A Massacre of Christians By Jews: 614 A.D.–An Untold Chapter of History

mamillacem

The Mamilla Cemetery in Jerusalem as it looked in 1948

Several days ago, in posting an article about the vandalizing of Jewish cemeteries in the US, I mentioned the Mamilla Cemetery in Jerusalem and the wanton destruction that has been perpetrated on it by Israelis over the past 60 years or so.

In that piece I quoted from a Wikipedia article which relates that the Mamilla graveyard–on top of which the Israelis have built a park, public restrooms, and a parking lot–contains the bodies of both Muslims and Christians. The latter number in the thousands, the majority of which were “killed in the pre-Islamic era,” the article says.

Israelis began destroying tombs and grave sites in the cemetery in the 1950s, while more recent developments include a project launched by the Simon Wiesenthal Center to build a “museum of tolerance” on the site.

What I did not know at the time I posted the article are the details of a massacre which took place in Jerusalem in the year 614 A.D.–a tragedy of huge dimensions that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Christians, many of whom ended up being buried in Mamilla (hat tip 5 Dancing Shlomos).

The attack upon the city of Jerusalem in 614 was initiated by invading Persians, but these were assisted in their efforts by Jews who were living in the region as well. The Jewish settlements appear to have been mainly in the north around the Sea of Galilee, while Christians seem to have inhabited the southern regions and the city of Jerusalem. At any rate, the Jews joined forces with the Persian army of conquest, but their hatred and savagery toward the Christians was so intense it even took the Persians aback.

The article at Wikipedia which I mentioned above glosses over these events, making no mention whatsoever of the Jewish involvement and laying the blame entirely upon the Persians.

Fortunately, a much more detailed account is supplied by Israel Shamir. His article was apparently written some number of years ago, but still is available on his website here. For those not familiar with Shamir, he is a former Israeli and a former Jew who is now a Christian and lives outside of Israel. The account he wrote speaks of churches and monasteries being burned and of monks and priests being killed, and he describes 614 as “the most dreadful year in the history of Palestine until the Twentieth Century.”

Below I reproduce his article in full, as well as a supplementary article by Karl Radl, who expands upon some of Shamir’s points and also supplies a much lengthier quote from the main historical source, a monk by the name of Antiochus of Palestine, who was also known as Strategius.

Christians should ponder the manner in which historical narratives are often manipulated, and should ask themselves why this chapter of history is not more widely known. They should ask themselves something else as well: how insulting, offensive, and provocative is it for a Jewish organization like the Simon Weisenthal Center to propose building a “museum of tolerance” on top of a graveyard containing the bodies of thousands of Christians who were slaughtered by Jews?

***

Mamilla Pool

By Israel Shamir

Things move really fast nowadays. Just yesterday we hardly dared to call the Israeli policy of official discrimination against Palestinians by the harsh word ‘apartheid’. Today, as Sharon’s tanks and missiles pound defenceless cities and villages, the word barely suffices. It has become an unjustified insult to the white supremacists of South Africa. They, after all, did not use gun-ships and tanks against the natives, they did not lay siege to Soweto. They did not deny the humanity of their kaffirs. The Jewish supremacists made it one better. They have returned us, as if by magic wand, to the world of Joshua and Saul.

As the search for the right word continues, the courageous Robert Fisk proposes calling the events in Palestine a ‘civil war’. If this is civil war, a lamb slaughter is a bullfight. The disparity of forces is just too large. No, Virginia, it is not ‘civil war’, it is creeping genocide.

This is the point in our saga, where the good Jewish guy is supposed to take out his hanky and exclaim: “How could we, eternal victims of persecutions, commit such crimes!” Well, do not hold your breath waiting for this line. It happened before and it can happen again, for the mad idea of being the only Chosen ones, the idea of supremacy, whether of race or religion, is the moving force behind genocides. If you believe God chose your people to dominate the world, if you think others but subhuman, you will be punished by the same God whose name you took in vain. Instead of a gentle frog, he would turn you into a murderous maniac.

When the Japanese got a whiff of this malady in the 1930s, they raped Nanking and ate the liver of their prisoners. Germans, obsessed by the Aryan superiority complex, filled Baby Yar with corpses. As thoughtful readers of Joshua and Judges, the father pilgrim-founders of the United States tried on the ‘Chosen’ crown and succeeded in nearly exterminating the Native American peoples.

The Jewish chosen-ness led to genocide time and again. Outside of Jerusalem’s Jaffa gate (Bab al-Halil), there was once a small neighbourhood called Mamilla, destroyed by real-estate developers just a few years ago. In its place they created a kitschy ‘village’ for the super-rich, abutting the plush Hilton Hotel. A bit further away there is the old Mamilla cemetery of the Arab nobles and the Mamilla Pool, a water reservoir dug by Pontius Pilate. During the development works, the workers came upon a burial cave holding hundreds of sculls and bones. It was adorned by a cross and the legend: ‘God alone knows their names’. The Biblical Archaeology Review, published by the Jewish American Herschel Shanks, printed a long feature[i] by the Israeli archaeologist Ronny Reich on this discovery.

The dead were laid to their eternal rest in AD 614, the most dreadful year in the history of Palestine until the Twentieth Century. The Scottish scholar Adam Smith, wrote in his Historical Geography of Palestine: “until now, the terrible devastation of 614 is visible in the land, it could not be healed”.

By 614 Palestine was a part of the Roman successor state, the Byzantine Empire. It was a prosperous, predominantly Christian land of well-developed agriculture, of harnessed water systems and carefully laid terraces. Pilgrims came in flocks to the Holy places. The Constantine-built edifices of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives and of the Holy Sepulchre were among the man-made wonders of the world. The Judean wilderness was enlivened by eighty monasteries, where precious manuscripts were collected and prayers offered. The Fathers of the church, St Jerome of Bethlehem and Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea, were still a living memory. One of the best Palestinian writers, on a par with the Minor Prophets, blessed John Moschos, just completed his Spiritual Meadow.

There was also a small, wealthy Jewish community living in their midst, mainly in Tiberias on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. Their scholars had just completed their version of the Talmud, the codification of their faith, Rabbinic Judaism; but for instruction they deferred to the prevailing Jewish community in Persian Babylonia.

II

In 614 local Palestinian Jews allied with their Babylonian co-religionists and assisted the Persians in their conquest of the Holy Land. 26,000 Jews participated in the onslaught. In the aftermath of the Persian victory, the Jews perpetrated a massive holocaust of the Gentiles of Palestine. They burned the churches and the monasteries, killed monks and priests, burned books. The beautiful basilica of Fishes and Loaves in Tabgha, the Ascension on the Mount of Olives, St Stephen opposite Damascus Gate and the Hagia Sion on Mt Zion are just at the top of the list of perished edifices. Indeed, very few churches survived the onslaught. The Great Laura of St Sabas, tucked away in the bottomless Ravine of Fire (Wadi an-Nar) was saved by its remote location and steep crags. The Church of the Nativity miraculously survived: when Jews commanded its destruction, the Persians balked. They perceived the Magi mosaic above the lintel as the portrait of Persian kings.

This devastation was not the worst crime. When Jerusalem surrendered to the Persians, thousands of local Christians became prisoners of war and were herded to the Mamilla Pool area. The Israeli archaeologist Ronny Reich writes:

They were probably sold to the highest bidder. According to some sources, the Christian captives at Mamilla Pond were bought by Jews and were then slain on the spot.

The Oxford Professor Henry Hart Milman’s History of the Jews describes it in stronger terms:

It had come at length, the long-expected hour of triumph and vengeance; and the Jews did not neglect the opportunity. They washed away the profanation of the holy city in Christian blood. The Persians are said to have sold the miserable captives for money. The vengeance of the Jews was stronger than their avarice; not only did they not scruple to sacrifice their treasures in the purchase of these devoted bondsmen, they put to death all they had purchased at a lavish price. It was a rumour of the time that 90,000 perished.

An eyewitness to the massacre, Strategius of St Sabas, was more vivid:

Thereupon the vile Jews… rejoiced exceedingly, because they detested the Christians, and they conceived an evil plan. As of old they bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out of the reservoir… How many souls were slain in the reservoir of Mamilla! How many perished of hunger and thirst! How many priests and monks were massacred by the sword! How many maidens, refusing their abominable outrages, were given over to death by the enemy! How many parents perished on top of their children! How many of the people were brought up by the Jews and butchered, and became confessors of Christ! Who can count the multitude of the corpses of those who were massacred in Jerusalem!’

Strategius estimated the victims of the holocaust at 66,000.

In plain prose, the Jews ransomed the Christians from the hands of the Persian soldiers for good money to slaughter them at Mamilla Pool, ‘and it ran with blood’. Jews massacred between 60,000 and 90,000 Palestinian Christians in Jerusalem alone, almost 1.5 million in today’s values (the total earth’s population was according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica about 300 million, twenty times smaller than today). A few days later, the Persian military understood the magnitude of the massacre and stopped the Jews.

III

To his credit, the Israeli archaeologist Ronny Reich does not try to shift the blame for the massacres onto the Persians, as it is usually done nowadays. He admits that ‘the Persian Empire was not based on religious principles and was indeed inclined to religious tolerance’. This good man is clearly unsuitable to write for the Washington Post. That paper’s correspondent in Israel would have had no trouble describing the massacre as ‘retaliatory strike by the Jews who suffered under Christian rule’.

The holocaust of the Christian Palestinians in year 614 is well documented and you will find it described in older books. It has been censored out of modern guides and history books. Elliott Horowitz described, in his brilliant expose of the Jewish apologia[ii] how almost all Jewish historians suppressed the facts and re-wrote history. The cover-up continues even now. Recent Israeli publications attach the blame to the Persians, as they push the responsibility for Sabra and Shatila massacre onto the Lebanese Maronites. Horowitz writes:

Raul Hilberg, in The Destruction of the European Jews, asserted that “preventive attack, armed resistance, and revenge are almost completely absent in two thousand years of Jewish ghetto history”. Avi Yona, a leading Israeli historian, Leon Polyakov, author of History of Anti-Semitism (published at the expense of Marc Rich, the thief – ISH) and many others glossed over the holocaust of 614, kept silent or denied it completely. Benzion Dinur, a former director of the Holocaust Museum Yad va-Shem, told his readers euphemistically, in language that might have offended him if used with regard to Jews, that “recalcitrant Christians were firmly held in check’.

As a rule, Jewish historical and ideological writing is notoriously unreliable and apologetic, Horowitz shows. Granted, ‘not all Jews’, vide Horowitz, Finkelstein and other wonderful men, but they would be the first to agree with the truth of the above. The feeling of self-righteousness and perpetual victim-hood reinforced by a tendentious, distorted historical narrative is a source of mental disease, an obsession common to many modern Jews. This obsession intoxicates Jews and gives them unusual strength in promoting their own distorted narrative. In a way, this massive distortion of reality turns Jews into victorious berserks of ideological struggle. Still, while being a successful strategy, it is a mental disease, a danger to the souls of Jews and to the lives of others.

The Jews are not unique. Germans were intoxicated by the injustice of Versailles, and Adolf Hitler voiced it. Eric Margolis of the Toronto Sun[iii] wrote about Armenians inflamed by the story of their holocaust. They massacred thousands of their peaceful Azeri neighbours in the 1990s, and uprooted 800,000 native non-Armenians. ‘It’s time to recognize all the world’s horrors’, Margolis concludes. It is time to recognise the danger of inflammatory and one-sided narrative, I would add. The same system of tendentious reality-distorting narrative was deployed by the activists of militant feminism, communism, psychoanalysis, neo-conservatism, neo-liberalism, Zionism and a plethora of smaller movements as the means to enrage and intoxicate supporters for the ideological struggle.

As a result, we live in a psychotic, sick world. Our only system of communication, the media, is the enforcer of the malady and leads us to our perdition. It is necessary to promote balanced, alternative discourse in order to return to the common sense. Since the Jews have become so prominent in the modern world, the lopsided Jewish discourse has to be deconstructed and the crown of martyrdom carefully removed.

The tragic events of 614 should be returned into historical narrative, for it will help the Jews to heal their paranoid delusion. Without this knowledge one cannot understand the provisions of the treaty between the Jerusalemites and Caliph Omar ibn Khattab, concluded in year 638. In the Sulh al Quds, as this treaty of capitulation is called, Patriarch Sofronius demanded, and the powerful Arab ruler concurred to protect the people of Jerusalem from the ferocity of the Jews.

The genocide of the AD 614 was the most horrible, but not the only, genocide wreaked by Jews in those troubled years. Though the biblical story of the Canaan conquest by Joshua is just a story, it influenced Jewish souls. The Sixth Century was a century of strong Jewish influence, and it had more than its fair share of genocide.

Just a few years before 614, in 610, the Jews of Antioch massacred Christians. The Jewish historian Graetz wrote:

[The Jews] fell upon their Christian neighbours and retaliated for the injuries which they had suffered; they killed all that fell into their hands, and threw their bodies into the fire, as the Christians had done to them a century before. The Patriarch Anastasius, an object of special hate, was shamefully abused by them, and his body dragged through the streets before he was put to death.

For Graetz, as for IDF spokesmen, Jews always kill ‘in retaliation’. This dogma was not invented by CNN and Sharon: it is deeply rooted in the Jewish psyche as the ultimate defence. This historian (like other Jewish historians) did not care to mention that

The Jews of Antioch disembowelled the great Patriarch Anastasius, forced him to eat his own intestines; they hurled his genitals into his face.[iv]

IV

After the Arab conquest, a majority of Palestinian Jews accepted the message of the Messenger, as did the majority of Palestinian Christians, albeit for somewhat different reasons. For local Christians, Islam was a sort of Nestorian Christianity without icons, without Constantinople’s interference and without Greeks. (The Greek domination of the Palestinian church remains a problem for the local Christians to this very day.)

For ordinary local Jews, Islam was the return to the faith of Abraham and Moses. They had not been able to follow the intricacies of the new Babylonian faith anyway. The majority of them became Muslims and blended into the Palestinian population.

V

Modern Jews do not have to feel guilty for the misdeeds of Jews long gone. No son is responsible for the sins of his father. Israel could have turned this mass grave with its Byzantine chapel and mosaics into a small and poignant memorial reminding its citizens of a horrible page in the history of the land and of the dangers of genocidal supremacy. Instead, the Israeli authorities preferred to demolish the tomb and create an underground parking-lot in its place. That did not cause a murmur.

The guardians of the Jewish conscience, Amos Oz and others, have objected to the destruction of ancient remains. No, not of the tomb at Mamilla. They ran a petition against the keepers of the Haram a-Sharif mosque complex for digging a ten-inch trench to lay a new pipe. It did not matter to them that in an op-ed in Haaretz, the leading Israeli archaeologist denied any relevance of the mosque-works to science. They still described it as ‘a barbaric act of Muslims aimed at the obliteration of the Jewish heritage of Jerusalem’. Among the signatories I found, to my amazement and sorrow, the name of Ronny Reich. One thought he might tell them who obliterated the vestiges of the Jewish heritage at Mamilla Pool.

Censored history creates a distorted picture of reality. Recognition of the past is a necessary step on the way to sanity. The Germans and the Japanese have recognized the crimes of their fathers, have came to grips with their moral failings and have emerged as humbler, less boastful folks, akin to the rest of human race. We Jews have so far failed to exorcise the haughty spirit of the Chosen-ness, and find ourselves in a dire predicament.

That is why the idea of supremacy is still with us, still calling for genocide. In 1982, Amos Oz[v] met an Israeli who shared with the writer his dream of becoming a Jewish Hitler to the Palestinians. Persistent rumours identify the potential Hitler as Ariel Sharon. Whether it is true or not, slowly this dream is becoming a reality.

The Haaretz published an ad on its front page[vi], a fatwa, signed by a group of Rabbis. The Rabbis proclaimed the theological identification of Ishmael (the Arabs) with the Amalek. ‘Amalek’ is mentioned in the Bible as the name of a tribe that caused trouble for the Children of Israel. In this story the God of Israel commands His people to exterminate the Amalek tribe completely, including its livestock. King Saul botched the job: he exterminated them all right, but failed to kill nubile, unwed maidens. This ‘failure’ cost him his crown. The obligation to exterminate the people of Amalek is still counted among the tenets of the Jewish faith.

At the end of WWII, some Jews, including the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin, identified the Germans with Amalek, and a Jewish religious socialist and a fighter against Nazis, Abba Kovner, hatched a plot in 1945 to poison the water-supply system of German cities and to kill ‘six million Germans’. He obtained poison from a brother of the future President of Israel, Efraim Katzir. Katzir supposedly thought Kovner intended to poison ‘only’ a few thousands German POWs. The plan mercifully flopped when Kovner was stopped by British officials in a European port. This story was published last year in Israel in a biography of Kovner written by Prof Dina Porat, head of the Anti-Semitism Research Centre at Tel Aviv University[vii].

In plain English, the Rabbis’ fatwa means: our religious duty is to kill all Arabs, including women and babies and their livestock to the last cat. The liberal Haaretz, whose editor and owner are sufficiently versed to understand the fatwa, did not hesitate to place the ad. Some Palestinian activists recently criticized me for associating with the Russian weekly Zavtra and for quoting the American weekly Spotlight. I wonder why they have not condemned me for writing in Haaretz? Zavtra and Spotlight have never published a call to genocide, after all.

It would be unfair to single out Haaretz. Another prominent Jewish newspaper, The Washington Post, published an equally passionate call to genocide by Charles Krauthammer[viii]. This adept of King Saul cannot rely upon his audience’s knowledge of the Bible, so he refers to General Powell’s slaughter of routed Iraqi troops at the end of the Gulf war. He quotes Colin Powell saying of the Iraqi army: “First we’re going to cut it off, then we’re going to kill it”. For Krauthammer with his carefully chosen quotes, multitudes of slain Arabs do not qualify for the human pronoun ‘them’. They are an ‘it’. In the last stage of the war in the Gulf, immense numbers of retreating and disarmed Iraqis were slaughtered in cold blood by the US Air Force, their bodies buried by bulldozers in the desert sand in huge and nameless mass graves. The number of victims of this hecatomb is estimated from one hundred thousand to half a million. God alone knows their names.

Krauthammer wants to repeat this feat in Palestine. ‘It’ is already cut off, divided by the Israeli army into seventy pieces. Now it is ready for the great kill. ‘Kill it!’ he calls with great passion. He must be worried that the Persians will again stop the bloodbath before the Mamilla Pool fills up. His worries are our hopes.

___________________________

[i] BAR, 1996, v 22 No 2

[ii] “The Vengeance of the Jews Was Stronger Than Their Avarice”: Modern Historians and the Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 (published in Jewish Social Studies Volume 4, Number 2, Indiana University)

[iii] 22.04.2001

[iv] Horowitz, ibid.

[v] Here and there in the Land of Israel, Amos Oz

[vi] 21 November, 2000

[vii] Haaretz, 28 April 2001

[viii] Washington Post, 20 Apr 2001

***

The Massacre of Christians at Mamilla Pool, 614 A.D.

By Karl Radl

The Massacre of Mamilla Pool near Jerusalem in 614 AD is one of those events about which every critic of the jews needs to know as it provides a brutal blow to the jewish claims of eternal historical victim-hood and oppression by Christians. I have previously commented on it by proxy in regard to Antiochus of Palestine’s comments on the jews and the fall of Jerusalem in 614 AD. (1)

To summarize: the events at Mamilla Pool involve the deliberate genocide of the unarmed and completely innocent Christian population of Jerusalem by jews.

I felt that it deserved its own short article, especially as Israel Shamir’s piece on the subject is good, but it needed a bit more added to it in my view. (2)

To begin with lets remind ourselves of the events of 614 AD as they are narrated by Antiochus of Palestine.

To wit:

‘Thereupon the vile Jews, enemies of the truth and haters of Christ, when they perceived that the Christians were given over into the hands of the enemy, rejoiced exceedingly, because they detested the Christians; and they conceived an evil plan in keeping with their vileness about the people. For in the eyes of the Persians their importance was great, because they were the betrayers of the Christians. And in this season then the Jews approached the edge of the reservoir and called out to the children of God, while they were shut up therein, and said to them: ‘If ye would escape from death, become Jews and deny Christ; and then ye shall step up from your place and join us. We will ransom you with our money, and ye shall be benefited by us.’ But their plot and desire were not fulfilled, their labours proved to be in vain; because the children of Holy Church chose death for Christ’s sake rather than to live in godlessness: and they reckoned it better for their flesh to be punished, rather than their souls ruined, so that their portion were not with the Jews. And when the unclean Jews saw the steadfast uprightness of the Christians and their immovable faith, then they were agitated with lively ire, like evil beasts, and thereupon imagined another plot. As of old they bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out of the reservoir; for they gave the Persians silver, and they bought a Christian and slew him like a sheep. The Christians however rejoiced because they were being slain for Christ’s sake and shed their blood for His blood, and took on themselves death in return for His death…

When the people were carried into Persia, and the Jews were left in Jerusalem, they began with their own hands to demolish and burn such of the holy churches as were left standing…

How many souls were slain in the reservoir of Mamel! How many perished of hunger and thirst! How many priests and monks were massacred by the sword! How many infants were crushed under foot, or perished by hunger and thirst, or languished through fear and horror of the foe! How many maidens, refusing their abominable outrages, were given over to death by the enemy! How many parents perished on top of their own children! How many of the people were bought up by the Jews and butchered, and became confessors of Christ! How many persons, fathers, mothers, and tender infants, having concealed themselves in fosses and cisterns, perished of darkness and hunger! How many fled into the Church of the Anastasis, into that of Zion and other churches, and were therein massacred and consumed with fire! Who can count the multitude of the corpses of those who were massacred in Jerusalem!’ (3)

Antiochus’ narrative is itself is rather clear as to the direct jewish responsibility for the killing of the Christians at Mamilla Pool. Now, as Shamir notes, jewish historians have been at pains to deny all responsibility (since, as we all know, jews can never do anything wrong) and have even edited the events out of their works on jewish history (4) as well as blamed the massacre on the Persians (in direct contradiction to what the source material tells us) in modern Israeli narratives. (5)

One notable instance of silence on the massacre was written by the Israeli academic historian Shmuel Safrai who commented as follows:

‘At the beginning of the seventh century, the Persians set out on their conquests in the East, and in the year 614 they reached the borders of Palestine. Their approach set off a powerful messianic fermentation, which is reflected in several works written at the time whose theme is the Redemption. The Armenian historian Sebeos reported: ‘As the Persians approached Palestine, the remnants of the Jewish nation rose against the Christians, joined by the Persians and made common cause with them.’ The Jews assisted the invaders materially in their conquest of Galilee. From there the invading army turned to Caesarea and continued its conquests down to Apollonia, then eastwards to Lydda and from there to Jerusalem, which was captured in May 614. Jewish forces also took part in the conquest of Jerusalem, Sophronius, a contemporary monk who lived near Bethlehem, wrote in a poem: ‘God-seeking strangers and citizens of the city [Jerusalem]/… When they faced the Persians and their Hebrew friends/Hastened to close the city gates.’

The Persians handed Jerusalem over to Jewish settlers, who proceeded with the expulsion of the Christians and the removal of their churches. At the head of Jersualem stood a leader whom we know only his messianic name: Nehemiah ben Hushiel ben Ephraim ben Joseph. The sacrificial cult may even have been resumed. Jewish rule in Jerusalem lasted three years. In 617 there was a reversal of Persian policy. For reasons are not sufficiently clear, the Persians made peace with the Christians. The Jews, on the other hand, did not, and the Persian authorities were forced to fight them.’ (6)

What is interesting in Safrai’s account is that he points out the messianic religious fanaticism of the jews and also how much they hated Christians, but while he keeps up the general narrative: he never mentions the nasty details.

As far as Safrai seems to suggest: nothing happened other than the Christians were expelled from Palestine by jews.

However the massacre of Mamilla Pool as recorded by Antiochus did happen.

We can see this in the published findings of the archaeological excavations in the area of Mamilla Pool, of which the Israeli archaeologist Yossi Nagar has summarized the salient points as being: (7)

A) The ratio of male to female bodies was 38:100.

B) There are half the amount of adults than in comparative grave sites/cemeteries.

C) The bodies are not those of jews or Bedouin.

As Nagar points out: the bodies are likely those of non-combatants (i.e. wives and children) who were ‘indiscriminately slain’ while their men were away fighting or had perished in battle (i.e. in a massacre of the innocents). When we compare what Nagar reports to what Antiochus tells us: it is clear that we are looking at the mothers and children tormented and butchered by jewish fanatics for nothing more than the latter’s demented hated of non-jews (and Christians in particular).

In other words: we are looking here at a cast iron instance of the jews committing wholesale genocide. Since even authorities on the subject don’t think the Persians were conducting a religious or war of extermination against Christianity! (8)

However as Safrai relates: the jews were because they believed their long-awaited Messiah had turned up and the long-awaited butchering of non-jews could begin!
References

(1) http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/05/antiochus-of-palestine-on-jews-and-fall.html
(2) http://www.israelshamir.net/English/mamilla.htm#_edn7
(3) Frederick Conybeare, 1910, ‘Antiochus Srategos: The Capture of Jerusalem in 614 AD’, English Historical Review, Vol. 10, pp. 508-509
(4) For example Max Margolis, Alexander Marx, 1945, ‘A History of the Jewish People’, 1st Edition, Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia
(5) http://www.thinkisrael.com/Tourism_Euk/Articles/Attractions/Pages/Hidden%20Treasures%20in%20Jerusalem.aspx
(5) Shmuel Safrai, 1976, ‘The Era of the Mishnah and Talmud (70-640)’, p. 362 in Hayim-Hillel Ben-Sasson (Ed.), 1976, ‘A History of the Jewish People’, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London
(7) http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=17&sub_subj_id=179
(8) Beate Dignas, Engelbert Winter, 2007, ‘Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals’, 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press: New York, pp. 151; 230-231

The Goy According To Hoenlein

March 02, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

You’d think that Malcolm Hoenlein, who heads the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, would choose his words carefully. In an interview with the Zionist The Times of Israel Hoenlein spoke about antisemitism as a global “pandemic in formation.”

‘Pandemic’ is an infectious disease spread through human populations across a large region. So, according to Hoenlein, opposition to Jewish power and Israeli politicsis a disease, both infectious and hateful, that is globally prevalent in Goyish populations.

In Hoenlein’s universe, the ‘chosen’ are always innocent while the ‘unchosen’ are eternally sick. For Hoenlein, antisemitism

“is not our (Jewish) problem. It’s society’s problem. It’s Christianity’s problem. It’s everybody’s problem, when there’s hatred against Jews. We’re the victims, we’re not the cause of it. It’s not because we did something wrong. It’s because of who we are and our values.”

But what are these values Hoenlein attributes to the Jews? Are they simply choseness and racial supremacy? Are they those ethical standards practiced by the Jewish state? Is it a distinctly Jewish value to believe that the Jews are always innocent victims and the Goyim are barbarian hate-monger as contended openly by Honlein?

Anyone with a minimum understanding of Jewish culture and Judaism knows that the Jewish universe is dominated by Torah and Mitzvoth (rules and commandments) that, as opposed to universal ethics and values, are tribally based. Because both Judaism and Jewish culture are inherently tribal, there is no such a thing as Jewish universal values.

In fact, Haskalah , the Jewish enlightenment, was merely an attempt to mimic European secular universal values. Similarly, Zionism’s promise to make Jews ‘people like all other peoplel implicitly accepting that all other people were actually culturally and ethically superior.

Hoenlein points to “widespread concerns over the Israeli government’s total alignment with US President Donald Trump, which some fear could turn Israel into a partisan issue in the United States.” But if you think Hoenlein is advising Israel to stay away from American politics, you are wrong. This Jewish American leader actually calls on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “invite to Israel the newly elected head of the Democratic party, Tom Perez, in a bid to cement bipartisan support for the Jewish state.” Hoenlein wants the Jewish state to dominate the entire American political spectrum; Trump as well as the Democrats. Surely such  an approach can only make American Jews even more loved by their neighbours.

Zionism in its early days agreed with the so-called ‘antisemites’ that Jewish identity was unhealthy and parasitic. Early Zionists promised to take the Jews away and to ‘civilise’ them by means of homecoming. But Hoenlein intends the opposite. He insists that Israel dominates both poles of the American political exchange – obviously Hoenlein is the very personification of those Jewish symptoms the early Zionists promised to treat.

If Hoenlein is genuinely concerned with antisemitism maybe, accusing gentiles of being infected in an hateful disease is not exactly going to make Jews loved.  If Hoenlein and the Jews really, once and for all, want to defeat antisemitism, all they need do is to look in the mirror and ask themselves, what is it about them that invokes such hatred in others.

Exactly who is it that is in ‘Denial’?

February 16, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

A somewhat biased film review

By Gilad Atzmon

In her book Denying the Holocaust (1993), Deborah Lipstadt confessed that it was David Irving’s considerable reputation as an historian that made him “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.” “Familiar with historical evidence,” she wrote, “he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.” Irving responded by claiming that Lipstadt’s words were libellous and filed a legal case against her and her publisher Penguin Books.

Was Irving brave or naïve in putting the Holocaust on trial? Probably both. Back in 1996, was Irving a hero or just grossly miscalculating in believing he stood a chance in taking on the Holocaust, still the most popular Jewish religion? Again, probably both.

The other day, I watched Mick Jackson’s ‘Denial’. The film tells the story of Irving’s 2000 defeat in court – a disaster he voluntarily brought upon himself and indeed, Irving has clearly made some mistakes in his life. Yet, in 2017 it is impossible to deny that, back in 2000, Irving was well ahead of most of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcx43AmAyY

Watching the film in the aftermath of Brexit, the Trump victory and the surge of Right Wing consciousness in the West in general, it is clear that Irving, undoubtedly one of the greatest living biographer of Hitler, understood human nature better than the British judge, Lipstadt’s legal team, the BBC and probably the rest of us altogether.

Back in 2000, the Holocaust narrative was as solid as a rock. The Jews were perceived as the ultimate victims and their plight at the time of World War II was unquestionable.  No one dared ask how is it is possible that, three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the newly-born Jewish state ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indigenous population? At the time of the trial, no one dared ask why is the Jewish past just a chain of holocausts – that is, no one except David Irving (and a few others).

At the time of the trial, I read an interview with David Irving that opened my eyes to the idea that history is a revisionist adventure, an attempt to narrate the past as we move along. I realised then that the past is subject to changes. It morphs along with humanity.

In that interview, Irving was quoted as‘ blaming the victims.’

“If I were a Jew,” he said, “I would ask myself why it always happens to us?”

At the time, I was a still Jew but I took up Irving’s challenge. I looked in the mirror and didn’t like what I saw so I decided to leave the tribe and I stopped being a Jew.

But Irving is no longer a lone voice. Two weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, it was actually the American president himself who managed to universalize the Holocaust by omitting to mention the Jews or their shoah. As we Westerns obliterate country after country with our immoral interventionism, the Holocaust is no longer a Jews-only domain and all the time more and more people grasp that it is actually Israel and its affiliated Jewish lobbies that are pushing us into more and more unnecessary global conflicts.

‘Denial’ was made to sustain a ‘progressive’ vision of the past. In this progressive but misguided universe, people ‘move forward’ but their past remains fixed, often sacred and always untouched. Nationalists, on the other hand, often see the past as a dynamic, vibrant reality. For them, nostalgia, is the way forward.

But some Jews are tormented by this nostalgia. They want their own past to be compartmentalized and sealed, otherwise, they are fearful that some people may decide to examine Jewish history in the light of Israeli crimes.

In the film, Irving is an old style British gent who sticks to his guns and refuses to change his narrative just to fit in with any notions of correctness. Irving states what he believes in and stands firmly behind it.

For Irving, one of the most damaging pieces of evidenced presented to the court was a little ditty he wrote to his daughter when she was just a few months old, and conceived by the court as the ultimate in crude misanthropy.

 

“I am a Baby Aryan,

Not Jewish or Sectarian.

I have no plans to marry-an

Ape or Rastafarian.”

 

On the day of the verdict, Irving visited the BBC Newsnight studio to be grilled by Jeremy Paxman who read the little ditty to Irving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anx4ZRgpQbY&t=23m7s

“What’s racist about that?” Irving wondered. “You are not being serious,” was Paxman’s  reply. Paxman, one of Britain’s best TV journalists, was, like the rest of us, trained to react to soundbites. “Aryan is a racial categorisation” he insisted.

Back in 2000, Paxman probably failed to see that,

if Jews are entitled to identify politically as a race, as a biology or as set of cultural symptoms then Whites, Muslims and everyone else must surely be entitled to do the same.

Back in 2000, Irving understood this potential Identitarian shift. Sixteen years later, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage translated this Identitarian shift into a victory. The Clintons, the Soros’ and the Deborah Lipstadts of this world are still struggling to make sense of it.

‘Denial’, is actually a film about righteousness, exceptionalism and victimhood.  It is about the condition of being consumed by self-love, that blind belief that justice is always on your side, that you are the eternal victim and the other, namely the ‘Goy’ is always the murderous aggressor.

But this type of ‘denial’ can be dealt with easily and here is just one example: The Jewish press in Britain  complains constantly that antisemitism is soaring. The more funds the British government dedicates to fighting antisemitsm, the more antisemitic incidents are recorded. I guess the time is ripe for Jews to listen to David Irving and ask themselves why?

If Jews want anti-Semitism to come to an end once and for all, all they need do is to self-reflect. However, my personal experience suggests that once you do that, you may stop being a Jew.

Note: It is worth mentioning that, since the 2000 trial, Irving is on record on numerous occasions as revising his views on the Holocaust and on the destruction of European Jews. Certainly, as he moves along, David Irving at least is able to revise the past.

 

Identitarians vs. Patriots – Elaborating on Progressive duplicity and the Rise of the Right (video)

December 29, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

In this Manhattan gathering I examine the ideologiesthat were set to divide the  working people and their ability to resist Globalisation. I point at the bond between the New Left and Jewish progressive intelligentsia.

Those who are interested in my work may find this talk very interesting.

https://youtu.be/ewvTPCJl3F8

UN Resolution 2334 Is good For Israel

December 25, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

On 23 December the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted to adopt a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity as illegal, and demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem”.

For once, the USA decided to join the rest of humanity and didn’t veto the resolution.  The message is obvious: if Zionism was a promise to make the Jews people like other people, its failure is colossal. The Jewish State and its lobbies are people like no other. 14 out of 15 members of the UNSC voted against Israel, the US abstained. In the most clear terms, the UNSC denounced the Jewish state’s treatment of the Palestinian people. If Israel would be an ordinary state, as Zionism initially promised,  it would take some time to reflect on the resolution and consider the necessary measures to amend its public image. But as one would expect, the Jewish State did the complete opposite. It took the path of the bully and decided to punish the world.

In his first reaction to the resolution Israeli PM Netanyahu told his followers that the Security Council’s behaviour was “shameful.” He also harshly denounced President Obama’s choice to abstain. A list of American elected spineless characters were quick to cry havoc and promised to correct the damage.  Netanyahu has instructed Israel’s ambassadors in New Zealand and Senegal to “return to Israel for consultations.” A scheduled visit of the Ukrainian PM in Jerusalem next week was cancelled.  Netanyahu also ordered to block the shekel pipeline to some UN institutions.

But things may be slightly more complicated than they look at first glance.  If the One (Bi-National) State is an existential threat to Israel being the Jewish state, then the recent UN resolution is obviously a last attempt to revive the Two-State Solution. It, de facto, legitimises the existence of the Jewish State within the pre-1967 borders. The resolution provides Israel with a practical and pragmatic opportunity to dissolve the West Bank settlements. Banks and businesses may start to refrain from operating in the occupied territories. Israeli military personnel serving in the occupied territories are about to become subject to the scrutiny of international law. Netanyahu, so it seems, made a fuss about the resolution, but the resolution plays into his hands. It provides him with an opportunity to break the stalemate with the Palestinians. Netanyahu knows it. President Obama knows it, the president-elect will be advised about as soon as he takes some time off Twitter.

But if the resolution serves Israeli national and security interests, why did Netanyahu react like a bully? The answer is simple. Bibi is a populist. Like president-elect Trump he knows what his people are like. He knows what the Jews and the Israelis seek in their leader. They want their king to celebrate Jewish exceptionalism. They want their master to perform contempt towards the Goyim. PM Netanyahu knows very well that David Ben Gurion (the legendary first Israeli PM)  dismissed the UN, famously saying “it doesn’t matter what the Goyim say, the only thing that matters is what Jews do.”

It is far from clear whether Ben Gurion was really dismissive of Goyim. However, he was loved by his people for conveying the image as if he did. Bibi follows the same rule. In the public eye, he is dismissive of the UN, he is full with contempt to the nations and Goyim in general. But in practice he knows that the resolution is essential for the existence of the Jewish state. It is probably the last opportunity to scale down the pretentious Zionist dream and make it fit with the reality on the ground.  Let me reassure you, I don’t hold my breath. In reality it is actually the Israelis who don’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Related Articles

 

Theresa May’s Personal Message to the Jews

December 17, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

Every British citizen  should read the following letter from Prime Minister Theresa May  to British Jews and wonder why is our PM so concerned with, and committed to the interests and security of the people who are probably the most privileged ethnic group in the country.   

My advice to Mrs May would be that it is not she who can really fight Anti-Semitism. The only people who can defeat anti-Semitism are the Jews themselves. All they have to do is to drop their choseness and become ordinary people – in effect, stop being so special and join the human race.

But then, when the Jew is no longer chosen, there is very little left for the Jew to celebrate or is it that when the Jew is no longer ‘chosen’ he/she is no longer a Jew?  

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/i-ll-keep-you-safe-1.429387

Theresa May Writes For The JC: ‘I’ll Keep You Safe’

The fact that antisemitism is on the rise again in mainland Europe should sicken us all; the fact it is on the rise here in Britain should shame us all.

As Prime Minister, I want to speak very directly to every Jewish family in the UK, to assure you of my personal determination to do everything possible to keep you safe and to rid this scourge of hatred from the soul of our country.

I know fighting against the divisive prejudice and extremist ideology that lies at the heart of antisemitism is part of the good that government can do. As I have said before, without its Jews, Britain would not be Britain; just as Britain would not be Britain without its Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and people of other faiths too.

So the first step in defeating antisemitism is to define it clearly, to remove any doubt about what is unacceptable, so that no one can plead ignorance or hide behind any kind of excuse.

That is why the announcement I made on Monday is so important. Thanks to the work of Sir Eric Pickles as my Post-Holocaust Issues Envoy, Britain has led the way in establishing an international definition of antisemitism, through the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Just last week we were at the forefront of trying to ensure that definition was adopted across the continent at the Summit of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, with 56 countries in favour and only Russia opposed.

This week, thanks to the work of the Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, this Conservative government is now taking a ground-breaking step by adopting this definition here in Britain.

Through this definition we will call out anyone guilty of any language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews because they are Jews — and we will actively encourage the use of this definition by the police, the legal profession, universities and other public bodies.

I want to be very clear about what this means, because it goes to the heart of the lessons identified by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism.

Its report showed a rise in antisemitism in 2014 linked to growing criticism of the actions of the Israeli government.

We have to break these two issues apart. Through this new definition we can be unequivocal that criticising the government of Israel can never be an excuse for hatred against the Jewish people — any more than criticising the British government can be an excuse for hatred against the British people.

Put simply, there can be no excuses for any kind of hatred towards the Jewish people. Full stop.

But defeating antisemitism requires more than defining it. It means recording it and punishing those responsible for it, it means acting to keep Jewish people safe and it means educating future generations to fight hatred and prejudice in all its forms. This Conservative government is committed to doing all three.

As Home Secretary I required all police forces to record religious hate crimes separately, by faith. I made sure we kept extremism, including the sort that peddles antisemitic vitriol, out of our country.

That is why I said no to comedians like Dieudonné coming to Britain. It is why I stopped Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Pastor Terry Jones coming too, because Islamophobia comes from the same wellspring of hatred.

It is why I kicked out Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada as well. And it is why I brought together internet companies and government to tear down the poisonous propaganda that infects minds online.

I was also pleased to commit over £13 million of funding at the Community Security Trust dinner earlier this year to support the security of Jewish faith schools, synagogues and communal buildings, and I will continue to ensure you have the resources you need to protect the community at all times.

But the ultimate way of defeating antisemitism is to create an environment that prevents it happening in the first place.

So I am proud to be continuing the work to create a National Memorial to the Holocaust next to Parliament, together with an accompanying educational centre, which will include the first-hand testimony of Britain’s Holocaust survivors.

The location of this memorial and its educational centre will send a powerful message about our values as a country. Together we will stand up for the British values of tolerance and respect for others that are epitomised by the mother of all Parliaments. Together, we will educate every generation to fight hatred and prejudice in all its forms and we will defend the hard-fought British liberty of freedom of religion or belief.

Together, we will keep Jewish people in our country safe and defeat the scourge of antisemitism by standing up for our values and our way of life — today, and for every generation to come.

Israel National News Against Gilad Atzmon

December 10, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Jews can be anti-Semites too!” is the title of Jewish settlers outlet Israel National News’ article dedicated to my work by one Manfred Gerstenfeld.  Needless to mention that being subject to a smear campaign led by the Israeli ultra nationalist outlet is pretty much the kind of publicity I wish for. However, I would point out to Gerstenfeld that his title is slightly misleading. Jews are not Semites and I haven’t even been a Jew for two decades now.

Settler Gerstenfeld is desperate to prove that yours truly is an ‘antisemite’. Let’s examine his arguments, one by one. I am genuinely quoted as saying that I am totally “against Holocaust denial.”  I clearly resent those who deny the genocides taking place in the name of the Holocaust. Palestine is one example…” (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/after-all-i-am-a-proper-zionist-jew-by-gilad-atzmon.html)

I guess that in the eyes of settler Gerstenfeld, supporting Palestine equals anti-Semitism.  But considering the obvious fact that the Palestinians are Semites*, taking their side is actually the ultimate form of philo-Semitism. But I will dutifully address Gerstenfeld’s concern regarding the Holocaust and its denial. I believe that history must be subject to revision. This applies, as well, to the Holocaust otherwise it becomes alienated from history and alien to historicity. The Holocaust in its current state is reduced into a religion, a dogma. To insist that the Holocaust is subject to revision is by no means a form of denial. On the contrary, it integrates this chapter into our human past. It becomes a universal ethical lesson instead of another celebration of the primacy of Jewish suffering.  Such a transition in our take on the holocaust can prevent the Jews and their institutions from repeating the same mistakes that they have made throughout their history, having made the Jewish past look like a Shoah continuum.

Gerstenfeld, who writes in an ultra right-wing settler outlet curiously complains that in my work I “attack”, as well, some Jewish anti-Zionists. In an article titled Goyim Must Obey, Atzmon accuses the Jewish anti-Zionists of telling “Goyim and even Palestinians what they may or may not do and who they may or may not listen to.”  Here, Gerstenfeld’s language lacks accuracy. I do not “attack” people. This is what Israel does to its enemies. I actually criticize people whom I believe to be wrong. My weapon is my pen. However, the quote above is genuine and I stand by my words. I believe Jewish political lobbying is a total disaster.  It is very dangerous for Jews, in particular.

I am indeed critical of all forms of Jewish politics, left and right, Zionist and ‘anti’. I challenge Jewish political identification because it is racially oriented. I argue in the open that from a Judeo-centric perspective Israel and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) are identical. We are dealing with two racially exclusive Jewish clubs. In fact, and this is slightly embarrassing, Israel may even be mildly less racist than JVP, for in the Israeli Knesset the 3rd biggest party is Arab, yet JVP leadership is purely and exclusively Jewish.

Gerstenfeld mistakenly writes, “Atzmon even attacks Jews who completely disavow Judaism and Zionism.” Once again the settler believes that I have “attacked” Shlomo Sand and Avigail Abarbanel. I have great respect for Sand and dedicated to his work a chapter in my previous book, “The Wandering Who.”  I am critical of some aspects of the work of Sand and of Abarbanel. And yet, I wonder, does intellectual criticism of Jewish writers equate to anti-Semitism? If it does, it suggests that Jews are actually beyond criticism. This is probably the real meaning of  “chosenness” in the eyes of some rabid Zionists.

Gerstenfeld is desperate to prove that I am an anti-Semite. But the one thing he can’t find is where I express hatred to Jews for being Jews. Instead, he seeks the help of the IHRA’s (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti-Semitism. According to the IHRA “making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews, as such, or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy, or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, is an example of anti-Semitism.”

Gerstenfeld suggests that some of my remarks fall in the above category. Gerstenfeld then attempts at cherry-picking but fails to find fruit.  “Why are the Jews, a people who are obsessed with their own past, so afraid of other people, say, ‘White’ people, being nostalgic for their own past?” (www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/8/28/utopia-nostalgia-and-the-jew) Gerstenfeld is kind enough to also quote my answer. “The progressive Jew grasps that the working class is nostalgic for a pre-Jerusalem-dominated society – a time when American politics wasn’t controlled by the likes of Saban, Soros, Goldman Sachs and other global capitalists who are isolated from production, manufacturing, and farming.”

Gerstenfeld foolishly fell into a trap here. He actually admits that my reference is not to the Jewish people, per se, but to the progressive Jews which is a politically identified sector within American Jewry.

I do accept that Gerstenfeld is not happy with me pointing the finger at Jewish oligarchs like Soros, Saban and, more precisely, at their corrosive role within American politics. But maybe Gerstenfeld should make sure that Jewish press outlets stop bragging about Jewish billionaires being the ‘Five Top Democratic Donors’ as they do here, here and here

Gerstenfeld, who is probably not the most developed thinker, repeats the same mistake. The IHRA definition asserts that “accusing Jews ‘as a people’ of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews is anti-Semitism.” I totally agree with the IHRA definition. Jewish people shouldn’t be implicated collectively by the crime of a single Jewish felon, a sex offender, or a tyrant.  But in the following quote I suggest the complete opposite. “Talking of apologies, the Board of Deputies (BOD) has yet to apologize for Lord Janner allegedly raping British orphans when he was their president and therefore pretty much the representative of British Jews.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL3t3cXjXGU

Rather than asking Jews, or British Jews, for that matter, to disassocite themselves from Lord Janner, I expect the Board of Deputies of British Jews to apologize for the sex crimes allegedly committed by their President, especially because the BOD claims to represent British Jews. Is it truly anti-Semitic, I wonder, to expect Jewish institutions to take responsibility for their actions and associations?

In my recent satirical dictionary “A to Zion” I define anti Semites as ‘brutally honest people, often of Jewish origin.’ I guess that I should confess. I am brutally honest and I was a Jew for thirty years.

 

* I am fully a ware that Semite is a reference to a set of languages rather than race.

%d bloggers like this: