Michael Hoffman: America is under Talmudic law, not Sharia law

Michael Hoffman: America is under Talmudic law, not Sharia law

By Michael Hoffman — Revisionist Review Oct 16, 2017

My bedtime reading is the Babylonian Talmud. It’s true. I find horror literature relaxing. I take a volume of the Talmud and a pencil and sit on the edge of my bed and study for 20 to 30 minutes every night, secure in the thought that it will not be anytime soon that I run out of material, since the Talmud consists of more than 30 volumes, much of it turgid minutiae about subjects so prurient they boggle the mind (Sanhedrin 82b: “Zimri engaged in 424 acts of intercourse with Cozbi in one day”). It is perhaps the most pornographic “sacred” text of any major religion, with the possible exception of the Tantra of the Hindus.

There are passages in the Babylonian Talmud that would make Harvey Weinstein blush. Sanhedrin 69a: “A girl who is three years and one-day-old whose father arranged her betrothal can be betrothed with intercourse, as, despite her age, the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse. And in a case where the childless husband of a girl three years and one day old dies, if his yavam (brother) engages in intercourse with her, he acquires her as his wife…as despite her age she is legally considered to be a married woman.”

Defrauding gentiles is another favorite theme. (Sanhedrin 76b: What is the cause of sin? Returning a lost item to a gentile”).

Apologists who attempt to explain the way these ignominious statements often do so by claiming that the Talmud is merely a series of debates without force of law. This deception is usually sold to those who know little or nothing about the Mishnah and Gemara, which comprise the Talmud. The claim about the Talmud being a series of non-binding debates is an insult to our intelligence. While there are many non-negotiable dogmas, the Talmudic religion is mainly predicated upon situation ethics. This explains in part why, in the 16th century, commensurate with Pope Leo X directing the publication of the finest edition of the Babylonian Talmud the world had ever seen, the popes began to enact loopholes in the immemorial Catholic ban on usury. It seems that the situation of usury had changed and that money could now be rented, despite 1500 years of Biblical and Patristic condemnation of this very act. The immutable law of God was eclipsed by man-made laws of convenience. The process is thoroughly Talmudic.

The Babylonian Talmud is indeed a body of law. It is codified by preeminent authorities such as “the Rambam” (Rabbi Moses Maimonides), author of the Mishneh Torah;  Rabbi Joseph Karo, author of the Shulchan Aruch, and “the Chafetz Chaim” (Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan), author of the Mishnah Berurah, the legal code centered on the O.C. (“Orach Chayim”) section of Karo’s Shulchan Aruch. There are several other legal authorities, though few have the stature of this trio among the Orthodox Ashkenazi. The source of their binding law codes which micromanage the lives of millions of adherents, is the Talmud of Babylon, that supposed insipid series of mere “debates.”

As you may have surmised from the preceding citations, this writer has been studying tractate Sanhedrin of late, where some of the weightiest matters of halacha (rabbinic law) are propounded. The Sanhedrin volumes cover capital punishment and other forms of penal law, including the eerie concept of the rodef (“pursuer”). It is often bragged that the religion of the Talmud has suspended enforcement of the death penalty. Hence, gentiles don’t have to fear that worshippers of Jesus Christ will be executed for avodah zarah (idolatry), under the Noahide laws; that’s the cover story. The truth is that while the beth din (rabbinic court) does not formally, and as a matter of public action, issue death penalties, they do permit the preemptive execution of a person designated a rodef.

We are dealing here with lawyers. Therefore, it is necessary to be cognizant of the myriad escape clauses that are native to the Talmudic gestalt. Nowadays no rabbinic court sentences anyone to death? That’s true. Hence, people are murdered without trial. The most notorious recent case is that of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, assassinated in 1995 by Yigal Amir, a Talmud student because Rabin was earnestly endeavoring to make peace with the Palestinians. Amir invoked the halachot of the rodef, i.e the rabbinic law governing a pursuer. Rabin was considered by the Israeli-colonialist settler movement to be a rodef, and hence he was summarily murdered as a preventive act. This is a feature of the Talmudic law governing the “pursuer.” It was conveyed to George W. Bush that the nation of Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a pursuer, and a first strike aggressive war was launched, in accordance with the Talmud, while Protestant fundamentalists and papalist neocons ran about screeching, “Beware, Sharia law is nearly here!”

Pursuers come in all shapes and sizes. They can even be Judaic children. In 1973 Americans were shocked and deeply disturbed when the Supreme Court not only legalized abortion at 12 or 16 weeks’ gestation — the Court, in conformity with the Talmud, legalized abortion on demand at any time during the pregnancy, including a few minutes before the baby is born. This abominable crime against the innocent is permissible in those lands where the Talmud exerts dominion.

The relevant halacha is found in the uncensored text of the Talmud Bavli (“Bavli” denotes Babylon), in Sanhedrin 72b, where a mother believes her unborn baby is endangering her life by “pursuing” her. According to the Talmud, this unborn infant rodef can be eliminated at any time during the pregnancy, except when the mother is actually giving birth and the head of the child becomes visible.

“Before the baby is born, it is not considered a living soul, and it is therefore not subject to the halakhot (law) of murder.” — Koren Talmud Bavli: Sanhedrin Part Two (Jerusalem, 2017), p. 155.

Right wing campaigners against the alleged imminent imposition of Sharia law announce that they are defending the “Constitution against Islam.” We have never seen a case where Islamic law profoundly influenced members of the Supreme Court. We have, however, observed repeated Talmudic influence over how the court interprets the Constitution in the modern era. Roe v. Wade is one example. Another is the “discovery” of a Constitutional right to legalize the marriage of sodomites. It goes without saying that the Founders envisioned no such right, just as the Bible made no allowance for a usurping Talmud.

In the religion that is directed by the Talmud, there is no legislature. All laws are made by judicial decision. It just so happens that this is how much of the supreme law of the land is made in America. Another name for “activist judge” is Talmudic judge.

Our nation is under Talmudic law, not Sharia, though immense troops of Protestant and Catholic ignoramuses display their cluelessness as they crusade with intense fervor against a non-existent menace, while oblivious to the cancer eating at the bowels of our nation.

One wants to be charitable. One hesitates to overtax rhetoric and apply the word idiocy to the victims of what is a constantly mutating virus of deception that has hoodwinked them and 99% of the conservative movement. In lieu of such rhetoric, an observation of C. Wright Mills comes to mind, “We are at a curious juncture in the history of human insanity.”

Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered, and Judaism’s Strange Gods. He is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press.

Source

Advertisements

Take It From the Rabbi’s Mouth

“The overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regard Zionism not only as fully consistent with Judaism but as a logical expression and implementation of it.””

— Document released on November 20, 1942 signed by 818 American Rabbis

The following  article was published on this site in May 2013. In recent weeks we have witnessed some anti Zionist rabbinical Jews  outraged by the attempt to equate Judaism and Zionism. I plan to write on the topic extensively, however,  a brief look at this 1942 rabbinical affirmation of Zionism  is rather revealing:

great-bios.jpg

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon

Every so often we come across a Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist’  who argues that Zionism is not Judaism and vice versa. Interestingly enough, I have just come across an invaluable text that illuminates this question from a rabbinical perspective. Apparently back in 1942, 757 American Rabbis added their names to a public pronouncement titled ‘Zionism an Affirmation of Judaism’. This Rabbinical rally for Zionism was declared at the time “the largest public pronouncement in all Jewish history.”

Today, we tend to believe that world Jewry’s transition towards support for Israel followed the 1967 war though some mightargue that already in 1948, American Jews manifested a growing support for Zionism. However, this rabbinical pronouncement proves that as early as 1942, the American Jewish religious establishment was already deeply Zionist. And if this is not enough, the rabbis also regarded Zionism as the ‘implementation’ of Judaism. Seemingly, already then, the peak of World War two, the overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regarded Zionism, not only as fully consistent with Judaism, but as a “logical expression and implementation of it.”

In spite of the fact that early Zionist leaders were largely secular and the East European Jewish settler waves were driven by Jewish socialist ideology, the rabbis contend that “Zionism is not a secularist movement. It has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism.

Those rabbis were not a bunch of ignoramuses. They were patriotic and nationalistic and they grasped that “universalism is not a contradiction of nationalism.” The rabbis tried to differentiate between contemporaneous German Nationalism and other national movements and they definitely wanted to believe that Zionism was categorically different to Nazism. “Nationalism as such, whether it be English, French, American or Jewish, is not in itself evil. It is only militaristic and chauvinistic nationalism, that nationalism which shamelessly flouts all mandates of international morality, which is evil.” But as we know, just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz the new Jewish State launched a devastating racially driven ethnic-cleansing campaign. Zionism has proven to be militaristic and chauvinistic.

Shockingly enough, back in 1942 as many as 757 American rabbis were able to predict the outcome of the war and they realised that the suffering of European Jewry would be translated into a Jewish State . “We are not so bold as to predict the nature of the international order which will emerge from the present war. It is altogether likely, and indeed it may be desirable, that all sovereign states shall under the coming peace surrender some of their sovereignty to achieve a just and peaceful world society (a Jewish State).”

Some American patriots today are concerned with Israeli-American dual nationality and the dual aspirations of American Jews. Apparently our rabbis addressed this topic too. According to them, there is no such conflict whatsoever. All American Jews are American patriots and all American decision makers are Zionists. “Every fair-minded American knows that American Jews have only one political allegiance–and that is to America. There is nothing in Zionism to impair this loyalty. Zionism has been endorsed in our generation by every President from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and has been approved by the Congress of the United States. The noblest spirits in American life, statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry, have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.”

Back in 1942 our American rabbis were bold enough to state that defeating Hitler was far from sufficient. For them, a full solution of the Jewish question could only take place in Palestine. “Jews, and all non-Jews who are sympathetically interested in the plight of Jewry, should bear in mind that the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe. “

But there was one thing the American rabbis failed to mention – the Palestinian people. For some reason, those rabbis who knew much about ‘universalism’ and in particular Jewish ‘universalism’ showed very little concern to the people of the land. I guess that after all, chosennss is a form of blindness and rabbis probably know more about this than anyone else.

 

Zionism: An Affirmation of Judaism

http://zionistsout.blogspot.com/2008/03/zionism-affirmation-of-judaism.html

ZIONISMAN AFFIRMATIONOF JUDAISMA Reply by 757 Orthodox, Conservative and ReformRabbis of America to a Statement Issued by NinetyMembers of the Reform Rabbinate Charging ThatZionism Is Incompatible with the Teachings of Judaism

THE SUBJOINED REPLY was prepared at the initiative of the following Rabbis who submitted it to their colleagues throughout the country for signature: Philip S. Bernstein, Barnett R. Brickner, Israel Goldstein, James G. Heller, Mordecai M. Kaplan, B. L. Levinthal, Israel H. Levinthal, Louis M. Levitsky, Joshua Loth Liebman, Joseph H. Lookstein, Jacob R. Marcus, Abraham A. Neuman, Louis I. Newman, David de Sola Pool, Abba Hillel Silver, Milton Steinberg, and Stephen S. Wise.

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RABBIS of all elements in American Jewish religious life,have noted with concern a statement by ninety of our colleagues in which they repudiate Zionism on the ground that it is inconsistent with Jewish religious and moral doctrine. This statement misrepresents Zionism and misinterprets historic Jewish religious teaching, and we should be derelict in our duty if we did not correct the misapprehensions which it is likely to foster.

We call attention in the first place to the fact that the signatories to this statement, for whom as fellow-Rabbis we have a high regard, represent no more than a very small fraction of the American rabbinate. They constitute a minority even of the rabbinate of Reform Judaism with which they are associated. The overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regard Zionism not only as fully consistent with Judaism but as a logical expression and implementation of it.

Our colleagues concede the need for Jewish immigration into Palestine as contributing towards a solution of the vast tragedy of Jewish homelessness. They profess themselves ready to encourage such settlement. They are aware of the important achievements, social and spiritual, of the Palestinian Jewish community and they pledge to it their unstinted support. And yet, subscribing to every practical accomplishment of Zionism, they have embarked upon a public criticism of it. In explanation of their opposition they advance the consideration that Zionism is nationalistic and secularistic. On both scores they maintain it is incompatible with the Jewish religion and its universalistic outlook. They protest against the political emphasis which, they say, is now paramount in the Zionist program and which, according to them, tends to confuse both Jews and Christians as to the place and function of the Jewish group in American society. They appeal to the prophets of ancient Israel for substantiation of their views.

TREASURING the doctrines and moral principles of our faith no less than they, devoted equally to America and its democratic processes and spirit, we nonetheless find every one of their contentions totally without foundation.

Zionism is not a secularist movement. It has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism. Scripture and rabbinical literature alike are replete with the promise of the restoration of Israel to its ancestral home. Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, is a departure from the Jewish religion. Nothing in the entire pronouncement of our colleagues is more painful than their appeal to the prophets of Israel—to those very prophets whose inspired and recorded words of national rebirth and restoration nurtured and sustained the hope of Israel throughout the ages.

 

Nor is Zionism a denial of the universalistic teachings of Judaism. Universalism is not a contradiction of nationalism. Nationalism as such, whether it be English, French, American or Jewish, is not in itself evil. It is only militaristic and chauvinistic nationalism, that nationalism which shamelessly flouts all mandates of international morality, which is evil. The prophets of Israel looked forward to the time not when all national entities would be obliterated, but when all nations would walk in the light of the Lord, live by His law and learn war no more.

Our colleagues find themselves unable to subscribe to the political emphasis “now paramount in the Zionist program.” We fail to perceive what it is to which they object. Is it to the fact that there are a regularly constituted Zionist organization and a Jewish Agency which deal with the mandatory government, the Colonial office, the League of Nations and other recognized political bodies? But obviously, even immigration and colonization are practical matters which require political action. The settlement of a half million Jews in Palestine since the last war was made possible by political action which culminated in the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. There can be little hope of opening the doors of Palestine for mass Jewish immigration after the war without effective political action. Or is it that they object to the ultimate achievement by the Jewish community of Palestine of some form of Jewish statehood? We are not so bold as to predict the nature of the international order which will emerge from the present war. It is altogether likely, and indeed it may be desirable, that all sovereign states shall under the coming peace surrender some of their sovereignty to achieve a just and peaceful world society.

Certainly our colleagues will allow to the Jews of Palestine the same rights that are allowed to all other peoples resident on their own land. If Jews should ultimately come to constitute a majority of the population of Palestine, would our colleagues suggest that all other peoples in the post-war world shall be entitled to political self-determination, whatever form that may take, but the Jewish people in Palestine shall not have such a right? Or do they mean to suggest that the Jews in Palestine shall forever remain a minority in order not to achieve such political self-determination?

PROTESTING their sympathy both for the homeless Jews of the world and for their brethren in Palestine, our colleagues have by their pronouncement done all these a grave disservice. It may well be that to the degree to which their efforts arc at all effective, Jews who might otherwise have found a haven in Palestine will be denied one. The enemies of the Jewish homeland will be strengthened in their propaganda as a result of the aid which these Rabbis have given them. To the Jews of Palestine, facing the gravest danger in their history and fighting hard to maintain morale and hope in the teeth of the totalitarian menace, this pronouncement comes as a cruel blow.

We do not mean to imply that our colleagues intended it as such. We have no doubt that they are earnest about their fine spun theoretical objections to Zionism. We hold, however, that these objections have no merit, and further that voicing them at this time has been unwise and unkind.

We have not the least fear that our fellow Americans will be led to misconstrue the attitudes of American Jews to America because of their interest in Zionism. Every fair-minded American knows that American Jews have only one political allegiance–and that is to America. There is nothing in Zionism to impair this loyalty. Zionism has been endorsed in our generation by every President from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and has been approved by the Congress of the United States. The noblest spirits in American life, statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry, have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.

Jews, and all non-Jews who are sympathetically interested in the plight of Jewry, should bear in mind that the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe.

An Allied peace which will not frankly face the problem of the national homelessness of the Jewish people will leave the age-old tragic status of European Jewry unchanged. The Jewish people is in danger of emerging from this war not only more torn and broken than any other people, but also without any prospects of a better and more secure future and without the hope that such tragedies will not recur again, and again. Following an Allied victory, the Jews of Europe, we are confident, will be restored to their political rights and to equality of citizenship. But they possessed these rights after the last war and yet the past twenty-five years have witnessed a rapid and appalling deterioration in their position. In any case, even after peace is restored Europe will be so ravaged and war-torn that large masses of Jews will elect migration to Palestine as a solution of their personal problems.

Indeed, for most of these there may be no other substantial hope of economic, social and spiritual rehabilitation.

 

THE freedom which, we have faith, will come to all men and nations after this war, must come not only to Jews as individuals wherever they live, permitting them to share freedom on a plane of equality with all other men, but also to the Jewish people, as such, restored in its homeland, where at long last it will be a free people within a world federation of free peoples.

 

Of the 757 Rabbis listed below, 214 are members of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (Reform); 247 are members of the Rabbinical Assembly of America (Conservative); and the rest are affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America (Orthodox) or the Union of Orthodox Rabbis. The total represents the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history.

To see the scanned image in PDF format with the list of signers, click here

 

Note: A version of the above statement was released to the press on November 20, 1942. By that time 818 rabbis had signed on. It appears in Samuel Halperin’s The Political World of American Zionism. (Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1961) 333.

 

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics     Amazon.com  or Amazon.co.uk

From the Rabbis’ mouths “Zionism is an Affirmation of Judaism’

 

Take It From the Rabbi’s Mouth

Gilad Atzmon — gilad.co.uk Oct 8, 2017

“The overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regard Zionism not only as fully consistent with Judaism but as a logical expression and implementation of it.””
— Document released on November 20, 1942 signed by 818 American Rabbis
The following  article was published on this site in May 2013. In recent weeks we have witnessed some anti Zionist rabbinical Jews  outraged by the attempt to equate Judaism and Zionism. I plan to write on the topic extensively, however,  a brief look at this 1942 rabbinical affirmation of Zionism  is rather revealing:

Great Zionist Rabbis

Zionism: An Affirmation of Judaism

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon

Every so often we come across a Jewish ‘anti’ Zionist’  who argues that Zionism is not Judaism and vice versa. Interestingly enough, I have just come across an invaluable text that illuminates this question from a rabbinical perspective. Apparently back in 1942, 757 American Rabbis added their names to a public pronouncement titled ‘Zionism an Affirmation of Judaism’. This Rabbinical rally for Zionism was declared at the time “the largest public pronouncement in all Jewish history.”
Today, we tend to believe that world Jewry’s transition towards support for Israel followed the 1967 war though some mightargue that already in 1948, American Jews manifested a growing support for Zionism. However, this rabbinical pronouncement proves that as early as 1942, the American Jewish religious establishment was already deeply Zionist. And if this is not enough, the rabbis also regarded Zionism as the ‘implementation’ of Judaism. Seemingly, already then, the peak of World War two, the overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regarded Zionism, not only as fully consistent with Judaism, but as a “logical expression and implementation of it.”
In spite of the fact that early Zionist leaders were largely secular and the East European Jewish settler waves were driven by Jewish socialist ideology, the rabbis contend that “Zionism is not a secularist movement. It has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism.
Those rabbis were not a bunch of ignoramuses. They were patriotic and nationalistic and they grasped that “universalism is not a contradiction of nationalism.” The rabbis tried to differentiate between contemporaneous German Nationalism and other national movements and they definitely wanted to believe that Zionism was categorically different to Nazism. “Nationalism as such, whether it be English, French, American or Jewish, is not in itself evil. It is only militaristic and chauvinistic nationalism, that nationalism which shamelessly flouts all mandates of international morality, which is evil.” But as we know, just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz the new Jewish State launched a devastating racially driven ethnic-cleansing campaign. Zionism has proven to be militaristic and chauvinistic.
Shockingly enough, back in 1942 as many as 757 American rabbis were able to predict the outcome of the war and they realised that the suffering of European Jewry would be translated into a Jewish State . “We are not so bold as to predict the nature of the international order which will emerge from the present war. It is altogether likely, and indeed it may be desirable, that all sovereign states shall under the coming peace surrender some of their sovereignty to achieve a just and peaceful world society (a Jewish State).”
Some American patriots today are concerned with Israeli-American dual nationality and the dual aspirations of American Jews. Apparently our rabbis addressed this topic too. According to them, there is no such conflict whatsoever. All American Jews are American patriots and all American decision makers are Zionists. “Every fair-minded American knows that American Jews have only one political allegiance–and that is to America. There is nothing in Zionism to impair this loyalty. Zionism has been endorsed in our generation by every President from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and has been approved by the Congress of the United States. The noblest spirits in American life, statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry, have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.”
Back in 1942 our American rabbis were bold enough to state that defeating Hitler was far from sufficient. For them, a full solution of the Jewish question could only take place in Palestine. “Jews, and all non-Jews who are sympathetically interested in the plight of Jewry, should bear in mind that the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe. “
But there was one thing the American rabbis failed to mention – the Palestinian people. For some reason, those rabbis who knew much about ‘universalism’ and in particular Jewish ‘universalism’ showed very little concern to the people of the land. I guess that after all, chosennss is a form of blindness and rabbis probably know more about this than anyone else.

Zionism: An Affirmation of Judaism

http://zionistsout.blogspot.com/2008/03/zionism-affirmation-of-judaism.html

ZIONISMAN AFFIRMATIONOF JUDAISMA Reply by 757 Orthodox, Conservative and ReformRabbis of America to a Statement Issued by NinetyMembers of the Reform Rabbinate Charging ThatZionism Is Incompatible with the Teachings of Judaism
THE SUBJOINED REPLY was prepared at the initiative of the following Rabbis who submitted it to their colleagues throughout the country for signature: Philip S. Bernstein, Barnett R. Brickner, Israel Goldstein, James G. Heller, Mordecai M. Kaplan, B. L. Levinthal, Israel H. Levinthal, Louis M. Levitsky, Joshua Loth Liebman, Joseph H. Lookstein, Jacob R. Marcus, Abraham A. Neuman, Louis I. Newman, David de Sola Pool, Abba Hillel Silver, Milton Steinberg, and Stephen S. Wise.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RABBIS of all elements in American Jewish religious life,have noted with concern a statement by ninety of our colleagues in which they repudiate Zionism on the ground that it is inconsistent with Jewish religious and moral doctrine. This statement misrepresents Zionism and misinterprets historic Jewish religious teaching, and we should be derelict in our duty if we did not correct the misapprehensions which it is likely to foster.
We call attention in the first place to the fact that the signatories to this statement, for whom as fellow-Rabbis we have a high regard, represent no more than a very small fraction of the American rabbinate. They constitute a minority even of the rabbinate of Reform Judaism with which they are associated. The overwhelming majority of American Rabbis regard Zionism not only as fully consistent with Judaism but as a logical expression and implementation of it.
Our colleagues concede the need for Jewish immigration into Palestine as contributing towards a solution of the vast tragedy of Jewish homelessness. They profess themselves ready to encourage such settlement. They are aware of the important achievements, social and spiritual, of the Palestinian Jewish community and they pledge to it their unstinted support. And yet, subscribing to every practical accomplishment of Zionism, they have embarked upon a public criticism of it. In explanation of their opposition they advance the consideration that Zionism is nationalistic and secularistic. On both scores they maintain it is incompatible with the Jewish religion and its universalistic outlook. They protest against the political emphasis which, they say, is now paramount in the Zionist program and which, according to them, tends to confuse both Jews and Christians as to the place and function of the Jewish group in American society. They appeal to the prophets of ancient Israel for substantiation of their views.
TREASURING the doctrines and moral principles of our faith no less than they, devoted equally to America and its democratic processes and spirit, we nonetheless find every one of their contentions totally without foundation.
Zionism is not a secularist movement. It has its origins and roots in the authoritative religious texts of Judaism. Scripture and rabbinical literature alike are replete with the promise of the restoration of Israel to its ancestral home. Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, is a departure from the Jewish religion. Nothing in the entire pronouncement of our colleagues is more painful than their appeal to the prophets of Israel—to those very prophets whose inspired and recorded words of national rebirth and restoration nurtured and sustained the hope of Israel throughout the ages.
Nor is Zionism a denial of the universalistic teachings of Judaism. Universalism is not a contradiction of nationalism. Nationalism as such, whether it be English, French, American or Jewish, is not in itself evil. It is only militaristic and chauvinistic nationalism, that nationalism which shamelessly flouts all mandates of international morality, which is evil. The prophets of Israel looked forward to the time not when all national entities would be obliterated, but when all nations would walk in the light of the Lord, live by His law and learn war no more.
Our colleagues find themselves unable to subscribe to the political emphasis “now paramount in the Zionist program.” We fail to perceive what it is to which they object. Is it to the fact that there are a regularly constituted Zionist organization and a Jewish Agency which deal with the mandatory government, the Colonial office, the League of Nations and other recognized political bodies? But obviously, even immigration and colonization are practical matters which require political action. The settlement of a half million Jews in Palestine since the last war was made possible by political action which culminated in the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate. There can be little hope of opening the doors of Palestine for mass Jewish immigration after the war without effective political action. Or is it that they object to the ultimate achievement by the Jewish community of Palestine of some form of Jewish statehood? We are not so bold as to predict the nature of the international order which will emerge from the present war. It is altogether likely, and indeed it may be desirable, that all sovereign states shall under the coming peace surrender some of their sovereignty to achieve a just and peaceful world society.
Certainly our colleagues will allow to the Jews of Palestine the same rights that are allowed to all other peoples resident on their own land. If Jews should ultimately come to constitute a majority of the population of Palestine, would our colleagues suggest that all other peoples in the post-war world shall be entitled to political self-determination, whatever form that may take, but the Jewish people in Palestine shall not have such a right? Or do they mean to suggest that the Jews in Palestine shall forever remain a minority in order not to achieve such political self-determination?
PROTESTING their sympathy both for the homeless Jews of the world and for their brethren in Palestine, our colleagues have by their pronouncement done all these a grave disservice. It may well be that to the degree to which their efforts arc at all effective, Jews who might otherwise have found a haven in Palestine will be denied one. The enemies of the Jewish homeland will be strengthened in their propaganda as a result of the aid which these Rabbis have given them. To the Jews of Palestine, facing the gravest danger in their history and fighting hard to maintain morale and hope in the teeth of the totalitarian menace, this pronouncement comes as a cruel blow.
We do not mean to imply that our colleagues intended it as such. We have no doubt that they are earnest about their fine spun theoretical objections to Zionism. We hold, however, that these objections have no merit, and further that voicing them at this time has been unwise and unkind.
We have not the least fear that our fellow Americans will be led to misconstrue the attitudes of American Jews to America because of their interest in Zionism. Every fair-minded American knows that American Jews have only one political allegiance–and that is to America. There is nothing in Zionism to impair this loyalty. Zionism has been endorsed in our generation by every President from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and has been approved by the Congress of the United States. The noblest spirits in American life, statesmen, scholars, writers, ministers and leaders of labor and industry, have lent their sympathy and encouragement to the movement.
Jews, and all non-Jews who are sympathetically interested in the plight of Jewry, should bear in mind that the defeat of Hitler will not of itself normalize Jewish life in Europe.
An Allied peace which will not frankly face the problem of the national homelessness of the Jewish people will leave the age-old tragic status of European Jewry unchanged. The Jewish people is in danger of emerging from this war not only more torn and broken than any other people, but also without any prospects of a better and more secure future and without the hope that such tragedies will not recur again, and again. Following an Allied victory, the Jews of Europe, we are confident, will be restored to their political rights and to equality of citizenship. But they possessed these rights after the last war and yet the past twenty-five years have witnessed a rapid and appalling deterioration in their position. In any case, even after peace is restored Europe will be so ravaged and war-torn that large masses of Jews will elect migration to Palestine as a solution of their personal problems.
Indeed, for most of these there may be no other substantial hope of economic, social and spiritual rehabilitation.
THE freedom which, we have faith, will come to all men and nations after this war, must come not only to Jews as individuals wherever they live, permitting them to share freedom on a plane of equality with all other men, but also to the Jewish people, as such, restored in its homeland, where at long last it will be a free people within a world federation of free peoples.
Of the 757 Rabbis listed below, 214 are members of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (Reform); 247 are members of the Rabbinical Assembly of America (Conservative); and the rest are affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America (Orthodox) or the Union of Orthodox Rabbis. The total represents the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history.
To see the scanned image in PDF format with the list of signers, click here
Note: A version of the above statement was released to the press on November 20, 1942. By that time 818 rabbis had signed on. It appears in Samuel Halperin’s The Political World of American Zionism. (Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1961) 333.
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics     Amazon.com  or Amazon.co.uk

 

Source

Some Thoughts on the Latest Church Vandalism in Israel

Father Antonio Scudu, caretaker at the St. Stephen Church, west of Jerusalem, examines a portion of a shattered statue of the Virgin Mary. The vandalism of the church took place on September 19, 2017.

By Richard Edmondson

There still has been no arrest in the vandalism of St. Stephen’s Church, a Christian site near Jerusalem which vandals entered and desecrated on the night of September 19. I am, for that matter, not especially hopeful an arrest will be forthcoming. Israel has an extremely sorry history when it comes to investigating and prosecuting criminal cases of this sort. The record speaks for itself.

An article published by Haaretz on September 24 reports that over 50 Christian and Muslim religious sites have been vandalized since the year 2009. In that time only nine indictments have been filed, and only seven convictions have been handed down. That’s bad enough, but an article published Tuesday at Crux, a Catholic news site, suggests the record may be even worse than Haaretz is reporting. “There have been some 80 incidents of vandalism against churches and Christian sites in the Holy Land over the last decade. In most of the cases, no arrests or indictments have taken place,” that article states.

All I can tell you is that over the years since I’ve been blogging, which is about seven years now, I have reported on numerous attacks by vandals on religious sites in Israel, yet still the practice remains an acute problem.

My initial report on this month’s attack at St. Stephen’s was posted September 23. In that post I noted that the church is located on the grounds of a Catholic monastery, Beit Jamal, a Salesian monastery that lies near the city of Beit Shemesh. I also noted that this is the third time in four years that the site has been vandalized and commented, “Apparently the site is on somebody’s hit list.”

The previous attacks occurred in 2013, when a firebomb was thrown at the door and hateful graffiti scrawled on the walls, and in January of 2016, when the cemetery was vandalized. At the time, I put up a post on the 2016 cemetery attack, which you can access here. All this taken into consideration, it does seem as if the church might be on a hit list of some sort.

Whether this has anything to do with the fact that the locale is believed to have been the burial place of St. Stephen, I can’t say. But indeed, there is a longstanding tradition in church history that the saint’s remains were buried here. This of course is why the church is named after him, and perhaps for this reason, it is worth recounting a bit of St. Stephen’s story

Stephen, his speech before Jewish leaders and his death by stoning at their hands, are told of in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Book of Acts. Initially selected to help with daily distribution of food, Stephen was described as “a man full of God’s grace and power” who “did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people,” and he seems to have risen quickly to prominence among the disciples in Jerusalem. This of course in the months after Christ’s crucifixion.

Jews from one of the synagogues began to accuse Stephen in a manner very reminiscent of the charges brought against Jesus–and, like Jesus himself, Stephen ended up before the Jewish ruling council, or Sanhedrin. He was, among other things, accused of speaking “words of blasphemy against Moses and against God,” and he was also alleged to have invoked Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of the temple. It’s probably not too much of a stretch, then, to speculate he may even have told people that God didn’t live in the Jewish temple (as Jewish leaders claimed) and that it was not necessary for people to actually go there in order to worship God, that God can be worshiped anywhere. This would have reflected Jesus’ teaching in John 4:21-23, and if Stephen indeed spread such teachings, then it would have infuriated the Jewish leadership all the more, for the temple was an enormously lucrative enterprise for them.

Then the high priest asked him, “Are these charges true?”

This is the opening line in Acts chapter 7, and it is at this point that Stephen launches into his lengthy speech. Basically, it’s a speech recounting the narrative of the Old Testament. The Abrahamic covenant, the stories of Issac and Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, the bondage in Egypt, Moses and the Exodus–all of this is spoken of by Stephen. All of it makes up about ninety percent of his speech, and for the most part it doesn’t ruffle too many feathers, but then we get to the following passage–and it is at this point that all “heck” breaks loose. Here again, the speaker is Stephen:

You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him–you who have received the law that was put into effect but have not obeyed it.

Notice that Stephen chooses the same adjective–“stiff-necked”–used by Moses in describing the Israelites. He is in effect saying that the Abrahamic covenant is hereby abrogated. If you consistently disobey the law–most especially if you murder God’s son–what other conclusion than that can be drawn? The covenant is dead. Jews can no longer consider themselves God’s “chosen,” Stephen is basically saying. It’s a pivotal moment. It is literally earth shaking. And the reaction from the Sanhedrin is spontaneous and immediate:

When they heard this they were furious, and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city, and began to stone him.

Thus Stephen became the first Christian martyr in recorded history. Interestingly, the text notes that one of those present, giving his approval to it all, was Saul–later Paul–who, somewhat astonishingly, ended up becoming an apostle of Christ himself.

Could this narrative in the New Testament have anything to do with why St. Stephen’s and the monastery have been attacked repeatedly?

The night of September 19/20, when the vandal(s) entered the church, was the eve of the Jewish New Year. “The monastery is open for visitors and generally has good relations with its Jewish neighbors,” the Crux article notes, “including the residents of an ultra-Orthodox town.” The “ultra-Orthodox town” being referred to here is Beit Shemesh, located nearby, a city of about 103,000 population.

Beit Shemesh is mentioned in the Book of Joshua as being among the towns allotted to the Levites, or priestly class. In the modern, post-1948 era it was settled by Jewish immigrants from Bulgaria, though by the late 1970s it had become a major center of the Likud Party. The “good relations” mentioned in the Crux article probably pertain to Neturei Karta, which has a small community living in Beit Shemesh, primarily in one neighborhood of the city. You can go hereto see video of a protest in which an NK member, holding a Palestinian flag, is attacked and chased by Israeli police. The date on the video is 2015. An earlier video, also shot in Beit Shemesh, shows a confrontation between police and a large group of Orthodox men demanding enforcement of segregation between the sexes. It is perhaps not terribly surprising that a Christian church and monastery located in proximity to such a city would come under attack.

The vandals destroyed a statue of the Virgin Mary, a cross, and smashed stained glass windows depicting events in the life of Jesus. While Hebrew graffiti has been a hallmark of previous church attacks in Israel, nothing of the like was left in this case. Still,  Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo, the Catholic patriarchal vicar for Jerusalem and Palestine, expressed the view that the attack was most likely carried out by “Jewish extremists.”

“Vandals broke into the church and destroyed the crosses, the statue of Our Lady and the stained glass, as well as the faces of the saints,” Mgr. Marcuzzo said.

“In the Old Testament, it is written to destroy the statues as a symbol of idolatry. Here, these people distort the Scriptures and promote fanaticism. Perhaps it is not a direct attack on Christians, but it is certainly a message against those who do not share their ideology and it is scary because it shows that there is no respect for others. Living together is undermined,” he added.

Anther cleric who commented on the matter is Salesian Father Antonio Scudu, who serves as caretaker of the church.

“I was shocked. I didn’t expect to see something like this. The church is always open. If you see what happened, you feel they did it with hate. They smashed everything,” he said.

Israeli Police spokesperson Micky Rosenfeld told the Catholic News Service that the case is being given “top priority.”

“There have been arrests in previous cases. We are looking into this case to see if it was an individual or a group. These are all separate cases,” Rosenfeld said. “People can say what they want. This kind of case is top priority.”

Yet as the report posted by Crux notes:

Christians in the Holy Land, including Catholic leaders, have expressed frustration with lack of legal action against cases of desecration and vandalism of sacred places.

Even as the Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries of the Holy Land issued a statement condemning the September 20 desecration and vandalism of a Catholic shrine in Israel, some people criticized the statement’s “weak language” and asked, “How long will we be tolerant?”

“Unfortunately, in these situations we feel how vulnerable we are,” one person wrote on Facebook.

The words “how long will we be tolerant?” have a certain poignance to them, for in Israel there are “Jewish extremists” who seem to feel the nation has been overly “tolerant” by even allowing Christians and Christian churches to exist inside the country’s boundaries. One such individual is Benzi Gopstein, whose views I discussed in the post I put up in January of 2016 on the St. Stephen’s cemetery desecration.

Gopstein is the leader of Lehava, the far-right Israeli organization that opposes intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. He also hates Christianity. My 2016 post included an excerpt from a Times of Israel report in which Gopstein is quoted as referring to Christianity as “that accursed religion” and likening Christians to “vampires.”

Interestingly, the Lehava leader has also been referred to as “Israel’s teflon man, nothing sticks to him.”

The Israeli government may be feeling mounting pressure to do something about the wave of attacks upon religious sites, and if that is the case, we could end up seeing an arrest in the St. Stephen’s case. This of course would not alleviate the anti-Christian hatred felt by Jews like Gopstein, and if anything will make it worse. There is a reason the Christian Church, founded by men like Stephen, ended up breaking off from Judaism: the two faiths are pretty much incompatible.

A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism”

A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism”

This is a topic which has had so much written about it that you could fill an entire city library with books entirely dedicated to this topic. Marx took a shot at it. As did Sartre. There were, of course, also plenty of good books written on this topic, but rather than list them all, I want to suggest a few simple common sense points and then go to what I consider an authoritative explanation of this thing we call “antisemitism” and which, of course, has nothing to do with Semites.

So first, let’s dump this silly term and replace it by a simple and straightforward one: judeophobia. Just like any other phobia (say, for example, russophobia) the phobia of X is the 1) fear and/or hatred of X. Some people hate Jews, others fear them (think of the “fear of the Jews” in the Scripture), some do both. So judeophobia seems both logical and uncontroversial to me.

Second, it is a truism to say that everything in the universe has a cause. That includes phobias. Including russophobia and judeophobia. For example, I would be the first person to admit that there are objective characteristics of the Russian people which makes other people fear and hate them. Like the fact that all western attempts at conquering Russia have failed. Or that the Russians have always, and still are, rejecting the Papacy. Just these two factors will create plenty of russophobia in the West, for sure.

So, the next thing we can ask ourselves is what is it in Jews which causes judeophobia. Alas, before I look into this, I need to clarify a number of assumptions I make.

The first one is that Jews are not a race or ethnicity. To prove that, I defer to Shlomo Sand’s book “The Invention of the Jewish People”. As I explained elsewhere, Jews are a tribe: A group one can chose to join (Elizabeth Taylor) or leave (Gilad Atzmon). In other words, I see “Jewishness” as a culture, or ideology, or education or any other number of things, but not something rooted in biology. However, I also fully agree with Atzmon when he says that Jews are not a race, but that Jewish culture/politics/ideology is racist (more about that later).

Next, there is also what is commonly known as “Judaism”. That, by the way, is also a misnomer, at least if by “Judaism” you refer the faith of the Old Testament, the faith of the Ancient Israel, the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our forefathers”. Modern “Judaism” which was created well after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD. Modern “Judaism” ought be to called “Pharisaic Talmudism” and its true creators are Shimon bar Yochia, Maimonides (aka “Rambam” in the video below), Joseph Karo and Isaac Luria. The reason why this religion ought to be referred to as Pharisaic Talmudism is modern Judaism is the continuation of the sect of the Pharisees (the only Jewish sect which survived the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple – all modern forms of “Judaism” trace their roots to the Pharisees) and that it’s main source of authority is the Talmud, a collection of writings based on the ideas of the sect of the Pharisees and complied from the beginning of the 2nd century. To separate them from non-religious Jews, some authors have offered the term “Judaic” to describe a person adhering to this faith. Seems reasonable to me.

Here is the key thing, while many modern Jews are non-religious and really members of a self-described Jewish tribe, there is no such thing in history as a “Jewish culture” distinct from Pharisaic Talmudism. Remember that national categories are recent creations from the 18th and 19th centuries. For most of history people defined them in reference to 1) their place of residence or birth 2) their religious affiliation and 3) the identity of the ruler they were subjects of. In contrast, nationality and ethnicity are largely modern concepts. The only thing common to a Jew from the Middle-East, Central Europe and North Africa would be teachings of Pharisaic Talmudism. It is only logical therefore to look at this unique common characteristic to try to identify the causes of the hatred and fear Jews have inspired pretty much everywhere they have ever resided.

I will use two official Jewish sources to ascertain the causes of antisemitism, first the Simon Wiesenthal Multi-Media Learning Center’s website and a lecture by Rabbi David Bar Hayim.

Here is what the Simon Wiesenthal Center writes on the page “Why The Jews? The Patterns of Persecution”

Jewish communities existed continuously in Europe for over 2,000 years. Many of these communities were older than the countries in which they existed. Nevertheless, as the countries of Europe developed, Jews were rarely given complete citizenship status. At best they were tolerated as guests. Their social and religious distinctiveness made them persistent targets for persecution; and such persecution, in turn, intensified the cohesiveness of Jewish communities.

The emergence of Christianity as the dominant religion in Europe intensified the persecution of Jews. Since both the religious and political life of Europe became organized around the Christian faith, Jews were seen as outcasts, the deniers and “killers” of Christ. For millions of European Christians, for over 1600 years, the hatred and persecution of Jews was religiously sanctioned. Antisemitism intensified during the l9th and 20th century industrialization of Europe as Jews participated more directly in European economic and social life.

By 1933, the patterns of economic, social, and personal persecution of European Jews were well established. Nazi racial antisemitism and propaganda amplified and manipulated these patterns, ultimately adding one deadly tenet–that all Jews must be eliminated.

This is the garden variety cop-out: they were older, but never given citizenship, they were tolerated as guests, their social and religious distinctiveness made them targets for persecution, then the Christians accused them of killing Christ, antisemitism was religiously sanctioned, then came the Nazis and added their racist propaganda. But it has a grain of truth buried deep inside the rest of the platitudes: “social and religious distinctiveness”. What are we talking about here exactly?

This sounds interesting so let’s immediately delve into it!

ORDER IT NOW

The following is a lecture by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim whose biography, and gently smiling face, you can find on Wikipedia. For our purposes, just the first paragraph will be enough. It says that Bar-Hayim is an “Israeli Orthodox rabbi who heads the Shilo Institute (Machon Shilo), a Jerusalem-based rabbinical court and institute of Jewish education dedicated to the Torah of Israel”. Not a lightweight by any means, and a man with established credentials. Now let’s listen to what he has to say.

I strongly encourage you to take the time to carefully listen to his entire lecture (1h47m) to not only convince yourself that my chosen excerpts are not partial or taken out of context, but also to get an emotional “feel” for the man who not only is an articulate speaker who is clearly used to teaching, but who also conveys a coherent picture of a man who gave these topics a great deal of thought and who has to courage to call things by their names rather than to “remain silent” like so many of his “politically correct” colleges.

So here is this lecture:

also, and just in case this lecture would “mysteriously” disappear from YouTube following the publication of my article, I decided to re-upload it here:

http://www.myvi.ru/watch/Why-are-the-Rabbis-Silent-about-Gaza_RMl1JJ_ftUy7fjzY7Ehgug2

Next, here are key statements from the beginning of this lecture posted along their time-stamp so you can check for their authenticity:

  • 09:20 The Torah teaches that the life of a Jew is more precious than the life of a non-Jew.
  • 10:00 God (HaShem) prefers Jews to non-Jews and gives them a special status.
  • 11:00 The notion that Jews and non-Jews are equally precious to God contradicts the spirit of the Torah from beginning to end.
  • 16:40 According to Shimon bar Yochia (aka Rashbi) “the best of non-Jews should be killed in warfare” because just as Jews cannot know if a snake approaching you is venomous or not, Jews cannot know which non-Jew is a danger to then.
  • 25:16 Jews must assume that it is likely that any non-Jew they meet does not live by the Noahide Laws.

Here an explanation is needed about the so-called “Noahide Laws”. According to Wikipedia (as use it as the hyper-politically-correct source) the Noahide Laws are a “are a set of imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God as a binding set of laws for the “children of Noah” – that is, all of humanity”. Here are these laws as listed by Maimonides himself:

  • Prohibition of Idolatry
  • Prohibition of Blasphemy
  • Prohibition of Homicide
  • Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
  • Prohibition of Theft
  • Prohibition of Limb of a Living Creature
  • Imperative of Legal System

Sounds “kinda not modern”, but hey, that is no “worse” than the 10 Commandants, right? Wrong! Wrong for two crucial reasons. First, the penalty for breaking any one of these laws, at least according to Rabbi David Bar-Hayim, is death (listen to the lecture for yourself!). Second, this list uses a euphemism when is speaks of “idolatry”. What is mean here is not some pagan blood ceremony to sacrifice babies to some god of thunder, but “Avodah Zarah”. How do I know that? Listen to the lecture again, the Rabbi is very clear about it. And what exactly is “Avodah Zarah”? It is “foreign worship” or, to put it simply, the religions of the aliens, the others, the nations, the goyim. This exactly the accusation made by Pharisaic Judaics against Christianity: making “That Man” (the typical Talmudic reference to Christ) into an idol. True, during the Middle-Ages overt references to Christianity were obfuscated and even today to the question whether Avodah Zarah is applicable to Christianity the official answer is wonderfully hypoctitical: Christianity is a “special type of avodah zarah is forbidden to Jews but permissible to gentiles, so that a non-Jew who engages in Christian worship commits no sin”. First, this is an explicit modern Jewish admission that those Jews who convert to Christianity are committing a crime deserving the death penalty. But, more importantly, this is clearly a cop-out as this “special type of avodah zarah” has no basis in traditional Pharisaic Talmudic teachings. So this might come as a shock to many, but according to Pharisaic Talmudists, all Christians deserve to be killed for the sin of idolatry. Feel the love…

Now here is the sad part, in the US these rabidly anti-Christians laws have been proclaimed as the “bedrock of society from the dawn of civilizationby both President Reagan and Congress. And to think that these guys fancy themselves as “Christians”…

I am sure that there are those who are absolutely convinced that was I wrote above is a gross misrepresentation of fact, that there is no way “Judaism” would really teach any such horrors. Think again, and listen to the Rabbi himself:

  • 25:33 Those who do not keep the Seven Noahide Laws are all therefore guilty of a capital offense
  • 25:49 “Avoda Zara”, i.e. idolary meaning Christianity was the most common offense.

Of course, for those who know anything about Pharisaic Talmudism none of the above will come as any surprise. After all, did the Rabbi not also clearly state that:

  • 16:40 According to Shimon bar Yochia (aka Rashbi) “the best of non-Jews should be killed in warfare” because just as Jews cannot know if a snake approaching you is venomous or not, Jews cannot know which non-Jew is a danger to then.

Non-Jews are explicitly compared to snakes! He also says something similar later in the lecture:

  • 26:15 since you cannot bring a perishing non-Jew to court to establish his guilt, you take a neutral position by neither helping him nor killing him.

You got that? Since, like with snakes, it is impossible to tell a dangerous non-Jews apart from a safe one, you cannot just kill him. For that you need a ruling by a rabbinical court. But saving him is no option either, because he most likely deserves the death penalty (say, for being a Christian). So you do nothing when you see a non-Jew in danger or even perishing. Interestingly enough, the Rabbi is also asked if that kind of non-assistance to a person in danger could not negatively impact the reputation of Jews and he immediately replies:

  • 1:22:00 if not saving a non-Jew makes Jews look bad, then the Jew ought to lie about his motives

So it is okay to let a non-Jew die and, if challenged, just lie about it!

The key concept here is simple: Jews are more important to God and, therefore, to themselves than non-Jews. This is why

  • 1:00:30 there is no requirement to return a lost object to a non-Jew
  • 1:17:40 Jews can brake the sabbath to save a Jew but not a non-Jew because Jews do not consider all lives to be equal

I will stop the examples here. The Rabbi clearly says that the humanistic notion that all humans are equal is contrary to the entire spirit of the Torah. If after that you don’t get it….

What about the so-called Golden Rule about “do unto others”?

What about these:

  • You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:18 )
  • What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn. (Shabbath folio:31a, Babylonian Talmud)

Did you notice the key caveats “your kindsfolk” and “your fellow”. Pharisaic Talmudism interprets these passages are referring only to fellow Jews and not to the semi-bestial goyim! It is laughable to a Rabbi when he hears a non-Jew saying that all humans were created in the image and likeness of God. Pharisaic Talmudism explicitly contradicts that (and the Kabbalah even more so!). Still don’t agree? Which part of “ the humanistic notion that all humans are equal is contrary to the entire spirit of the Torah” don’t you get?!

The simple truth is that Pharisaic Talmudism (aka modern “Judaism”) is the only religion which teaches a God-revealed racism.

This is hardly a new discovery of mine. Just read Michael Hoffman’s superb magnum opus Judaism Discovered (available on Amazon and on his on his website). In fact, there have been thousands of books already written on this topic, and many are available online for download in various file formats. What makes the video by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim so interesting is that it is 1) official 2) recent 3) that he really confirms it all. But for those who, like myself and, I am sure, many readers here, have known about it for decades, this was absolutely nothing new.

A couple of crucial caveats here: there are many Jews out there (most, I would say) who are totally unaware of all this. Even “Conservative” and “Reform” synagogues don’t preach that too overtly (though sometimes even they do). This kind of religious racism is mostly taught in Orthodox Yeshivas and, of course, in various Haredi institutions in Israel. For these ignorant Jews any such explanations of the causes of antisemitism in world history are not only offensive (blaming the victim) but also completely unfair (“my family never said any such things!”). Second, while this kind of, frankly, demonic teachings have only been taught in religious circles, they nevertheless also have had a deep impact upon the outlook of many (but not all!) secular Jews many of whom might never have been told that all Christians deserve to be executed, but who still will have a profound and almost knee-jerk repulsion towards Christianity. The distance between Rabbi David Bar-Hayim and Sarah Silverman and her famous quoteI hope that Jews did kill Christ, I’d do it again in a second” is very, very short.

Finally, for all the (alas many) bone-headed racists out there, none of that Pharisaic ideology is transmissible by genes so please don’t give me that “all Jews” nonsense. Some Jews do espouse these views, others don’t. Remember, Jews are not a race or ethnicity, they are a tribe. A Jew who completely rejects all this religiously-sanctioned racism about goyims does not somehow still mysteriously still carry in himself some “Talmudic bacillum” which can flare up and turn him overnight into a hate-filled racist.

[Sidebar: For whatever it is worth, in my life I have seen more kindness and compassion from (secular) Jews than from my fellow Orthodox Christians. Very often in my life I have had secular Jews being like the good Good Samaritan from the Gospel (Luke 10:25-37):

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Notice two things: first, Christ frontally debunks the racist interpretation of the words “thy neighbor” and, second, He also clearly commands us how we should treat all of our neighbors.]

So now we have it: the root causes of antisemitism are not to be found in some weird cause-less aberration common to every single nation on earth, but in the teachings of Pharisaic Talmudism. What is exceptionally pernicious is that by what could be referred to as cultural-osmosis non-religious Jews find themselves raised in a secular culture which still hods this kinds of beliefs, minus their external religious trappings.

Furthermore, there are many non-Jews who, when seeing both religious secular Jews equally hostile to their religion and traditions, come to the conclusion that “all Jews” are bad. Throw in enough politicians (on both sides) to bring a flame to this toxic mix and you end up with an inevitable explosion. Hence all the persecutions.

Judeophobia has its roots in the demonic teachings of the sect of the Pharisees whose religiously-sanctioned racism has, unfortunately, permeated the worldview of many secular Jews. As long as Orthodox rabbis will stick to their demented self-worship (this is real idolatry, by the way!), “antisemitism” will continue to “mysteriously” rear its ugly head.

Brecht was right, “’The belly is still fertile from which the foul beast sprang”. He just got the ‘belly’ wrong

israel Doomed

Israel Doomed

Lasha Darkmoon — Darkmoon Sept 23, 2017

“In ten years time, there will be no more Israel.”
— Henry Kissinger, October 2012

dees shot palestinean kid

PALESTINE, COME BACK AGAIN!

A controversial article was published yesterday on the Darkmoon site. Written by brilliant political analyst Franklyn Ryckaert, it was called Israel Is Here To Stay. Within a few hours of publication, the article had elicited almost 100 heated comments denouncing Mr Ryckaert as a “crypto-Jew”, if not a secret agent of Mossad. I was amazed. The readers of our site, being uniformly anti-Zionist, did not wish to hear that Israel was here to stay. They would have preferred to hear the opposite: that Israel was doomed—that certain annihilation awaited evil Zion.
In his closely reasoned article,  Mr Ryckaert advanced the view that the only feasible solution to the Arab-Israeli problem was for the Palestinians to bow before the might of Israel and accept a Two State solution on Israel’s terms. The Palestinians, Ryckaert argued persuasively, needed to be realistic. They were a defeated people and in no position to make demands. They should therefore accept whatever scraps of land Israel was ready to offer them and be grateful. Better a little rump state than no state at all.
I’m afraid I cannot agree with this solution to the Arab-Israeli problem, however reasonable and pragmatic it may appear to be at first sight. This is because it is based on a flawed assumption: the false premise that the Israelis are negotiating in good faith and would dearly love see a Two State solution that is fair and just. I question this basic assumption.
If ever an assumption were false, utterly false, it is this.
I am personally convinced that the Israelis have no intention of handing back any land to the Palestinians. They intend to keep nibbling away at the land ad nauseam, adding illegal settlement to illegal settlement, exactly as they have been doing for the last 70 years. They intend to swallow up every square inch of territory, leaving the Palestinians with nothing but isolated and disconnected bantustans—in short, with open prisons lacking even the basic amenities such as an adequate supply of water.
It is clear to most observers that the Israelis are not negotiating in good faith and this is something the Palestinians know. The mauvaise foi of the Israelis, fully supported in their duplicity by an equally double-tongued Trump administration weighed down with Israel Firsters, is clearly indicated by this comment in a recent article by James Petras:
‘Israel Firsters’ dominate the top economic and political positions within the Trump regime and, interestingly, are among the Administration’s most vociferous opponents. These include: the Federal Reserve Chairwoman, Janet Yellen, as well as her Vice-Chair, Stanley Fischer, an Israeli citizen and former Governor of the Bank of Israel.
Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and an Orthodox Jew, acts as his top adviser on Middle East Affairs. Kushner, a New Jersey real estate mogul, set himself up as the archenemy of the economic nationalists in the Trump inner circle.
He supports every Israeli power and land grab in the Middle East and works closely with David Friedman, US Ambassador to Israel (and fanatical supporter of the illegal Jewish settlements) and Jason Greenblatt, Special Representative for International negotiations. With three Israel Firsters determining Middle East policy, there is not even a fig leaf of balance.
Donald Trump has turned his entire Middle East policy over to his ultra-Zionist Political Advisor (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner and US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman.
Political life in the United States cannot get worse — we really have touched bottom.
In circumstances like these, what hope for the Palestinians getting a fair deal? The Palestinians have no bargaining power, being an essentially defeated people. And beggars, as we know, cannot be choosers. They have as much chance of receiving back a single dunam of stolen land from the Israelis as the defeated Germans stood after WWI from receiving fair treatment from the merciless bloodsuckers who helped to craft the iniquitous Versailles Treaty.
The Jew are exacting taskmasters. The honest Jew Yossi Gurvitz gave the game away in a controversial video called, “When Israel is Mighty”. Here he makes it clear that Jews tend to be nice and accommodating when they have no alternative. When they are weak, they are ready to make concessions. But when they are strong, it’s a different story. Then they are utterly merciless.
Michael Hoffman notes:
“Maimonides ruled that when Judaic persons are weak they should feign friendship for Christians as a way of gaining power over them. But when Judaics are totally dominant, as they are in the Israeli state, they should slaughter anyone who obstructs their supremacy.”
A Two State solution, with Israel conceding land to the Palestinians, is just not possible “when Israel is mighty”. Sooner expect blood from a stone than concessions from Israel.
—   §   —
As far as Israel is concerned, there are no Occupied Territories. There are only disputed territories. And the endgame for Israel is not only the absorption of ‘Judea’ and ‘Samaria’ — i.e. the so-called occupied or “disputed” territories — into Israel proper, or Israel as we know it right now, but the continued expansion of the entire Jewish state beyond its present non-existent official borders into Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. Known as the Oded Yinon Planthis envisages a Greater Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates:

greater Israel

Obviously, a people intent on conquering new lands are unlikely to hand back bits and pieces of their stolen lands to the wretched people whose lands they have plundered. This is why a Two State solution to the Arab-Israeli problem in Palestine is wildly improbable. How can you conquer new lands if you keep handing them back?
Is Greater Israel the ultimate goal of the Zionist Jew? No, it is not. The Revolutionary Jew will never be content until he has conquered the whole world. The whole world must be his glittering trinket. Nothing less will satisfy his insatiable appetite for power and dominion.
Greater Israel, in other words, is not the ultimate goal of the Revolutionary Jew. It is the penultimate goal. It is simply the stepping stone to full-spectrum world domination by international Jewry.
These prophetic words of Israel Shamir keep ringing in my ears:
“Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is. Palestine is just the place for world state headquarters. The Jews intend to turn Jerusalem into the supreme capital of the world, and its rebuilt temple into the focal point of the Spirit on Earth. Christianity will die, the spirit will depart from the nations in our part of the world, and our present dubious democracy will be supplanted by a vast theocratic state. De-spiritualized and uprooted, homeless and lonely, yesterday’s Masters of the World will become slaves in all but name.” 

Shamir quote

In light of the above, I see no possibility of a Two State solution. Maybe Henry Kissinger’s prediction — In ten years, there will be no more Israel” — will come true.
—  §  —
Kevin Barrett noted on Press TV some time ago that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been vilified in the Western media for daring to imagine “a world without Israel.” But according to news reports, Henry Kissinger and sixteen American intelligence agencies were to agree that in the near future, Israel would no longer exist. The New York Post had quoted Kissinger as saying “In 10 years, there will be no more Israel.”
Those were apparently Kissinger’s exact words.
Barrett continues:
The US Intelligence Community agrees, though perhaps not on the precise 2022 expiration date. Sixteen US intelligence agencies with a combined budget over $70 billion have issued an 82-page analysis entitled “Preparing for a Post-Israel Middle East.”
The US intelligence report observes that the 700,000 Israeli settlers illegally squatting on land stolen in 1967 – land that the entire world agrees belongs to Palestine, not Israel – are not going to pack up and leave peacefully. Since the world will never accept their ongoing presence on stolen land, Israel is like South Africa in the late 1980s: An unsustainable pariah state.
The extremist Likud coalition governing Israel, according to the US intelligence report, is increasingly condoning and supporting rampant violence and lawlessness by the illegal settlers. The Report states that the brutality and criminality of the settlers, and the growing apartheid-style infrastructure including the apartheid wall and the ever-more-draconian system of checkpoints, are indefensible, unsustainable, and out of synch with American values.
The sixteen US intelligence agencies agree that Israel cannot withstand the coming pro-Palestinian juggernaut consisting of the Arab Spring, the Islamic Awakening, and the rise of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The US intelligence community report says that in light of these realities, the US government simply no longer has the military and financial resources to continue propping up Israel against the wishes of more than a billion of its neighbors. In order to normalize relations with 57 Islamic countries, the report suggests, the US will have to follow its own national interests and pull the plug on Israel.
Interestingly, neither Henry Kissinger nor the authors of the US Intelligence Report give any sign that they are going to mourn the demise of Israel. This is remarkable, given that Kissinger is Jewish.
Finally, we come to the least obvious – but most powerful – reason for Kissinger’s and the CIA’s complacency in the face of Israel’s implosion: The inexorable trickle-down of knowledge that Israel and its supporters, not radical Muslims, carried out the 9/11 false-flag attacks.
Increasingly, it is not fringe anti-Semitic groups, but high-level responsible observers, who are saying this. Alan Sabrosky, the half-Jewish former Director of Strategic Studies at the US Army War College, has come on my radio show to say that he has discussed with his colleagues the “100% certainty” that Israel and its supporters did 9/11. 
More Americans, including the US intelligence community as a whole, now recognize that the enemies of Israel do not have to be the enemies of the United States. In fact, the US is going broke and sacrificing thousands of lives in wars for Israel – wars that damage, rather than aid, US strategic interests.
As the recognition grows that 9/11 was not a radical Islamic attack, but an act of dastardly, bloody treason by supporters of Israel, it will become ever-easier for American policy makers, following in the footsteps of Kissinger and the sixteen intelligence agencies, to recognize the obvious: The state of Israel has reached the end of its shelf-life.
(Emphasis added)
This being the situation, any Two State solution to the Arab-Israeli problem—with miserly scraps of land handed back to the Palestinians, leaving Israel free to gobble up the best bits of real estate—would appear to be a dead duck in the water. Even if it were feasible, it would never be a fair. It would be a rip-off. Totally unacceptable to the Palestinians.
—  §  —
So what would be the ideal solution to this intractable problem? It would be a One State solution in which Jews and Arabs have equal rights.
In order for such a state to materialize, a state without apartheid, Israel would have to abandon the idea of continuing as an ethnically Jewish state, a state exclusively for Jews. This would be the end of the Jewish dream: a heaven on earth, a heaven haven just for Jews alone.
In a One State Israel-Palestine, Jews would in no time be outnumbered by Arabs. The One State solution would be the death warrant of Zionism. For this to occur, it would have to be imposed upon Israel by international law, by force of arms, with most Jews kicking and screaming “Over my dead body!”
The Jews would sooner blow up the entire world than accept the loss of their homeland. If I were a Jew, I would do no less. Having fought so long and hard for my heaven on earth, my spiritual homeland, I would rather die a thousand deaths than sacrifice my beloved country—the country of my dreams and the dreams of my ancestors. In the squalid shtetls and cold countries of my exile on earth, this was the dream that had kept me warm in the long watches of the night, that I’d cherished in my heart ever since I was a child. ‘Jerusalem tomorrow!’ Yes, I would sooner blow up the entire world and sacrifice everything, seeing it all go up in flames, than give up my bittersweet, mad, impossible dream.
My prognosis is a gloomy one.
There will never be a One State solution to which the Jews will agree, or a Two State solution that is remotely fair to the Palestinians. There will be more bloodshed, more intifadas. The ultimate solution to the Jewish problem will come when the Jews get too big for their boots and Israel is finally destroyed by a hailstorm of nuclear weapons, leaving the entire country a smoldering heap of radioactive ashes.

VIDEO  :  3.25 mins
‘Palestine, Come Back Again!’

This video, featuring a poem by Lasha Darkmoon read by the inimitable ‘Snordster’ (Patrick Willis), has relatively few views. There is a reason for this. When first released several years ago, the video received thousands of views but was banned almost immediately after protests from the Usual Suspects. A second version was released two years later and this time, mysteriously, it was not banned. This is the version you are now seeing. (JSM)

Religious bigotry is alive and well in israel

Source

Huge Spike in Number of Israelis ‘un-Jewed’ by Chief Rabbinate in Past Two Years

Trend appears related to new practice of re-examining and revoking religious status of citizens already recognized as Jewish

Judy Maltz, Haaretz
17 September 2017

The number of Israelis featured on a blacklist of  “unmarriageable” individuals, maintained by the Chief Rabbinate, has grown exponentially over the past two years, a new document obtained through a Freedom of Information Act inquiry shows. The list refers to individuals who are recognized as Jewish in the Population Registry but who are prohibited from marrying in Israel for various reasons.

This spike, as documented in a recent petition to the Supreme Court, coincides with a relatively new practice embraced by the Chief Rabbinate: Over the past two years, its representatives have begun summoning immigrants, already recognized as Jewish and who married in Israel, for background checks after doubts were raised about the religious status of relatives seeking to marry in the country. In such cases, after the marriage applicants had their request to marry denied, their relatives in Israel were suddenly notified that their Jewish status was either revoked or awaiting clarification.

Jews cannot marry in Israel without providing evidence to the Chief Rabbinate that they are Jewish. Typically, that evidence consists of the marriage certificates of their parents or, in the case of Jews from abroad, letters of certification from their congregational rabbis. Immigrants are often asked to provide the names of relatives living in Israel who can vouch for them. The Chief Rabbinate has the sole authority over marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel. Without being approved by the Chief Rabbinate, Jews cannot marry legally in Israel.

According to the newly released document compiled by the administrative offices of Israel’s rabbinical courts, almost 900 Israelis were added in 2015 and 2016 to the list of “unmarriageable” individuals in the following two categories: “pending clarification” and “non-Jews.” In all cases, these were individuals who were previously registered as Jewish.

The Chief Rabbinate began compiling its blacklist of “unmarriageable” Israelis in 1954. Since then, the total number of individuals in these two categories has been fewer than 4,000. That means that 22 percent of them were added in the past two years alone. Other categories included on the blacklist are “mamzerim” (the offspring of relationships forbidden by Jewish law), individuals suspected of still being married or divorced couples who have resumed living together. The total number of individuals on the list, since it was first compiled, is close to 6,800.

These numbers were compiled by the administrative offices of Israel’s rabbinical courts in response to a Freedom of Information Inquiry submitted by ITIM, an organization that advocates on behalf of immigrants facing challenges from Israeli religious authorities.

They are cited in an appeal to the Supreme Court filed by the organization several weeks ago on behalf of four families in Israel whose members were recently added to the blacklist.

The appeal was filed after the highest court of the Chief Rabbinate ruled, on appeal, that its representatives are authorized to reexamine the Jewish credentials of Israelis who have already been recognized as Jews in Israel. The ruling was issued in December, just days after the Chief Rabbinate published a new regulation allowing it to investigate the religious status of Israelis even if they are not applying to marry in Israel and even if they were already recognized as Jewish for the purpose of marriage.

In its appeal, ITIM argues that the Chief Rabbinate does not have this authority. It also argues that such background checks constitute an invasion of privacy.

According to Rabbi Seth Farber, the founder and executive director of ITIM, never in the past have relatives of marriage applicants had their Jewish status revoked or subject to further clarification.

“The idea that the Chief Rabbinate can suddenly ‘un-Jew’ individuals,” he said, “is completely antithetical to halakha (Jewish religious law), which states that one must take the word of people who say they are Jewish,” he said.

Representing the four families whose Jewish status in Israel has been challenged are also the Center for Women’s Justice and the Rackman Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women at Bar-Ilan University.

One case involves an American-born woman who married an Israeli in a civil ceremony in Florida in 1984. The couple moved to Israel that year, and the woman and the couple’s oldest child converted to Judaism the following year. Both were subsequently registered as Jewish in the Population Registry, as were two daughters later born to the couple. A few years ago, the oldest daughter applied to marry in Israel. In the process, her mother was notified by a representative of the Chief Rabbinate that her marriage was no longer valid because she was not Jewish. Her daughter subsequently decided to marry in a civil ceremony in Cyprus. The couple’s other daughters were notified that their names had been added to the blacklist until further clarification.

A second case involves a family of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Recently, a relative of theirs who applied to get married in Israel was rejected because he could not provide sufficient proof that he was Jewish. After he was rejected, all his family members, who had already been registered as Jewish, were notified that their Jewish status was now pending clarification. A third case involves another family that immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union. When a daughter of theirs applied to get married two years ago and was not able to provide sufficient proof of her Jewish ancestry, all her relatives in the country, who already had been registered as Jewish, were subsequently informed that their religious status was now also pending clarification.

The fourth case also involves a family of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. In this particular case, an investigation was launched when a member of the family sought to divorce her husband, citing domestic violence. The estranged husband, in response, claimed that his wife had converted to Christianity. Based on this claim, which the woman categorically denied, the Chief Rabbinate notified relatives, who had already been registered as Jewish, that their Jewish status was now pending clarification.

Commenting on the four cases, Farber said: “ Behind each story here are real families who have had the carpet pulled out from under their feet. Halachic Judaism is not meant to cause suffering. By initiating Jewishness investigations, the rabbinate is further undermining its historic role in Israel.”

A few months ago, it emerged that the Chief Rabbinate also maintains a blacklist of rabbis from abroad whose letters of certification for the purpose of marriage it does not honor. This controversial list was also obtained through a Freedom of Information Act inquiry. The Chief Rabbinate has since announced that it plans to make public a new list of criteria for approving rabbis from abroad for such letters of certification.

%d bloggers like this: