Passover Special – Yahweh and WMD

April 10, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Not many people know that the evil genius who introduced our universe to WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) was the Jewish German chemist Fritz Haber. For his work at the service of the German ministry of defense at the time of WWI, Haber is considered the ‘father of chemical warfare.” Haber pioneered the weaponizing of chlorine and other poisonous gases during World War I. Haber died in 1934 on his way to Palestine. He was making Aliya.

It should also be noted that it was Jewish ‘pacifist’ Albert Einstein who, together with Leo Szilard (another Jewish physicist), initiated the Manhattan project to produce the very first nuclear weapons. In 1939, it was Einstein who proposed to President Roosevelt that the United States begin its nuclear energy project. Needless to say, the Manhattan Project was over-populated with Jewish German scientists, working day and night to build a nuclear bomb, hoping to bring total destruction on Germany and its people (not just the regime).

Just a few years later in the 1950s, David Ben Gurion and Shimon Peres decided to introduce the Middle East to WMD, launching the Israeli nuclear project and also the Israeli chemical and biological warfare laboratory at the Israel Institute for Biological Research in Nes Ziona.

One may wonder, what is it that motivates Jewish secular scientific geniuses such as Haber, Einstein, Szilard, Oppenheimer and many others, not just to place their brilliance in the service of evil, but actually to initiate and invent the most destructive genocidal weapons in the history of mankind? And what was it that motivated Ben Gurion and Peres to introduce the entire Middle East to the threat of Judgment Day weapons and the notion of ‘Samson Option’?

You may ask yourself, is it something in the Jewish religion that invokes such genocidal, fatalist thinking? But the truth of the matter is that all the above scientists were secular Jews – far removed from Judaism or the Talmud – so it is unlikely that it was rabbinical Judaism that motivated Haber or Einstein. Similarly it wasn’t Judaism that motivated the secular Ben Gurion or Peres to launch the Israeli nuclear project.

Yahweh – the God of WMD

If you really want to understand the possible roots of Jewish cultural fascination with WMD, the place to go is probably the story of Passover. The Jewish Passover dinner (seder), celebrated by both secular and orthodox Jews, delves at length into the story of the Ten Plagues – ten calamities that, according to the Book of Exodus, Yahweh inflicted upon innocent Egyptians, just to persuade their king, Pharaoh, to let the Israelites go. Could it be that the ten plagues are simply old-time WMD warfare perpetrated by Yahweh himself?

First God made water into blood: Ex. 7:14–24

This is what the LORD says:

“By this you will know that I am the LORD: With the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood. The fish in the Nile will die, and the river will stink and the Egyptians will not be able to drink its water.”

Then God inflicted on the poor innocent Egyptians a blitz of frogs: Ex. 8:1-8:5

This is what the great LORD says:

“Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you refuse to let them go, I will plague your whole country with frogs. The Nile will teem with frogs. They will come up into your palace and your bedroom and onto your bed, into the houses of your officials and on your people, and into your ovens and kneading troughs. The frogs will go up on you and your people and all your officials.”

The third Divine biological attack was lice: Ex 8:16

“And the LORD said […] Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt”

Fourth was wild creatures to harm people and livestock.

The Fifth was livestock succumbing to disease Then the biblical WMD God attacked the poor Egyptians and their livestock with boils and ulcers, an early version of mustard gas, I believe.

When none of that did the trick, Egypt was subjected to God-inflicted climate change.

The seventh plague was a thunderstorm of hail.

Then came locusts and, when this didn’t help, God simply turned off the light for three days.

Finally, the Jewish God really lost his patience and decided to murder every firstborn son in the kingdom.

So Yahweh is not exactly a nice god. In fact, he is a genocidal being who would not have the slightest chance of surviving a visit to the Hague – Alan Dershowitz himself would not be able to get him off.

As we have said, the story of the Plagues of Egypt is celebrated by most Jews and not only the religious. Jews see Passover as a festival of liberation which even the most secular Jews are happy to celebrate. But in practice, this joyous festival celebrates a merciless warfare against an innocent civilian population.

The story of Passover leaves unanswered some important ethical and theological questions. If the almighty Jewish God is so omnipotent, why did he not just soften Pharaoh’s heart towards the Jews? Or why not just punish the king? Why did the Jewish God prefer to engage in such murderous adventures on innocent Egyptians?

The above depiction of the Old Testament God leaves us with some unsettling philosophical questions. If it was the ancient Israelites who invented this God, a God who chose them over all other peoples, why not make him a bit nicer? Why did he have to be so vengeful, so genocidal even?

Einstein, Oppenheimer, Fritz Haber, Ben Gurion and Shimon Peres were secular Jews. They didn’t follow the Talmud nor did they keep the Sabbath, yet, like the Old Testament God himself, they probably believed that mass destruction was simply the kosher way forward.

Netanyahu’s corrupted views about origins of Purim & Iran

Zarif gives Netanyahu lesson in Jewish scripture

Arash Karami

Iranian officials harshly criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his accusations against Iran over a biblical story from 2,500 years ago.

During an open session of parliament March 12, Speaker Ali Larijani said, “It is necessary to discuss two points about the leader of the Zionist regime [Israel]. First, he has distorted the history of pre-Islamic Iran, and he has reversed the events.” Larijani continued, “Apparently, he knows neither history nor has he read the Torah. Of course more cannot be expected from a nefarious Zionist to spread lies like this.”

In this vein, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted March 12, “To sell bigoted lies against a nation which has saved Jews 3 times, Netanyahu resorting to fake history & falsifying Torah. Force of habit.” Zarif’s tweet was accompanied by a screenshot of text that cites the Persian Kings Xerxes I and Cyrus the Great, who stopped a plot to kill Jews and freed Jews from Babylon respectively, and also World War II, in which Iran took in Jews fleeing Europe.

This particular row was sparked by comments from Netanyahu with respect to the Jewish holiday of Purim, which is believed to involve Xerxes I. During a March 9 meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Netanyahu cited Purim and said, “There is an attempt by Persia’s heir, Iran, to destroy the state of the Jews.” Putin dismissed those remarks, saying that those events took place in the 5th century B.C. and “we live in a different world now.” Some Iranian media outlets particularly enjoyed Putin’s dismissal of Netanyahu’s concerns. Then, on March 11, a video also surfaced of Netanyahu speaking to children celebrating Purim saying, “Today in Persia they also want to … destroy us.”

Netanyahu’s narrative of Purim, much like most of his analysis on Iran, misreads important parts of the story, which comes from the Book of Esther from the Hebrew Bible, or the Old Testament. Though much of the story cannot be corroborated by history, it recounts how a Persian king’s viceroy, Haman the Agagite, plotted to kill all the Jews in Persia over a personal vendetta against a Jewish subject, Mordechai, who correctly assessed the threat against the Jews. The queen, Esther, reveals to the Persian king that she is Jewish and what the viceroy had plotted. The king then allows Mordechai and Esther to take revenge on Haman and his men by killing them.

This isn’t the first time Netanyahu has invoked Purim to make geopolitical attacks against the Iranian leadership. In 2012, Netanyahu gave President Barack Obama a copy of the Book of Esther. Later, in a 2015 speech — a time when relations with Obama had already soured — Netanyahu made his appeal to the US Congress. In the speech, he recounted the story of Esther, drawing a link to Iran’s leaders today, especially Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran’s main ally in the region, Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. Zarif had also responded to those comments in 2015, saying that it was “the Iranian king who saved the Jews.”



Americans Are Clueless on Muslim Views of Jesus

I came across this video and thought I would post it for the fun of it. As I have said for a long time, Christians have far more in common with Muslims, who venerate Jesus as a prophet, than with Jews, whose Talmud contains blasphemous depictions of Jesus as well as his mother Mary.

Zionists Always Embraced Terror, Genocide and Expansion


Zionists insisted the British lie about the true intention of the Balfour Declaration until “it 
was too late to do anything about it.” This has always been their MO.
The true agenda is to ethnically cleanse Palestine and expand Israel’s borders.
This is behind the turmoil in Libya, Iraq and Syria, and the threat to Iran.
Consider that Donald Trump now is in the pocket of this “fascist racist cult” (Suarez’ words.) 
Most people don’t know that Zionism, like Communism, are Freemasonic (i.e. Cabalist Jewish) organizations. The article illustrates the principle that satanic cults exploit their members. Zionists used Jews as cannon fodder. 
Below is an excerpt from a speech Dec. 14 by Tom Suarez, 
author of State of Terror to the British House of Lords on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration.
“Jews who opposed and tried to warn of the emerging fascism were assassinated, and indeed most victims of Zionist assassinations–that is, targeted, rather than indiscriminate–were Jews.”
By Tom Suarez

(Excerpt by 

In their behind-the-scenes meetings, [Chaim] Weizmann and [Anthony de] Rothschild treated the ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Palestinians as indispensable to their plans, and they repeatedly complained to the British that the settlers were not being treated preferentially enough over the Palestinians. And they insisted that the British must lie about the scheme until it is too late for anyone to do anything about it.

In correspondence with Balfour, Weizmann justified his lies by slandering the Palestinians and Jews–that is, the Middle East’s indigenous Jews, who were overwhelmingly opposed to Zionism and whom Weizmann smeared with classic anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Palestinians he dismissed as, in so many words, a lower type of human, and this was among the reasons he and other Zionist leaders used for refusing democracy in Palestine–if the “Arabs” had the vote, he said, it would lower the Jew down to the level of a “native”.

With the establishment of the British Mandate, four decades of peaceful Palestinian resistance had proved futile, and armed Palestinian resistance–which included terrorism–began. Zionist terror became the domain of formal organizations that attacked anyone in the way of its messianic goals–Palestinian, Jew, or British. These terror organizations operated from within the Zionist settlements and were actively empowered and shielded by the settlements and the Jewish Agency, the recognized semi-autonomous government of the Zionist settlements, what would become the Israeli government.

There was no substantive difference between the acknowledged terror organizations–most famously, the Irgun, and Lehi, the so-called Stern Gang–and the Jewish Agency, and its terror gang, the Hagana. The Agency cooperated, collaborated, and even helped finance the Irgun.

The relationship between the Jewish Agency, and the Irgun and Lehi, was symbiotic. The Irgun in particular would act on behalf of the Hagana so that the Jewish Agency could feign innocence. The Agency would then tell the British that they condemn the terror, while steadfastly refusing any cooperation against it, indeed doing what they could to shield it.


The fascist nature of the Zionist enterprise was apparent both to US and British intelligence. The Jewish Agency tolerated no dissent and sought to dictate the fates of all Jews. Children were radicalised as part of the methodology of all three major organizations, and by extension, the Jewish Agency.

Britain’s wake-up call regarding the Zionists’ indoctrination of children came on the 8th of July, 1938. That day, the Irgun blew up a bus filled with Palestinian villagers. Now, this was not the first time the Irgun had done something of this sort, but this time the British caught the bomber. She was a twelve year old schoolgirl.

Teenagers, both boys and girls, were commonly used to plant bombs in Palestinian markets and conduct other terror attacks. Teachers were threatened or removed if they tried to intervene in the indoctrination of their students, and the students themselves were blocked from advancement if they resisted, even being taught to betray their own parents if those parents tried to instill some moderation. Jews who opposed and tried to warn of the emerging fascism were assassinated, and indeed most victims of Zionist assassinations–that is, targeted, rather than indiscriminate–were Jews.

From the beginning of World War II through to the summer of 1947, there were virtually no Palestinian attacks, even though Zionist terror against Palestinians continued. A British explanation for the Palestinians’ failure to respond in kind was that they understood that the attacks were a trap, intended to elicit a response that the Zionists would frame as an attack against which they would have to ‘defend’ themselves. This was a Zionist tactic noted by the British as early as 1918, and it remains Israel’s default strategy today, most blatantly in Gaza, but also in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As late as the fall of 1947, the Jewish Agency was concerned by the Palestinians’ failure to respond to its provocation, but when the end of 1947 came and the Jewish Agency could wait no longer for the civil war it needed, it was simply a matter of ratcheting up the terror….


Much has been written on the collaboration between the Zionists and fascists during the war, the best known of course being the Haavara Transfer agreement that broke the anti-Nazi boycott. One of the least known was Lehi’s attempted collaboration with the Italian fascists. In its nearly concluded ‘Jerusalem Agreement’ of late 1940, Lehi would help the fascists win the war, and in return the fascists would uproot any Jewish communities not in Palestine and force their populations to Palestine.

If this sounds like a scheme so extreme that only fanatical Lehi could have conjured it, it is essentially what the Israeli state ultimately succeeded at in the early 1950s–most catastrophically, when it conducted a false-flag terror campaign against Jews in Iraq to destroy that ancient community and move its population to Israel as ethnic fodder.

king-david-hotel-bombing-article.jpgViolence targeting Jews was, and I would argue remains, a core tactic of Zionism. In fact, the single most deadly terror attack of the entire Mandate period was not the bombing of the King David Hotel, left, in 1946 as is commonly thought. Even some of the Irgun’s bombings of Palestinian markets killed more people than the King David attack. But the most deadly single terror attack was the Jewish Agency’s bombing of the immigrant ship Patria in 1940, killing an estimated 267 people, of whom more than 200 were Jews fleeing the Nazis.

The Jewish Agency bombed the Patria because it was bringing the DPs to Mauritius, where the British had facilities for them. The Agency needed the DPs to be settlers in Palestine without delay, and was willing to risk the lives of all aboard in order to get the survivors to remain–which, indeed, they did.

In further violence against its Jewish victims, the Agency framed the dead for the bombing. It spread the lie that the DPs themselves blew up the vessel, that they committed mass suicide rather than not go directly to Palestine, posthumously conscripting the dead to serve the Zionist myth.

This was no aberration, but the driving principle of the Zionist project: Persecuted Jews served the political project, not the other way around.


Another major tactic of violence against Jews by the Jewish Agency and American Zionist leadership was the sabotaging of safe haven in order to force them to Palestine. As but one example, in 1944 US Zionist leaders sabotaged President Roosevelt’s provisional success in establishing a half million new homes for European DPs, most of these homes in the United States and Britain. When Roosevelt’s aide Morris Ernst visited the Zionist leaders in an attempt to save the program, he was, in his words, “thrown out of parlours and accused of treason”– ‘treason’, because he was Jewish, and the Zionists owned Jews.

Nor were those already settled safe. In 1946, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Yitzhak Herzog, conducted a massive kidnapping operation of Jewish orphans that had been adopted by European families when their parents perished years earlier. Removing ten thousand children from their homes was the number he cited to the NY Times as his goal. In the National Archives, I found a copy of his own record of the trip.

Herzog railed against the fierce resistance he met in every country by horrified local Jewish leaders who tried to protect the children. But Herzog used his political clout to circumvent them. In France, for example, facing the steadfast refusal of the Jewish leaders to betray the children, Herzog met the Prime Minister of France from whom [he] demanded promulgation of a law which would oblige every family to declare the particulars of the children it houses, so that those of Jewish background could be exposed and put back in orphanages until they can be shipped to Palestine–quite a Kafkaesque twist on Passover for these children who had just been spared the Nazis.

Herzog’s justification for the kidnappings was that for a Jew to be raised in a non-Jewish home is “much worse than physical murder”. Yet even this ghastly justification fails to explain what was actually taking place, because at the same time Herzog was ‘rescuing’ Jewish orphans from this fate “much worse than physical murder”, his Jewish Agency colleagues were sabotaging Jewish adoptive homes in England for young survivors still in the camps. The real reason for all of it, of course, was that the children were needed to serve the settler project as demographic fodder.

To that end, the Jewish Agency had coerced President Truman to segregate Jewish DPs into Zionist indoctrination camps, despite objections that it echoed Nazi behaviour. For these people who had just survived the unthinkable, then severed from the rest of humanity into these brainwashing camps, there was no such thing as free thought.

The camps nurtured such fanaticism that it shocked a joint US-UK committee that visited in 1946. Before these camps, few DPs wanted to go to Palestine. But now the Committee found them in a delirious state, threatening mass suicide if they did not go to Palestine. Suggestions of new homes in the United States, which had always been the favored destination, were again met with threats of mass suicide.


DPs were also groomed to bring Zionist terrorism to Europe, bombing Allied trains and Allied facilities. The bombing of the British embassy in Rome in 1946, for example, was by DPs brainwashed in these camps, as was a near-catastrophe in the Austrian Alps in 1947 when DPs nearly blew a train off a steep trestle into a deep abyss, which would almost certainly have sent its two hundred civilians and Allied troops to their deaths.

Robert_Weltsch.jpgGerman Jewish immigrants to Palestine during war were outraged by the Zionists’ exploitation of the Nazi horrors they had just fled. This outrage given voice by, among others, the prominent journalist Robert Weltsch, editor of Berlin newspaper until banned by the Nazis in 1938.

Weltsch warned that Zionist leaders have not yet understood that the enemy seeks the destruction of the Jews … We who have been here only a few years, we know what Nazism is.

Zionists, rather, are “taking part in the crash of European Jewry only as spectators”, fighting the British and keeping Jews from joining the Allied struggle while getting comfortable and rich from their political project in Palestine. Recent immigrants from Germany and Central Europe, he said, have no representation among the Zionist ruling establishment. If they did, we would have demanded that the Yishuv should put itself at the disposal of Britain for the fight against Hitler and Nazism.

But–and I am still quoting Weltsch– “They do not want to fight against Hitler because his fascist methods are also theirs … They do not want our young men to join the [Allied] Forces … day after day they are sabotaging the English War Effort.”


‘Tis the Season: Attacks on Christmas and Christianity from the ‘Usual Suspects’

By Richard Edmondson

In the video above, Fox News commentator Todd Starnes discusses the cancellation of a performance of the Charles Dickens classic, A Christmas Carol, that was to have been staged at a school in Pennsylvania; a prohibition against children singing at a nativity scene in North Carolina; and the removal of a Charlie Brown-themed Christmas decoration from a school in Texas.

The commentary is good as far as it goes, and the book Starnes is promoting might be a worthwhile read, but as is often the case with Fox News, the report stops short of identifying the exact nature of the fault lines in America. For instance, is this simply a dispute between Christians, on the one hand, and “godless grinches” or “secular humanists,” on the other?

Or would it be more accurate to describe it as a cultural war–or maybe even a “cultural jihad,” as Starnes characterizes it–being waged by Jews (or some Jews, to be more precise) against Christians?

Aside from the incidents discussed by Starnes above, there have been at least four attacks upon Christianity published in the mainstream media just since the beginning of December. These include an article entitled, “Virgin Mary, Career-Killer,” published at the Daily Beast; “Our Culture of Purity Celebrates the Virgin Mary. As a Rape Victim, that Hurts Me,” published by the Washington Post; “Judaism Brings God into the Home in a Way that Christianity Rarely Does,” posted at The Guardian; and “I Baptized My Kid, But I Kind of Regret It,” which can be viewed at Redbook Magazine.

Perhaps oddly, a lot of these articles are written by Christians, including, in two cases, by those who hold positions as pastors. It seems self-evident, but perhaps it needs to be pointed out: wherever there are attention-seeking Christians hoping to make a name for themselves by offering “criticisms” of their own faith, you will likely find Jewish media owners, or editors employed by them, only too happy to oblige by affording them airtime or print space to do so.

This is not to say that criticisms of religion, including Christianity, should be shut down. There are plenty of Christian leaders, for instance, including Pope Francis (who is universally praised by the mainstream media, though that in and of itself should tell us something) who more than merit criticism. But with so much wrong in the world today, including wars and occupations and the politicians and media outlets who endlessly lie about them, how becoming or seemly is it for Christians to grandstand and publish articles disparaging their own church’s teachings?

What I would like to do here is offer a brief summary and commentary on each of the four articles named above, starting in reverse order with the piece published at Redbook. Entitled “I Baptized My Kid, But I Kind of Regret It,” the article is written by Megan Angelo, who professes to be a Catholic and who agonizes at length on the recent baptism of her son, Rocco, and whether or not it was a good idea.

Entirely shallow and vacuous, the piece itemizes poor Megan’s complaints about the Catholic Church–its “archaic” teachings on divorce, the “rejection of anyone who isn’t straight,” “condescension to women,” and “dogged, exhausting fixation on abortion”–while making no mention whatsoever of Jesus or his teachings.

Though it was against her better judgement, Megan went through with little Rocco’s baptism anyway, even though, as she describes, “it made my heart pound with irritation when, during our prep class, the deacon took a shot at the Jews for ‘letting their children choose the faith as young adults’ rather than locking salvation down at the infant stage.” (Doubtless the scandalous deacon she mentions deserves excommunication from the church and should be fired for his display of rabid anti-Semitism). Of her final decision to go ahead with the baptism she writes:

Why did I do it? I know what you’re thinking: the grandparents. Isn’t that why everyone does it? My parents and in-laws are Catholic; yes, they would have been surprised if we decided not to baptize our sons.

But the bottom line is that little Rocco was sprinkled–certainly a more horrendous and gruesome fate than being circumcised!

We are also treated to some memories by Megan. She recalls the “nice coats” her own mother made her wear to church when she was small, but which she herself  “hated”–and she also discusses her Catholic elementary school, where time was set aside each day for religion, though Megan is convinced this was for no other reason that to “remind you, firmly, that it is your job to be nice to people”–and of course what a frivolous, self-indulgent pursuit that must have been.

Perhaps inevitably Megan also criticizes “the century-sized pile of sexual abuse that kicked the moral high ground right out from under the Church,” but it appears she has nothing to say about about the arrests of numerous rabbis on child sex abuse charges or the child sex scandal that engulfed Yeshiva University High School for Boys in New York in 2012. Of course her focus is on Catholicism, not Judaism. But accusing one of these faiths of a “century-sized pile of sexual abuse” while omitting any mention of the other tends to plant the idea in readers’ minds that Jewish religious leaders are free of sin and that only Catholic priests have ever displayed proclivities of this sort–which is not the case by any means.

But of course criticism of Judaism or sensationalized reports on pedophile rabbis is something you will see precious little of in the mainstream media. The only religion that gets rapped, panned or swiped at on a regular basis is Christianity. When it comes to Juadism, a different standard applies–which brings me to the next article.

On December 15, The Guardian published “Judaism Brings God into the Home in a Way that Christianity Rarely Does,” which basically offers a comparative analysis between Christianity and Judaism, and of course, not surprisingly, Judaism comes out on top. Not to harp too much on the point I made above, but can you imagine–in any mainstream media outlet, whether it be in Britain or America–an article entitled: “Christianity Brings God into the Home in a Way that Judaism Rarely Does”? I think I can state with a fair degree of confidence you will not find such a view offered up by any of the “usual suspects” whose editorial policies are notorious for trampling opposing viewpoints on a whole host of issues.

Now the astounding thing about The Guardian piece is that it was authored by a Christian pastor! Specifically he is a priest with the Church of England, Giles Fraser, currently serving as parish priest at St. Mary’s in London’s Newington area. In his piece for the Guardian Fraser confides that he is writing “under the bedcovers, metaphorically speaking,” and goes on to share:

I’m supposed to be on paternity leave but don’t like the idea of not doing this column, so I’m working in a few snatched moments between nappy changes and feeds. Nonetheless I’m keeping my promise to stay at home and so am taking a break from all the activity of the church in the run-up to Christmas.

Fraser doesn’t specify who the “nappy changes” are for–himself or the baby–though one presumes the latter. But he does inform us that “my mother-in-law is over from Tel Aviv,” which apparently means he is married to a Jewish woman, and he goes on to add that “sociologists of religion” have concluded that “many of the great liturgies and festivals of Judaism centre on the home in a way that they do not with catholic Christianity” (catholic spelled with a lower-case “c” since he is using the word in its more generic meaning of “universal”). Christmas, Fraser somewhat grudgingly allows, may be “the only possible exception” to this.

The main thrust of the article is that while Jews perform a number of religious rites in their homes (Passover seders, mezuzahs on the doorpost, etc.), Christian religious rites, such as baptism and Eucharist, are administered mainly in church. Of course Christians say prayers at mealtimes, but Fraser confides that in his own home this occurs “very occasionally” and usually only “when we have the bishop round for supper.”

Christianity once maintained “a firm distinction between the sacred and profane,” and this, our devout priest says, may account for the emphasis on church, though he also argues that the distinction became less important with the Protestant Reformation and the “rejection of the idea that the church is the middleman between human beings and God.” It is an argument slightly at cross purposes with itself, but in any event, Fraser announces happily he’s “going to enjoy a guilt-free paternity leave, messing around with my son, eating my mother-in-law’s borscht and lighting our candles.”

“My Jewish relatives,” he adds in closing, “are all secular Israelis – yet it is they, not I, who have introduced religious liturgies into our house. And I thank them for bringing God home. Happy Chrismukah.”

Another clergy member to take a potshot at the faith is Ruth Everhart, pastor of a Presbyterian church in Bethesda, Maryland. Her article in the Washington Post was published December 16 under the headline, “Our culture of purity celebrates the Virgin Mary. As a rape victim, that hurts me.”

Everhart may be stretching things when she describes America as having a “culture of purity” about it, but in any event she relates that at the age of 20, during her senior year in college, she and her housemates were victims of a home invasion in which they were raped repeatedly at gunpoint by a gang of intruders. The experience left her traumatized as well as “bound up in a sense of sexual shame.”

This is certainly not to minimize Everhart’s suffering–what she went through at the time of the rape, as well as afterward–but she seems to feel that the Virgin Mary, at least in part, bears some responsibility for what happened. Or as she puts it, “I’m not blaming my sense of ruin on the Virgin Mary, not entirely.”

She goes on to add:

Protestants do not claim Mary in the way Catholics do, but every Advent I feel a sense of kinship. I know what it’s like to be a good girl whose life got upended by what someone did to her body. Of course, her story plot was good and mine was bad. Plus she was, well, a saint. And I’m not.

Still, I study her this time of the year — always dressed in blue with downcast eyes — and want to ask: “How was it really? And how do you feel about what the patriarchy has done with you?”

I myself am kind of neutral on the subject of patriarchy. It’s neither inherently good nor inherently bad. But to get on with the story, more than a decade after the rape, Everhart became a church pastor because she “had to face down the demons,” and to do that she had to “live inside church culture.”

One might almost get the impression it was a gang of Christians who raped Everhart, though I doubt that is what the author was intending to imply.

She does make a valid point, however–that women have been sexualized in our society, and that while having a body is a gift from God, “if you’re a woman, it’s a complicated gift.” Christianity, through the teachings of Jesus, offers forgiveness for sins, real sins as well as imagined sins–and when I say imagined sins I am referring to those tormented souls who imagine themselves guilty of things they in reality were not responsible for. While Everhart speaks of the “redemption” she found in the gospel message, she doesn’t seem entirely conscious of this latter point, although maybe it’s told of in her book.

And yes, perhaps not surprisingly, Everhart has a book out! It is entitled Ruined. The book description, available here, opens with the following line, apparently a quote from inside: “It happened on a Sunday night, even though I’d been a good girl and gone to church that morning.”

So is Everhart blaming Christianity and the Church–or praising them? It seems perhaps a little of both. On the one hand, God didn’t stop the rape. But on the other there was the redemption gained in the years afterwards.

And as for the mother of Jesus, Everhart feels that while Mary’s story potentially, under different circumstances and if society were different, “could liberate us,” for the most part the saga of the virgin birth, she believes, has served “to oppress women.”

The Virgin Mary also takes a kicking in an article published at The Daily Beast on December 17 under the headline, “Virgin Mary, Career Killer.” And underneath that main head there is also a subhead which reads: “Questioning the birth story central to Christianity has been taking down scholars and skeptics for just about 2,016 years.” This is a rather amazing claim, especially when you consider that the only two examples the writer cites of  this are an incident from the fourth century and a later one that occurred in the sixteenth century. The writer seems oblivious to the fact that people are far more likely to have their careers destroyed these days from criticizing Israel than the mother of Christ.

The piece is written by Candida Moss, who identifies herself as an instructor at the University of Notre Dame–presumably of religious studies, for she also tells us that “almost every atheist I meet,” upon learning of her teaching position, “will make a crack about Mary’s sexual history.” This would tend to contradict the assertion in the subhead that vast numbers of scholars are “taken down” by voicing skepticism of the virgin birth. How, after all, can people make “cracks” of this nature so freely and openly without suffering repercussions?

Indeed, Moss goes on to assert that of all Christian doctrines, none is “as closely protected or as broadly scorned” as the virgin birth. And she also relates the story from the Talmud that Mary was a whore and that Jesus’ biological father was a Roman soldier, commenting, “The implication here is that Mary was a collaborator who got knocked up by a hated occupier and decided to concoct a story in which Jesus was the product of a sexless encounter with God.”

But she then goes on to concede that while “conspiracy theorists may love it” (i.e. the story that Jesus was the bastard offspring of a Roman), there is in reality no historical evidence to back it up. Still, though, “of all the miracles recorded in the New Testament, the virgin birth of Jesus garners the most cynical attention.”

And finally, in a rickety stab a humor, Moss imparts in closing that when it “comes to Christian theology, as it does with yo’ mamma, Mary is both the most criticized and the most defended.”


So to recap, what we have are a series of snide put-downs of Christianity in the media, combined with attempts at blocking children from learning or being formally taught anything about the true meaning of Christmas, or indeed of any acknowledgement of Christmas in any public education setting at all, in different regions of the country. The cancellation of the play at the school in Pennsylvania, mentioned by Starnes, is perhaps especially instructional.

In a tradition stretching back some 40 years, the 5th grade class at Centerville Elementary School in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania has staged annual productions of Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol.” But this year the play was cancelled by the school’s principle, reportedly at the insistence of a group of parents who have yet to be identified.

In a report on the decision here, Lancaster County is described as a conservative area with a “rich history of religious liberty,” and understandably many families are upset at the cancellation.

“It seems like people are trying to take away our traditions left and right,” said local attorney Randy Wenger. “We need to do something to push back.”

There is disagreement on the number of parents who complained about the play. Residents who have voiced outspoken opposition to its cancellation say the objections were from two parents only. The school’s principal disputes that, but is vague on the exact number. You can read his full statement on the matter here.

The principal of Centerville Elementary School is Tom Kramer. According to his Linked In profile, he has served as principal of the school only since July of this year.

“In addition to focusing on high quality instruction, our decision is rooted in the desire to be respectful of the many cultural and religious backgrounds represented by the students attending Centerville Elementary,” he says in his statement.

Kramer adds that normally the play requires 15-20 hours to prepare for, and that this takes too much time from classroom instruction–even though the tradition has been going on for 40 years.

“I was very surprised because it’s going on for decades and it’s a tradition at the school that everyone looks forward to,” said local resident Jane Burkhart.

Centerville Elementary is part of the Hempfield School District. A report by WHTM, a local ABC affiliate, includes comments from Shannon Zimmerman, a school district official, who claims that students were “required” to participate in the play, and that “we can’t allow that to continue.”

Is Zimmerman suggesting that students who may have wished to opt out of participating in the play for religious reasons were not permitted to do so? In a town with a “rich history of religious liberty” I find this difficult to believe. At any rate, rather than being “required” to participate, the students at the school, it seems, are now required not to participate.

In his statement released to the media, Kramer professes that “alternate solutions” for the play were explored, including the possibility of having rehearsals after school hours, but that so far neither parents nor other community members have “stepped forward” as volunteers to handle the responsibility–but of course these are working people. They are not hedge fund managers. They have regular jobs they have to go to, some of them probably holding down more than one.

It is amazing that a small number of people, a very tiny percentage of the population, are able to prohibit practically all official public expressions of religious beliefs, even though these religious beliefs are held by the majority–but that is the situation we have in America. And it is a state of affairs that doesn’t sit well with growing numbers of people–or at least that seems to be the case in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Most of the above was reported between December 15-17, but now the situation there seems to be evolving even further. According to a report here, published on December 22, a Jewish family has left the county out of fear for their safety, this after reader comments about the cancellation were posted on website.

The debunker website Snopes has also weighed in on the issue, attempting to make the case that the cancellation of the play was not an act of censorship, nor did it have anything to do with complaints about the play’s Christmas theme, and that it was all due to concern over taking away too much time from the classroom. The writer of the piece, however, seems to have been a little careless, referring to the school’s principal as “Kramer” in some parts of her article, and as “Kessler” at other points.

Despite all the attacks, Christmas–and the Christian faith–will survive, just as they have survived the last 2000 years. My guess, in fact, is that the faith will emerge even stronger–the cycle will swing back the other way–to the detriment of those now launching these attacks. After all, the more you attack something, the more your motives and your credibility are called into question. This is something we have seen with media attempts to demonize Russia, and I suspect the same will ultimately hold true for attempts to tear down Christianity.

Forget Russia — The Real Threat to America comes from israel and the israel Lobby

Forget Russia — The Real Threat to America comes from Israel and the Israel Lobby

How Russia is pilloried
while real news about Israel goes unreported

By Philip Giraldi


“We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
— Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001

The drama surrounding allegations that the internet is awash with “fake news” is being promoted by the so-called mainstream media which certainly has a lot to answer for when it comes to producing material that does not pass the smell test.

Does the name Judith Miller ring any bells? And the squeaks of rage coming from the U.S. Congress over being lied to is also something to behold as the federal government has been acting in collusion with the media to dish up falsehoods designed to start wars since the time of the Spanish-American conflict in 1898, if not before.

The fake news saga is intended to discredit Donald Trump, whom the media hates mostly because they failed to understand either him or the Americans who voted for him in the recent election. You have to blame somebody when you are wrong so you invent “fake news” as the game changer that explains your failure to comprehend simple truths. To accomplish that, the clearly observable evidence that the media was piling on Donald Trump at every opportunity has somehow been deliberately morphed into a narrative that it is Trump who was attacking the media, suggesting that it was all self-defense on the part of the Rachel Maddows of this world, but anyone who viewed even a small portion of the farrago surely will have noted that it was the Republican candidate who was continuously coming under attack from both the right and left of the political-media spectrum.

There are also some secondary narratives being promoted, including a pervasive argument that Hillary Clinton was somehow the victim of the news reporting due specifically to fake stories emanating largely from Moscow in an attempt to not only influence the election but also to subvert America’s democratic institutions.

have observed that if such a truly ridiculous objective were President Vladimir Putin’s desired goal he might as well relax. Our own Democratic and Republican duopoly has already been doing a fine job at subverting democracy by assiduously separating the American people from the elite Establishment that theoretically represents and serves them.

Another side of the mainstream media lament that has been relatively unexplored is what the media chooses not to report. At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S. Instead of seeking a new Cold War, Washington should instead focus on working with Russia to make sure that disagreements over policies in relatively unimportant parts of the world do not escalate into nuclear exchanges.

Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the U.S. through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House. Candidate Donald Trump appeared to recognize that fact before he began listening to Michael Flynn, who has a rather different view. Hopefully the old Trump will prevail.

Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington’s intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill. Neoconservatives are frequently described as ideologues, but the truth is that they are more interested in gaining increased access to money and power than they are in promulgating their own brand of global regime change.

There is, however, another country that has interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America’s legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby that oddly is not subject to the accountability afforded by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 even though it manifestly works on behalf of a foreign government. That country is, of course, Israel.

And that assessment of Israel and what damage it does regarding what most Americans would regard as genuine national interests is most definitely not reported, revealing once again that what is not written is every bit as important as what is. I would note how what has recently happened right in front of us relating to Israel is apparently not considered fit to print and will never appear on any disapproving editorial page. Just this week the Senate unanimously passed an Anti-Semitism Awareness bill and also by a 99 to zero vote renewed and strengthened sanctions against Iran, which could wreck the one year old anti-nuclear weapon proliferation agreement with that country.

The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act is intended to give the Department of Education investigatory authority over “anti-Jewish incidents” on America’s college campuses. Such “incidents” are not limited to religious bigotry, with the examples cited in the bill’s text including criticism of Israel and claiming that the holocaust was “exaggerated.” It is a thinly disguised assault on the Boycott Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement, which is non-violent, does not criticize Jews as a religion or ethnicity, and is actually supported by many Jewish Americans who are concerned about Israel’s apartheid regime.

The Anti-Semitism bill makes Jews and Jewish interests a legally protected class, immune from any criticism. “Free speech” means in practice that you can burn an American flag, sell pornography, attack Christianity in the vilest terms or castigate the government in Washington all you want but criticizing Israel is off limits if you want to avoid falling into the clutches of the legal system. The Act is a major step forward in effectively making any expressed opposition to Israeli actions a hate crime.

And it is similar to punitive legislation that has been enacted in twenty-two states as well as in Canada. It is strongly supported by the Israel Lobby, which quite likely drafted it, and is seeking to use legal challenges to delegitimize and eliminate any opposition to the policies of the state of Israel.

As the Act is clearly intended to restrict First Amendment rights if they are perceived as impacting on broadly defined Jewish sensitivities, it should be opposed on that basis alone, but it is very popular in Congress, which is de facto owned by the Israel Lobby. That the legislation is not being condemned or even discussed in the generally liberal media tells you everything you need to know about the amazing power of one particular unelected and unaccountable lobby in the U.S.

And there is always Iran to worry about.

If the United States can successfully avoid a war with Russia, a conflict with the Mullahs could have major consequences even if the all-powerful U.S. military successfully rolls over its Iranian counterpart in less than a week. Iran is physically and in terms of population much larger than Iraq and it has a strong national identity. An attack by Washington would produce a powerful reaction, unleashing terrorist resources and destabilizing an economically and politically important region of the world for years to come. Currently, the nuclear agreement with Iran provides some measure of stability and also pushes backwards any possible program by Tehran to build a weapon. Iran does not threaten the United States, so why walk away from the agreement as some of Trump’s advisors urge? Or violate the agreement’s terms as the U.S. Congress seems to be doing by extending and tightening the sanctions regime with its just passed Iran Sanctions Extension Act?

Look no further than the Israel Lobby. Hobbling Iran, a regional competitor, is a possible Israeli interest that should have nothing to do with the United States but yet again the United States government carries the water for the extreme right wing Netanyahu regime.

Israel for its part has welcomed the Trump election by building 500 new and completely illegal settler homes in what was once Arab East Jerusalem. Trump has surrounded himself with advocates for Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s expectation that he will have a free hand in dealing with those pesky Palestinians is probably correct. I would like to think that Donald Trump will unpleasantly surprise him based on actual American rather than Israeli interests but am not optimistic.

Indeed, deference to perceived Israeli interests enforced by the Israel Lobby and media permeates the entire American foreign policy and national security structure. Congressman Keith Ellison who is seeking to become Democratic National Committee Chairman is being called an anti-Semite for “implying U.S. policy in the region [the Middle East] favored Israel at the expense of Muslim-majority countries, remarks ADL’s CEO Jonathan Greenblatt described as ‘deeply disturbing and disqualifying.’” Donald Trump and his senior counselor Steve Bannon have also both been called anti-Semites and several other potential GOP appointees have been subjected to the media’s fidelity-to-Israel litmus test.

The recently nominated Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who can hardly be called a moderate when it comes to Iran, has also been labeled an anti-Semite by the usual players. Why? Because in 2013 he told Wolf Blitzer “So we’ve got to work on [peace talks] with a sense of urgency. I paid a military security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and [because of this] moderate Arabs couldn’t be with us because they couldn’t publicly support those who don’t show respect for Arab Palestinians.”

Mattis continued, referring directly to Israeli apartheid: “I’ll tell you, the current situation is unsustainable … We’ve got to find a way to make work the two-state solution that both Democrat and Republican administrations have supported, and the chances are starting to ebb because of the settlements. For example, if I’m Jerusalem and I put 500 Jewish settlers to the east and there’s ten-thousand Arabs already there, and if we draw the border to include them, either [Israel] ceases to be a Jewish state or you say the Arabs don’t get to vote — apartheid. That didn’t work too well the last time I saw that practiced in a country.”

Mattis will no doubt be reminded of his remarks when he is up for Senate confirmation. A predecessor Chuck Hagel was mercilessly grilled by Senators over his reported comment that the “Jewish lobby” intimidates congressmen. But ironically nearly everyone who is not an Israel-firster who is involved in U.S. foreign and security policy knows that aggressive Israeli colonization of the Palestinian West Bank and its siege of Gaza contribute greatly to terrorism against the United States, since Washington is regularly blamed for enabling Netanyahu. When General David Petraeus said pretty much the same thing as Mattis back in 2010 he was forced to “explain” his comments, retract them and then grovel before he was eventually given a pass by the Lobby.

And there is considerable self-censorship related to the alleged sensitivity of “Jewish issues,” not only in the media. I recently attended a conference on the Iraq invasion of 2003 at which the role of Israel manifested through its controlled gaggle of American legislators and bureaucrats as a factor in going to war was not even mentioned. It was as if it would be impolite or, dare I say, anti-Semitic, to do so even though the Israeli role was hardly hidden.

Former Bush administration senior official Philip Zelikow has admitted that protecting Israel was the principal reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq and others have speculated that without the persistent neocons’ and Israel’s prodding Washington might not have gone to war at all. That is apparently what then Secretary of State Colin Powell also eventually came around to believe.

So let’s stop talking about what Russia is doing to the United States, which is relatively speaking very little, and start admitting that the lopsided and completely deferential relationship with Israel is the actual central problem in America’s foreign policy. Will the media do that? Not a chance. They would rather obsess about fake news and blame Putin.


israel’s Supreme Court rules against exposing israel’s role in Bosnian genocide

Supreme Court rules against exposing Israel’s role in Bosnian genocide

Citing potential damage to Israel’s foreign relations, the Supreme Court rejects a petition calling to reveal details of the government’s arms exports to the Serbian army during the Bosnian genocide.

By John Brown* (Translated by Tal Haran)

A mass grave in Bosnia. (ICTY)

A mass grave in Bosnia. (ICTY)

Israel’s Supreme Court last month rejected a petition to reveal details of Israeli defense exports to the former Yugoslavia during the genocide in Bosnia in the 1990s. The court ruled that exposing Israeli involvement in genocide would damage the country’s foreign relations to such an extent that it would outweigh the public interest in knowing that information, and the possible prosecution of those involved

The petitioners, Attorney Itay Mack and Professor Yair Oron, presented the court with concrete evidence of Israeli defense exports to Serbian forces at the time, including training as well as ammunition and rifles. Among other things, they presented the personal journal of General Ratko Mladić, currently on trial at the International Court of Justice for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Mladić’s journal explicitly mentions Serbia’s ample arms ties with Israel at the time.

The exports took place long after the UN Security Council placed an arms embargo on various parts of the former Yugoslavia, and after the publication of a series of testimonies exposing genocide and the creation of concentration camps.

The Israeli State Attorney’s reply and the court’s rejection of the petition are a de facto admission by Israel that it cooperated with the Bosnian genocide: if the government had nothing to hide, the documents under discussion would not pose any threat to foreign relations.

The most horrific acts of cruelty since the Holocaust

Between 1991 and 1995 the former Yugoslavia shattered, going from a multi-national republic to an assemblage of nations fighting each other in a bloody civil war that included massacres and ultimately genocide.

The Serbs waged war against Croatia from 1991-1992, and against Bosnia from 1992-1995. In both wars the Serbs committed genocide and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the areas they occupied, leading to the deaths of 250,000 people. Tens of thousands of others were wounded and starved, a multitude of women were raped, and many people were incarcerated in concentration camps. Other parties to the conflict also committed war crimes, but the petition focuses on Israel’s collaboration with the Serbian forces. The horrendously cruel acts in Yugoslavia were the worst Europe had seen since the Holocaust.

Ratko Mladić. Evidence of Israeli arms deals was found in his journal. (Mikhail Estefayev)

Ratko Mladić. Evidence of Israeli arms deals was found in his journal. (Mikhail Estefayev)

One of the most notorious massacres was perpetrated by soldiers serving under Serbian General Ratko Mladić around the city of Srebrenica in July 1995. Serbian forces commanded by the general murdered about 8,000 Bosnians and buried them in mass graves in the course of a campaign of ethnic cleansing they were waging against Muslims in the area. Although the city was supposed to be under UN protection, when the massacre began UN troops did not intervene. Mladić was extradited to the International Court of Justice at The Hague in 2012, and is still on trial.

At the time, prominent Jewish organizations were calling for an immediate end to the genocide and shutting down the death camps. Not so the State of Israel. Outwardly it condemned the massacre, but behind the scenes was supplying weapons to the perpetrators and training their troops.

Attorney Mack and Professor Oron have gathered numerous testimonies about the Israeli arms supply to Serbia, which they presented in their petition. They provided evidence of such exports taking place long after the UN Security Council embargo went into effect in September 1991. The testimonies have been crossed-checked and are brought here as they were presented in the petition, with necessary abbreviations.

In 1992 a former senior official of the Serb Ministry of Defense published a book, The Serbian Army, in which she wrote about the arms deal between Israel and Serbia, signed about a month after the embargo: “One of the largest deals was made in October 1991. For obvious reasons, the deal with the Jews was not made public at the time.”

An Israeli who volunteered in a humanitarian organization in Bosnia at the time testified that in 1994 a UN officer asked him to look at the remains of 120 mm shell — with Hebrew writing on it that exploded on the landing strip of the Sarajevo airfield. He also testified that he saw Serbs moving around in Bosnia carrying Uzi guns made in Israel.

A concentration camp in Bosnia. (ITN)

A concentration camp in Bosnia. (ITN)

In 1995 it was reported that Israeli arms dealers in collaboration with the French closed a deal to supply Serbia with LAW missiles. According to reports from 1992, a delegation of the Israeli Ministry of Defense came to Belgrade and signed an agreement to supply shells.

The same General Mladić who is now being prosecuted for war crimes and genocide, wrote in his journal that “from Israel — they proposed joint struggle against Islamist extremists. They offered to train our men in Greece and a free supply of sniper rifles.” A report prepared at the request of the Dutch government on the investigation of the Srebrenica events contains the following: “Belgrade considered Israel, Russia and Greece its best friends. In autumn 1991 Serbia closed a secret arms deal with Israel.”

In 1995 it was reported that Israeli arms dealers supplied weapons to VRS — the army of Republika Srpska, the Bosnian Serb Army. This supply must have been made with the knowledge of the Israeli government.

The Serbs were not the only party in this war to which the Israeli arms dealers tried to sell weapons. According to reports, there was also an attempt to make a deal with the anti-Semitic Croatian regime, which eventually fell through. The petition also presented reports by human rights activists about Israelis training the Serb army, and that the arms deal with the Serbs enabled Jews to leave Sarajevo, which was under siege.

While all of this was taking place in relative secrecy, at the public level the government of Israel lamely expressed its misgivings about the situation, as if this were some force majeure and not a manmade slaughter. In July 1994, then-Chairman of the Israeli Knesset’s Foreign Relations and Defense Committee MK Ori Or visited Belgrade and said: “Our memory is alive. We know what it means to live with boycotts. Every UN resolution against us has been taken with a two-thirds majority.” That year, Vice President of the US at the time, Al Gore, summoned the Israeli ambassador and warned Israel to desist from this cooperation.

Incidentally, in 2013 Israel had no problem extraditing to Bosnia-Herzegovina a citizen who immigrated to Israel seven years earlier and was wanted for suspicion of involvement in a massacre in Bosnia in 1995. In other words, at some point the state itself recognized the severity of the issue.

The Supreme Court in the service of war crimes

The Supreme Court session on the state’s reply to the petition was held ex parte, i.e. the petitioners weren’t allowed to hear it. Justices Danziger, Mazouz and Fogelman rejected the petition and accepted the state’s position that revealing the details of Israeli defense exports to Serbia during the genocide would damage Israel’s foreign relations and security, and that this potential damage exceeds the public’s interest in exposing what happened.

A mass grave at Srebrenica, where Serbian forces massacred around 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in 1995. (Adam Jones)

A mass grave at Srebrenica, where Serbian forces massacred around 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in 1995. (Adam Jones)

This ruling is dangerous for several reasons. Firstly, the court’s acceptance of the state’s certainty in how much damage would be caused to Israel’s foreign relations is perplexing. Earlier this year, the same Supreme Court rejected a similar claim regarding defense exports during the Rwandan genocide, yet a month later the state itself declared that the exports were halted six days after the killing started. If even the state does not see any harm in revealing — at least partially — this information regarding Rwanda, why was a sweeping gag imposed on the subject a month prior? Why did the Supreme Court justices overlook this deception, even refusing to accept it as evidence as the petitioners requested? After all, the state has obviously exaggerated in its claim that this information would be damaging to foreign relations.

Secondly, it is very much in the public’s interest to expose the state’s involvement in genocide, including through arms dealers, particularly as a state that was founded upon the devastation of its people following the Holocaust. It was for this reason that Israel was, for example, willing to disregard Argentina’s sovereignty when it kidnapped Eichmann and brought him to trial on its own soil. It is in the interest not only of Israelis, but also of those who were victims of the Holocaust. When the court considers war crimes, it is only proper for it to consider their interest as well.

When the court rules in cases of genocide that damage to state security — which remains entirely unproven — overrides the pursuit of justice for the victims of such crimes, it is sending a clear message: that the state’s right to security, whether real or imaginary, is absolute, and takes precedence over the rights of its citizens and others.

The Supreme Court’s ruling might lead one to conclude that the greater the crime, the easier it is to conceal. The more arms sold and the more genocide perpetrators trained, the greater the damage to the state’s foreign relations and security should such crimes be exposed, and the weight of such supposed damage will necessarily override the public interest. This is unacceptable. It turns the judges — as the petitioners have put it — into accomplices. The justices thus also make an unwitting Israeli public complicit in war crimes, and deny them the democratic right to conduct the relevant discussion.

The state faces a series of similar requests regarding its collaboration with the murderers of the Argentinian Junta, Pinochet’s regime in Chile, and Sri Lanka. Attorney Mack intends to present additional cases by the end of this year. Even if it is in the state’s interest to reject these petitions, the Supreme Court must stop helping to conceal these crimes — if not for the sake of prosecuting perpetrators of past atrocities, at least in order to put a stop to them in our time.

*John Brown is the pseudonym of an Israeli academic and a blogger. This story first appeared in Hebrew on Local Call, where he is a blogger. Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: