting. In answer Ben-Gurion stated that he did not oppose such a meeting, “We must do everything in this matter [of rescue] including things which seem fantastic.” Had Ben-Gurion said no more, it would have been praiseworthy, but he then continued, “But there is one condition: the work will not cause damage to Zionism.”(18)
In a letter to the Israeli daily newspaper “Ha’aretz” in 1983, the historian Professor Yigal Eilam confirmed that this was the attitude of the Zionist leaders during the period of the Holocaust. He wrote
“The policy of the Zionists during the long period of the Holocaust gave priority to the building up of the land and the establishment of a State, over the saving of Jews…. One already needs to tell these things in a open and direct manner. The Zionists did very little in the saving of Jews, not because they were unable to do more, but because they were concentrating on the Zionist enterprise.”(19)
In a similar vein, in an article by the historian Dina Porat which appeared in “Ha’aretz” in 1991, she wrote
“From the moment that the State became the primary objective, the life of a Jew became secondary in accordance with the principal ‘the State of Israel is above everything'”.(20)
The shortsightedness of the secular Zionist leaders in this matter was written about in 1984 by Rabbi Morris Sherer, the President of Agudat Yisrael, in his comments on the report by Professor Seymour Maxwell Finger entitled “American Jewry during the Holocaust.” Rabbi Sherer commented
“Alas, they [the secular Zionist leaders] did not perceive how utterly ridiculous and heartless it was for Jewish leaders to concentrate on a postwar homeland, when the people for whom they were seeking this home were being slaughtered like sheep!” (21)
Unlike Ben-Gurion who put Zionism first, and Jewish lives just in second place, the Rabbis of the period immediately put “Pikuach Nefesh” (the saving of lives) first. Sabbath observance is one of the fundamentals of Jewish observance, with the most stringent of punishments for their non-observance, yet despite this, Pikuach Nefesh overrides the Sabbath.(22) In order to save lives during the Holocaust, two leading British Rabbis, Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld and Rabbi Isadore Grunfeld, who were occupied in forging passports to save Jews, continued their work on the Sabbath.(23) Rabbis Boruch Kaplan and Rabbi Alexander Linchner rode around Brooklyn in New York in a car on the Sabbath from house to house collecting money to save Jews.(24) (These actions are normally forbidden on the Sabbath.)
IF NOT ALIYAH, LET THEM PERISH
In 1933, Hitler rose to power and during the subsequent years, more and more draconian measures, such as the Nuremberg laws were enacted against the Jews. In 1938 Hitler marched into Austria to the cheers of the non-Jewish population.
The situation for the Jews under Hitler’s domination became unbearable and places of refuge became a grave necessity. It was thus at this period that President Franklin Roosevelt convened a conference of thirty-two nations at the French resort town of Evian to try and find places of refuge for Jews wanting to flee from Hitler.
One would naturally have thought that the Zionist leaders of the time would make the most of this opportunity and devote all their time and energy to ensure that successful results would emerge from this Conference. But sadly this was not to be.
Already in mid-June 1938, before the opening of the Conference, Dr. Georg Landauer wrote to Dr. Stephen Wise, who was head of the Zionist Organization of America. In it he wrote:
“I am writing this letter to you at the request of Dr. Weizmann, as we are very much concerned in case the issue is presented at the [Evian] Conference in a manner which may harm the work for Palestine. Even if the Conference will not place countries other than Palestine in the front for Jewish immigration, there will certainly be public appeals which will tend to overshadow the importance of Palestine…. We feel all the more concern as it may bind Jewish organisations to collect large sums of money for assisting Jewish refugees, and these collections are likely to interfere with our own campaigns.”(25)
Two weeks later the Jewish Agency Executive met in Jerusalem and opposition to the planned Evian Conference was openly stated.
Yitzchak Gruenbaum said
“The Evian Conference can be expected to cause us grave damage – Eretz Yisrael could be eliminated as a country for Jewish immigration … [we are] very apprehensive that in this Conference, it could be relegated to the end of the line. We have to prevent this damage… There is the danger that whilst searching for a destination country, some new territory will be found to which Jewish immigration will be directed. We must defend our principle that Jewish settlement can only succeed in Eretz Yisrael and that no other settlement can come into the calculation.”(26)
Menachem Ussishkin then addressed the meeting in a similar vein. The Evian Conference very much worried him and he supported the words of Gruenbaum. “Mr. Gruenbaum is right when he says that there is the danger that Eretz Yisrael will be removed from the agenda even by the Jews and one should see this as a tremendous blow to us.”(27)
Of course the ideal solution was for Jews to go to Eretz Yisrael. However in view of the then political situation, immigration there was not a feasible proposition. Surely the only question then should have been how to save and help as many Jews as possible. It was this fact that should have been the only concern of the speakers at that Jewish Agency Executive meeting — but it wasn’t!
A few weeks later, Weizmann wrote to Stephen Wise. Towards the beginning of his letter he wrote: “I made arrangements, before leaving for my holiday, to put in a few days at Evian.”(28) If one thinks for a moment about this sentence, one can see that it is horrific. Surely, if there was even the slightest opportunity of saving even one Jew, Weizmann who was the President of the Zionist Organization should have immediately cancelled his personal holiday arrangements and spent all his time at Evian trying to lobby the various delegates to accept Jews in their countries. But what do we see? — he will just before going on holiday “put in a few days at Evian.”
In fact he was later persuaded by his friends not to even “put in a few days” there, to which advice he followed.(29) The reason was stated by Dr. Arthur Ruppin at a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive on 21 August. Ruppin stated “we then decided that it would not be to our prestige for Dr. Weizmann to appear in Evian”(30) — the reason being that he would only have been allowed to speak in a sub-committee! Jewish lives were at stake and to worry about prestige!!
One can immediately contrast this attitude with that of the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Rabbi Aharon Kotler had come under some criticism for meeting in the course of his rescue work with Stephen Wise, a leader of the Reform movement. He shrugged such reprobation saying, “I would prostrate myself before the Pope if I knew it would help to save even the fingernail of one Jewish child.”(31)
Unfortunately nothing concrete came out of the Evian Conference. The situation of the Jews in Germany got even worse and on 9 November 1938 there was the infamous Kristallnacht.
A few days later, Weizmann heard that there was a scheme to resettle German Jews in a country other than Eretz Yisrael. This he did not like and he immediately sent off a telegram to stop any financial backing for such a scheme. This telegram was sent to Samuel Vandenbergh in Wassemar
“Understand you are embarking large financial effort for settlement German Jews. Beg of you to be careful not disperse and dissipate energies which can nowhere be applied with greater effectiveness both immediately and lasting than in Palestine.”(32)
Since at that period emigration to Eretz Yisrael was unfortunately not a practical proposition, Weizmann is effectively saying that rather than immigrate to another country, the Jews must remain in Nazi Germany.
We can see that also Ben-Gurion thought on these same lines as the other secular Zionist leaders. It was at this period that Ben-Gurion addressed the Mapai Central Committee. He realised the seriousness of the situation and said
“On these awesome days at the start of the threatened destruction of European Jewry…. If I would know that it would be possible to save all the German [Jewish] children by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, I would choose the second option — since before us is not just these children but the history of the Jewish people.”(33)
At this period, the Germans had already established concentration camps and were sending Jews to them. In order to pre-empt this, it was necessary to find the means of arranging their emigration from Germany. Ben-Gurion, however, felt this could cause a diversion of resources and endanger Zionism. A few days after his above quoted speech to the Mapai Central Committee, he addressed the Executive of the Jewish Agency:
“Zionism now stands in danger…. If the Jews will have to choose on the one hand the refugee question,[namely] saving Jews from concentration camps and on the other hand assisting a national museum in Eretz Yisrael, mercy would decide the matter and all the energy of the [Jewish] people would be diverted to saving Jews in the various countries. Zionism would be struck off the agenda, not only in world opinion in England and America, but also in Jewish public opinion. The existence of Zionism would be at risk if we allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Eretz Yisrael problem.”(34) (emphasis in original)
NOT ONE PENNY, NOT ONE CENT
The mass extermination of the Jews of Europe was already well known by the end of 1942. Saving Jews could and should have been top priority. But in order to save large numbers of people from extermination costs money — whether normal expenses or money for bribery. Needless to say, the money has to come from somewhere. All the time money was donated by world Jewry to funds such as the Keren Hayesod, the JNF, and so on. It is true that this money had been specifically donated for Eretz Yisrael, but here was a case of Pikuach Nefesh and it would have been quite legitimate, indeed mandatory, to have utilised this money for the saving of Jewish lives. The Jews then living in Eretz Yisrael were even saying so.
However Yitzchak Gruenbaum, who was head of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency thought otherwise. In a speech to the Zionist Smaller Actions Committee in January 1943 he expressed his views:
“Meanwhile a mood has begun to sweep over Eretz Yisrael which I think is very dangerous to Zionism…. How is it possible that such a thing can occur in Eretz Yisrael, that in a meeting they will call out to me, ‘If you don’t have any money [for rescuing European Jewry] take the money of the Keren Hayesod, take the money from the bank — there, there is money, in the Keren Hayedod there is money.’ … These days in Eretz Yisrael it is being said, ‘don’t put Eretz Yisrael at the top of your priorities at this difficult time, at the period of a Holocaust and destruction of European Jewry,’ …. I don’t accept such a thing. And when they asked me to give money of the Keren Hayesod to save Diaspora Jewry, I said no and I again said no…. I am not going to defend myself, in the same way that I will not justify or defend myself if they accuse me of murdering my mother …. But I think it is necessary to say here: Zionism is above everything.”(35)
The only consolation from reading Gruenbaum’s speech, is that the Jews living in Eretz Yisrael were demanding the diverting of Keren Hayesod money to rescue efforts, even though this meant that less money would arrive in Eretz Yisrael and could accordingly affect their living standards. In contrast Gruenbaum commented “Zionism is above everything” even though this meant not rescuing European Jewry from the Holocaust.
In his book “Perfidy”, Ben Hecht quoted how Gruenbaum said “No” to the giving of money for rescue activities.(36) In a critical “Analysis” of this book by the American Section of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, they write that this quoted sentence by Ben Hecht “has been most viciously torn out of context. The writer of this Analysis then tries to prove, quoting other parts of Gruenbaum’s speech that he wanted to do everything to save European Jewry.(37) However he conveniently omitted one crucial part of the speech: “Zionism is above everything” — namely we will certainly do everything to save European Jewry provided that it is not at the expense of Zionism!
One might add that in 1961, Gruenbaum gave an interview to the paper “Etgar” from the comfort of his house in Gan Shmuel, in which he repeated these statements he made during the war, without even hinting he had been wrong.
“Interviewer: Was there then no money in the kitty of the Jewish Agency, the JNF, the Keren Hayesod?
Gruenbaum: Yes. Even then the argument went: Isn’t there any money? Take it from the JNF. I said: No! They did not want to forgive me for this and until this day, there are murmurings about this. The money was needed for Zionism.
Interviewer: What is the meaning of “for Zionism” when the saving of lives is at stake? Does Zionism want Jews alive or dead?
Gruenbaum: The saving of life does not override Zion. For Jews, the State is essential. Therefore, in accordance with my manner I said the truth — that is No!”(38)
Gruenbaum went on to say that he then went to South Africa to raise money for rescue purposes. However we all know that the raising of money, especially when one has to travel to another continent takes time and every day taken meant more Jews were being sent to the gas chambers. Surely the correct thing was to immediately take money from these Zionist kitties and if at a later date one succeeded in raising money, one could return it to the Zionist funds.
Even before the war, when Jews were already being persecuted in Germany and Austria, it was widely accepted that money to save Jewish lives came before money for Zionism. In was in late October 1938 that the treasurer of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) said
“The upbuilding of Palestine was all very well, but Jews in Europe were starving and persecuted — and they, JDC felt, had first claim on whatever funds were available.”(39)
ALSO THE BRITISH SECULAR ZIONISTS
Placing Zionism above the saving the lives of Jews was also a phenomenon of the British secular Zionists. Towards the end of 1942, when the Nazi extermination plans became known, British Jewry decided to make representations to the British Government. At a meeting of the British section of the Jewish Agency held in December 1942, the “Nazi Extermination Policy” was on the agenda. Here is an extract from the official minutes of this meeting when discussing this item:
“Dr. Brodetsky … made it quite clear that if Palestine was not properly mentioned then he would not be a member of the Delegation to Mr. Eden….
Lord Melchett said it would be disastrous for any body of Jews to go to Mr. Eden and not put Palestine in the forefront of their plans. Such a body would not represent the views of the Jews either here or elsewhere…..
Mr. Marks said he fully agreed, and if this condition was not satisfied, then he would not be a member of the delegation. Unless Palestine was properly dealt with, they should criticise the delegation up and down the country and cause a revolution inside the Board of Deputies…. The dignity of the Jewish people was at stake and it was only in Palestine that the Jews could get their dignity back.”(40)
As we well see, the above British secular Zionists would only attend a meeting with British Government officials to save Jews from the “Nazi Extermination Policy” if Eretz Yisrael was to be given a prominent place at these meetings. Furthermore it was Jewish liveswhich were “at stake” and it was no time to worry about “dignity” being “at stake”.
It was at the same period that the British secular Zionists sabotaged negotiations that Rabbi Dr. Solomon Schonfeld was making with the British Government for the rescue of the endangered Jews in Nazi Europe. Such rescue of Jews was not a new thing with Rabbi Schonfeld. Just before the Second World War, he had organised Kindertransports and brought over to England from Germany and Austria thousands of children.(41) To accommodate some of them he even utilized his own house with him sleeping in the attic.(42)
Towards the end of 1942, Rabbi Schonfeld organised steps to rescue Jews from Nazi Europe. To this end he worked exceptionally hard to organise wide support for a Motion to be tabled in the British Parliament for the British Government to be prepared to find temporary refuge in its territories or territories under its control for those endangered by the Nazis. Within two weeks he amassed a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures of all parties for this Motion.(43)
One would have thought that the British secular Zionists would have welcomed and co-operated in such an initiative. Sadly this was not the case. In a letter to the “Jewish Chronicle” at that period, Rabbi Schonfeld wrote
“This effort was met by a persistent attempt on the part of Professor Brodetsky [President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews] and some of his colleagues to sabotage the entire move. Without even full knowledge of the details, he and his collaborators asked Members of the House [of Parliament] to desist from supporting the new effort.”(44)
Rabbi Schonfeld further elaborated on this in a letter to “The Times” of London at the time of the Eichmann trial in 1961.
“Already while the Parliamentary motion was gathering momentum voices of dissent were heard from Zionist quarters: ‘Why not Palestine?’ The obvious answers that the most urgent concern was humanitarian and not political, that the Mufti-Nazi alliance ruled out Palestine for the immediate saving of lives….When the next steps were being energetically pursued by over 100 M.Ps [Members of Parliament] and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion on the grounds of its omitting to refer to Palestine …. and thereafter the motion was dead.”(45)
Rabbi Schonfeld’s initiative came up at a meeting of the British Executive of the Jewish Agency in January 1943. At this meeting, Berl Locker said that he and two of his colleagues
“had asked him [Rabbi Schonfeld] to postpone the meeting in the House of Commons and not to continue working off his own bat. They had also pointed out that the resolution which he had proposed did not mention Palestine…. Mr. Locker wondered whether it would be a good thing for him or Dr. Brodetsky to write a letter to the Chief Rabbi, who might be able to do something to stop this mischief.”(46)
What was this “mischief” of Rabbi Dr. Schonfeld’s that these British secular Zionists wanted “stopped”? This “mischief” was his trying to save the lives of Jews who were in Nazi Europe!!
EPILOGUE
In an interview given by someone who worked with the late Klausenberger Rebbe for half a century, he said in answer to a question on the Holocaust,
“When the Sabra and Shatila affair rocked the nation, and hundreds of thousands of Israelis demonstrated in Tel Aviv, demanding a commission of inquiry into the government’s lack of response to the massacre of Palestinians by Phalangist militants in Lebanon, the Rebbe couldn’t restrain himself. During a Shiur he delivered in Bnei Brak, he asked pointedly why there was no call for a commission of inquiry into the lack of response of the Zionist leaders in Eretz Yisrael during the murder of millions of Jews in the Nazi-occupied lands. They had ignored the matter completely.”(47)
REFERENCES
1) Rabbi Moshe Grylak, “How do they “know” it all?” Mishpacha (English edition), (Monsey, NY: Tikshoret VeChinuch Dati-Yehudi), 12 January 2005, pp.6-7.
2) e.g. Genesis chap.12 verse 7.
3) Stenographisches Protokoll XVIII Zionistenkongresses, [Official Minutes of the 18th Zionist Congress], (London: Zentralbureau der Zionistischen Organisation), p.219.
4) David Kranzler, Thy Brother’s Blood, (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1987), pp.61-62, 241, 244.
5) Minutes of Interview with His Excellency the High Commissioner, 17 October 1933, pp.4-5 (Labour Archives — Lavon Institute IV-104-49-2-64. There is also a copy in Ben-Gurion Archives). At a later date Ben-Gurion wrote up these minutes (in Hebrew) in his memoirs without any suggestion that they were not what he had said at this meeting, (David Ben-Gurion, Memoirs, vol.1, (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1971), p.672).
6) Official Minutes of the 20th Zionist Congress, (Jerusalem: Executive of the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency), pp.32-33.
7) Montor to Rabinowitz, 1 February 1940, pp.2, 4, (Jabotinsky Archives, HT-10/16).
8) A. Hartglas, Comments concerning assistance and rescue, (April/May 1943 — possibly 24 April 1943), p.1, (CZA S26/1306 [previous no. S26/1232]).
9) Aryeh Morgenstern, “Vaad hahatzalah hameuchad ….,” Yalkut Moreshet, (Tel Aviv: Moreshet), vol.13, June 1971, p.95 fn.67.
10) Hartglas, op. cit., p.3.
11) Evidence of Pinchas Gross, a public worker of Agudat Yisrael of Rumania, given in Tel Aviv on 27 July 1944, p.2, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no. S26/1079]).
12) Minutes, Presidium of the Rescue Committee, Jerusalem, 25 August 1944, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no. S26/1079]).
13) Evidence of Vishnitzer Rebbe taken in Tel Aviv in April 1944, p.1, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no, S26/1079]).
14) Pinchas Gross, op. cit.
15) Minutes, Rescue Committee, Jerusalem, 14 July 1944, p.7, (CZA S26/1327 [previous no. S26/1238aleph]).
16) Kranzler, op. cit., pp194-95.
17) Moshe Shertok Handwritten diary, 13 November 1939, p.66, (CZA S25/198/3. [Shertok also made a handwritten copy of his own diary CZA A245/14]
18) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive. Jerusalem, 2 July 1944. p.8, (CZA).
19) Yigal Eilam, Letters to the Editor, Haaretz, (Tel Aviv), 15 April 1983, p.24.
20) Dina Porat, “Manipulatzit Haadmorim,” Haaretz, (Tel Aviv), 12 April 1991, p.3b.
21) Seymour Maxwell Finger, American Jewry during the Holocaust, (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, second printing May 1984), Comment by Rabbi Morris Sherer, p.16.
22) Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, chap.328, para.2.
23) S. Fordsham, Inbox, Mishpacha (English edition), op. cit., 9 May 2007, p.10
24) Kranzler, op. cit., p.6.
25) Landauer to Wise, 13 June 1938, p.1, (CZA S53/1552aleph).
26) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, 26 June 1938, p.6, (CZA)
27) Ibid., p.7.
28) Weizmann to Wise. 14 July 1938, p.1, (CZA Z4/17198).
29) Ibid., p.2.
30) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, 21 August 1938, p.7. (CZA).
31) Kranzler, op. cit., p.146.
32) Telegram, Weizmann to Vandenburgh, 16 November 1938, (CZA Z4/17335).
33) Minutes, Mapai Central Committee, 7 December 1938, p.41, (Labour Party Archives — Bet Berl 2-23-1938-21 bet).
34) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, 11 December 1938, p.4, (CZA)
35) Minutes, Zionist Smaller Actions Committee, 18 January 1943, pp.12-13, (CZA).
36) Ben Hecht, Perfidy, (New York: Julian Messner, 1962), p.50.
37) The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency. Ben Hecht’s ‘Perfidy’ – An analysis of his rewriting of history, (New York: [s.n.], 1962), p.9.
38) “Mi asham b’hafkara,” conversation with Yitzchak Gruenbaum, Etgar, (Tel Aviv: Mercaz Hapeula Hashemit), no.8, 29 June 1961, p.5.
39) Yehuda Bauer, My Brother’s Keeper, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1974), p.255.
40) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, London, 21 December 1942, pp.2-3. (CZA Z4/302/26).
41) e.g. David Kranzler. Holocaust Hero, (New Jersey: Ktav, 2004).
42) Ibid., pp.38-39.
43) Solomon Schonfeld, Letters to the Editor, The Times, (London), 6 June 1961, p.13.
44) Solomon Schonfeld, Letters to the Editor, The Jewish Chronicle, (London), 29 January 1943, p.5.
45) Schonfeld, The Times, op. cit.
46) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, London, 21 January 1943, (CZA Z4/302/26).
47) “A strength beyond nature,” Mishpacha (English edition), op. cit., 20 June 2007, p.16.
April 25, 2014 at 5:08 PM
HUMAN SACRIFICE IN JUDAISM
Moses aka Jews PLAGIARIZED the 10 Commandments from the 42 Principles of Maat, the Egyptian goddess of Truth. Aaron offered Human Sacrifices to Moloch aka The Golden Calf, on Mount Sinai (Exodus 32). 3000 Israelites were put to the sword for this (Exodus 32:22-27). YHWH was the first Anti-Semite (Exodus 32:7-10). See 1 Kings 11:1-13; Amos 5:25-27; Acts 7:42-43.
In the Babylonian Jewish Talmud, Sanhedrin 64 a-b, you will find instructions for Jews on how to offer Human Sacrifices to Moloch, without being guilty. The trick is to get someone else to do the HOLOCAUST:
MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437
Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:
GEMARA. R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439
Rabbi Dr. Freedman, one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use “seed” to denote living children, in the same sense as the Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:
3. Is ‘thou shalt not cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?
Rabbi Dr. Freedman
Other footnotes within the same context clarify the fine point of distinction being drawn in the Mishnah and subsequent debates among the sages:
5. Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (I) formal delivery to the priests, and (2) causing the seed to pass through the fire.
Rabbi Dr. Freedman (2)
5. As two separate offences, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences [sic] is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.
Rabbi Dr. Freedman (3)
Following the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 64a and 64b contain a rousing debate between the Sages concerning:
* the circumstances under which worshipping an idol is idolatry,
* which idols may be worshipped without indulging in idolatry,
* which parts of child sacrifice in what combination are punishable, and
* how children may be sacrificed without violating Leviticus.
SMOKE & MIRRORS, THAT’S HOW THE RELIGIOUS TRICK IS DONE