located on

How Israel Was Created:
"Israel is a country stolen from the Palestinians,
and fanatics control it's government.
Israel was birthed through
terrorizing and expelling Palestinians
from their ancestral lands"
Israelis are the Nazis of our time

The Time Has Come: The Naked Truth About Jews _ YouTube

Israel is located on historic Palestine. It came to life through robbery and ethnic cleansing. It is maintained by theft. At least a fifth of Israel's population are Palestinians.

The earliest known inhabitants of Palestine were the Canaanites. They gave the country its first name - "the land of Canaan" as in the bible. The Canaanites were the inhabitants of the land in 3000 BC, some 1800 years before the first Hebrew occupation. The Canaanites had an advanced civilisation for their time and lived in cities. They founded Jerusalem which was to become the capital of Palestine. Although they were of one race with a common civilisation and the same language, Arabic, the Canaanites did not possess a unified political structure. Canaan was divided into city states which were ruled by princes or kings.

In about 1730 BC Hebrew tribes from Chaldea (modern Southern Iraq) migrated to Canaan but they did not establish themselves. They passed through Canaan and ended up in Egypt where they lived under the rule of the Pharaohs for several centuries.

In about 1200 BC there were two penetrations of Canaan, one by the Hebrews, the other by the Philistines. The Hebrew penetration took place over about 200 years and did not lead to the displacement of the original inhabitants. The Hebrews (the Israelites to be) settled in mainly unoccupied regions. Throughout this lengthy settling in period they did not have a kingdom or a central government. They lived as tribes, 12, and were ruled by Judges.

Initially the Philistines occupied the southern cost of Canaan and the maritime plain to a point north of Jaffo (Jaffa). They were known as the "People of the Sea". It is believed they came from Illyria, having passed through Crete on their way to Canaan. (Illyria was the northwestern part of the Balkan Peninsula, which, from about the 10th century BC, was inhabited by an Indo-European people). The Philistines gave the land of Canaan its new name, "Philistia", from which Palestine was derived. The ambition of the Philistines was to conquer all of Palestine and they were constantly at war with the Hebrews.

By about 1020 BC the Hebrews realised that if they continued to operate on a tribal basis, they would not be able to withstand the mounting attacks of the Philistines. If they were not to be defeated the Hebrews needed to be co-ordinated. Out of that realization came the appointment of Saul as the first king of Israel. In reality Saul was a king more in the title than substance. His capital at Globeah was a simple, rustic fortress. (There was not a "dom" to put on the end king). Saul's main responsibility was to co-ordinate the military actions of the Israelite tribes.

Saul was a tragic hero. He was mentally unstable if not actually mad and, at a point, he openly declared his intention to slay David, the young harp player who would succeed him and establish the first real Jewish kingdom in Palestine. Under Saul's leadership the Israelites were never strong enough to deliver a knockout blow to the Philistines, but they did prevent the Philistines from dominating all of Palestine.

David became king in about 1000 BC when Saul was killed in battle with the Philistines at Mount Gilboa. David did much more than co-ordinate the military actions of the Israelite tribes. He united them under his rule. His first capital was at Hebron, to the south of Jerusalem. In probably 1006 BC he captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites, a Canaanite subgroup. David ruled from there until his death in 972 BC. His son. Solomon, ruled for forty years and built the Jewish Temple.

After Solomon's death in 932 BC the Israelite tribes revolted and the kingdom established by David, which never encompassed all of Palestine, split into the Kingdom of Israel in the north and the Kingdom of Judah in the South. The two Jewish kingdoms were continually at odds with each other and at war with their neighbors. Disaster was beckoning.

"The Samaritan side of the story is that there was a gradual separation of the northern tribes of Israel from the tribes in the south. After the division, the people from the north were called Samaritans because the name of their region was Samaria. The people from the south were called Jews because their origin was from Judah. After the split, a rivalry ensued between the north and the south."

When the Assyrians conquered Canaan in 722 BC, the Hebrew inhabitants were scattered all over the Middle East. In 721 BC the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and Nebuchadnezzar deported the Judaeans in 597 and 586 BC, he allowed them to remain in a unified community in Babylon. Thus, 597 is considered the beginning date of the Jewish Diaspora. The Kingdom of Israel was extinct and on the territory where it had been there were four Assyrian provinces.

The Kingdom of Judah survived for a while but it was a precarious existence. Its capital, Jerusalem, was frequently besieged, captured and sacked. For long periods Judah paid tribute to Assyria, Egypt and Babylon. It became a vassal state. In 705 BC, when it failed to pay the tribute, the Assyrians occupied Judah. They gave most of its territory to the Philistines, leaving the king of Judah only his capital, Jerusalem. In 587 BC the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, including the Jewish Temple, and carried the Jews into captivity.

A vivid impression of what that meant was given by Georges Friedmann in "The End of the Jewish People". The twelve tribes were deported to Babylonia, mainly, and also to the Caucasus and Armenia "and disappeared; and with them the Jewish people in the plenitude of their existence as a simultaneously ethnic, national and religious community also disappeared for ever"

The events of 587 BC marked the end of institutional Jewish rule in Palestine until Israel's second coming in 1948, more than twenty-five centuries later. But it was not the end of a Jewish presence in Palestine. In 538 BC the Babylonians lost Palestine to the Persians and they allowed the Jews to return.

Two centuries later, in 332 BC, Alexander the Great took Palestine from the Persians. The Greeks had the country for a century and a half but, before their time was up, they were confronted by a Jewish revolt led by the Maccabees. They were a priestly family of Jews which took the lead in challenging laws that made the practice of Judaism impossible. After the Selucid (Greek puppet) ruler desecrated the Temple and rededicated it to Zeus, the Jews resorted to guerrilla warfare, led by Mattathias Maccabee and then by his son, Judas. In 164 BC Judas liberated Jerusalem and had the Temple reconsecrated; an event which Jews celebrate in the festival of Hannukka.

But Meccabean independence in Jerusalem and some other parts of Palestine did not last long. In 124 BC Jerusalem was besieged by Antiochus Sidetes, the king of Syria. The siege was raised only after the payment of a tribute.

Then in 63 BC, the Romans captured Palestine and it became, as Judea, a province of the Roman Empire. The Romans put an end to the rule of the Maccabees.

It was during the Roman occupation that the carpenter's son who became the Christ of Christianity was born. From that time, Bethlehem where Mary was said to have delivered him, Nazareth and Galilee where he lived, and Jerusalem where he was crucified, became Christianity's holiest places, and Palestine became the Holy Land of Christendom.

The Jews revolted against the Romans in AD 66 to 70 and again in AD 132 to 135. During the first revolt Titus destroyed Jerusalem including the Temple. In the second (Bar Kochba) revolt most Jews still in Palestine were killed or dispersed to the far corners of the Roman Empire. In 135 AD Hadrian built a new city of Jerusalem, which he named Aelia Capitolina, and none of the very few Jews who remained in Palestine were allowed ot live in it.

From the above it can be seen that the life span of the one united Jewish nation of David and Solomon was not more than 70 years, and as Dr. Julian Morgenstern pointed out in "As a Mighty Stream", there were only two brief simultaneous periods of life in each of the two separate Jewish kingdoms, neither lasting more than fifty years, when there was any indication of Jewish national strength and glory.

There are two particular statements which put Zionist's claim to Palestine into its true historic context.

One was in the text of the report of the King-Crane Commission appointed in 1919 by President Wilson to consult the Arabs of Palestine: "The initial claim, often submitted by the Zionist representatives, that they have a right to Palestine based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.

The other was made by Lord Sydenham in the House of Lords during a debate on Palestine in 1922. He said: "Palestine is not the original home of the Jews. It was acquired by them after conquest, and they have never occupied the whole of it, which they now openly demand. They have no more valid claim to Palestine than the descendants of the ancient Romans have on this country."

Put another way, of the total number of Jews in the world outside Palestine, only a few were of Palestinian origin: the vast majority were the descendants of Jews who were Jews by conversion to Judaism in the many lands of which they were citizens, conversions which took place long after the first Jewish presence in Palestine was all but extinguished. In short few if any of incoming Zionist Jews on the land of Palestine that could be seriously considered as valid in terms of the "historical connection".

The great majority of Eastern European Jews were not Semitic Jews at all, and as most Western European Jews came from East Europe, most of them are also not Semitic Jews. This nullifies Zionism's strongest claim to Palestine/Israel.

The significance of the facts of Jewish history is impossible to exaggerate in the context of the wrong done to the indigenous Arabs of Palestine by Zionism. It explains among other things why critics of Zionism in the House of Lords and elsewhere used adjectives such as "extraneous" and "alien" to describe those Jews entering Palestine to serve Zionism's cause.

The Jews who were living in Palestine at the time of the first Zionist Congress were about 20,000. Some of them, probably about 10,000 were the descendants of the few who stayed in Palestine through everything, living as religious communities in Tiberias and Safad but also Hebron and Jerusalem: waiting for the Messiah to come. Their presence was continuous one and their connection to the land of Palestine was real. They were Palestinians. The rest of the 20,000 were the descendants of those Jews who entered Palestine over many centuries, mainly during the "Expulsions" of 1000 to 1500 AD. During this period the giant of anti-Semitism was wide awake and rampaging through many lands like England, Wales, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Sicily, Lithuania and the Crimea. They sought sanctuary in three main areas - Poland, Italy and the Ottoman Turkish Empire. At the time of the first Zionist Congress the most recent arrivals in Palestine, then a part of the Turkish Empire, were those of the second half of the 19th century. They settled in communities founded by Sir Moses Montefiore and funded by Lord Rothschild. On his first visit in 1837 Montefiore put the total number of Jews in Palestine at 9,000.

The number of Palestine's Arabs at the time of the first Zionist Congress was about 500,000. In other words, at the time of Zionist's secret commitment to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, the Arabs were the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of that land.

It is also a fact that the minority Jewish community of Palestine was strongly opposed to the Zionist enterprise. Prior to the birth of Zionism, the Jews in Palestine were there for religious reasons. Zionism was seen by the religious Jews of Palestine as a threat to their continued well-being. The religious Jews of Palestine also believed that what the Zionists were proposing was morally wrong.

In 1916 AD the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Arthur James Balfour prepared a letter which was issued in November 2nd, 1917 AD expressing government approval of Zionism with "The establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". This letter is called Balfour Declaration "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The latter phrase has all but disappeared from the Western media and from the history of this problem.

The letter was addressed to Lord Rothschild, who was a member of the Jewish international BANKING family, and who generously offered loan after loan to the Bank of England. Nathan Rothschild was quoted: "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." It has been said that "the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of nations". Edmond James Rothschild (1845 - 1934) helped to finance the establishment of Jewish communities in Palestine.

One of the things that made the Balfour Declaration such an astonishing document and commitment was that Britain had no right of any kind to give Palestine away, in whole or in part, to anybody.

The British government, as author of the Balfour Declaration, possessed no sovereighnty or domination in Palestine enabling it to make a valid promise of any rights, whatever their nature and extent, in favour of the Jews of the world. It is immaterial whether these rights were meant to be territorial, political or cultural. On the date that the Balfour Declaration was made, Palestine formed part of Turkey, and neither its territory nor its people were under the jurisdiction of the British Government. The Declaration was void on the basis of the principle that a donor cannot give away what does not belong to him. By itself the Balfour Declaration was legally impotent.

Those responsible for drafting the Balfour Declaration had been unable to bring themselves to acknowledge the existence of the Arabs of Palestine as a people. The term "Arab" or "Arabs" did not appear in the Balfour Declaration. It reduced the 93 per cent Arab majority to "existing non-Jewish communities". That was an expression, a formula, which could only have been invented to serve a hidden agenda.

On October 1914, six days before Britain declared war on Turkey, Hussein I of Arabia received a message from Lord Kitchner, British Secretary of State for War. He understood that victory over both the Germans and the Turks would be most unlikely unless the Arabs could be persuaded to join the war on the side of the Allies. The essence of Kitchner's message to Hussein was a pledge of British support for Arab independence if the Arabs revolted against the Turks and entered the war on the side of Britain and the Allies.

The Arabs honoured their part of the bargain. Their revolt against the Turks started on 5 June 1916. But it would not have happened if the Arabs had been aware of the secret discussions which were going on, even as they were committing themselves to fighting for the Allies, between the Allies (Britain, France, Italy and Russia) to determine how the spoils of the Turkish Empire were to be divided among themselves after victory.

Britain played the Arab card, promising them independence after they revolted against the Turks, and having played it, Britain then betrayed the Arabs, the Arabs of Palestine most of all, and the Arabs made the mistake of trusting the British.

For Britain the promise was to maintain an "Empire", and later on, for the Americans the case was to create one.

While the Arab nationalists were meeting in Damascus and proclaiming the independence they had been promised, Britain and France were conducting their secret discussions to carve up the old pre-war Greater Syria (Syria of today including the Golan Heights occupied and taken by Israel in the 1967 war; plus Lebanon of today; plus Jordan of today including the West Bank occupied by Israel in the 1967 war; plus Israel as it was inside the borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war)for themselves!And they were determined to delay telling the truth about what they had decided until the time was strategically and politically right.

The way in which the spoils of the Ottoman Empire were to be shared among the European victors was made public on 5 May 1920 in San Remo. Syria was to be partitioned, divided into three spheres of big power influence. France was to have the Mandates for ruling a separate Lebanon and a separate Syria minus Palestine. Britain was to have the Mandate to rule Palestine. (Britain was also to have Iraq).


Watch the video:
The conspiracy of Creating Israel

By Rev. Ted Pike

15 Feb 2012

"In a recent Bible study ("Mother of Harlots" in Old Testament and New) I do what virtually no pastor would dare read with emphasis broad passages out of the prophets identifying Israel as the mother of spiritual whoredom. I then discuss the following article, proving that the mother of harlots in Ezekiel and Hosea's day is exactly the same as now, corrupting the nations through Jewish media, creating interminable strife in the Middle East, and leading America into war after ruinous war to make the Mid-East safe for the harlot's further expansionism."

The General's Son:
A brief History of the Creation of Israel... Watch the video

Christian Zionism is the glue that keeps present day state of Israel alive on the US taxpayer's dole.

Click and read Israeli Leaders' Words

Alan Hart At Freiburg Conference 11 Sep. 2011:

I describe the conflict in and over Palestine that became the Zionist - not Jewish! - state of Israel as the cancer at the heart of international affairs; and I believe that without a cure this cancer will consume us all.

I also believe that almost nothing is more important than crossing and actually eliminating the boundaries that have prevented, and to a very large extent do still prevent, informed and honest discussion about who must do what and why for justice for the Palestinians and peace for all. And that´¿Żs why I was pleased to accept an invitation to address this conference.

Jewish academic Dr Agustin Velloso:

"Israel is a state that violates international law since it was established, disobeys United Nations´¿Ż resolutions, illegally occupies and colonises Arab territory, attacks defenceless civilians causing thousands of dead and injured, subjects the entire population of the Gaza Strip ´¿Ż more than half of whom are children ´¿Ż to a siege which hardly varies from that imposed by the Nazis in the concentration camps."

Click & watch Rabbi Yisroel Weiss at Fox News

Zionism hijacked Judaism

Why are Jews persecured-By Jayne Gardener

Israel Is No Ally But Is It Even A Friend?

"The rabbis of Vienna were sent in 1897
on a fact-finding mission to Palestine
to investigate whether it was a suitable place
for Jewish settlement were right.
They reported back that the
´¿Żbride was beautiful but married to another man.´¿Ż

The rabbis had been moved to visit Palestine by Theodore Herzl, an Austrian journalist, who had just published his highly influential book, ´¿ŻThe Jewish State´¿Ż, which launched the movement called ´¿Żpolitical Zionism´¿Ż.

Herzl, a broad minded man, was happy to think of the new Israel in Argentina which had a considerable Jewish migration in the nineteenth century and was well away from the clutches of anti-Semitic Europe. He was also inclined to accept the offer of Joseph Chamberlain, then the British colonial secretary, for a site on the Uasin Gishu plateau near Nairobi in what was then British East Africa. The Zionist Conference overruled him.

But when the British government finally gave in to Zionist lobbying and, in the words, of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, favoured ´¿Żthe establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people´¿Ż the only Jewish member of the cabinet, Edwin Samuel Montague, denounced the whole project as a reconstruction of the tower of Babel. ´¿ŻPalestine´¿Ż, he said, ´¿Żwould become the world´¿Żs ghetto´¿Ż. Lord Curzon, the former Viceroy of India, observed that Britain had ´¿Ża stronger claim to parts of France´¿Ż than the Jews did to Palestine after two millennia of absence. He denounced it as an act of ´¿Żsentimental idealism´¿Ż.

"Professor Shlomo Sand, an Israeli who elaborated on early sources from antiquity, comes to the conclusion that Jewish exile is also a myth, and that the present-day Palestinians are far more likely to be the descendants of the ancient Semitic people in Judea/Canaan than the current, predominantly Khazarian-origin, Ashkenazi crowd, which he admits he belongs to himself.

Sand leaves us with the inevitable conclusion that contemporary Jews do not have a common origin, that their Semitic origins are a myth. Jews have no origin in Palestine whatsoever, and therefore their act of so-called ´¿Żreturn´¿Ż must be realised as pretext for a tribal expansionist invasion."

Rupert Murdoch : master of world's media. Click and read

Atzmon, Gilad (2011-09-30). The Wandering Who?: A study of Jewish identity politics (pp. 144-145). O-Books. Kindle Edition.

Who Chose the Chosen People?

Rethinking the Khazar Theory by Dr. David Duke

APRIL 23, 2014

By Dr. David Duke.

"When I was first began to understand the ultra-racist, supremacist ideology of Judaism and Zionism, I came into contact with the theory that present-day Jews are genetically unrelated to the historical Jewish community. The allegation, known as the ôöKhazar theoryö, claims that the Ashkenazim Jews of today are actually the descendants of the Khazar people, a Central Asiatic tribe who allegedly converted to Judaism in the 9th Century AD. It is claimed that these newly-minted Jews then migrated into what is now Russia, Eastern Europe and later Western and Northern Europe."

Take Time to READ...

It is the fountain of our wisdom.

When the Jews entered Palestine in 1225 BC
They were told:

"Burn ye all that is in the city and slay with the edge of the sword both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and burn the city with fire and all that is therein."

Joshua 7/21-24

When the Arab armies entered
liberating Palestine in 637 AD
the Standing Orders to the armies:

"Ye shall not act treacherously, commit any excess, kill any woman, child or old man, cut or burn down trees, kill any sheep or camel, and shall leave alone those whom you find devoting themselves to worship in the cells."


Please click and read Gilad Atzmon's article

This is a conscientious , "ex-Jew", as he describes himself,
and lives in self-imposed exile
from his native Israel in England.
Mar 18th, 2009.
"War On Terror Within: The End of Jewish History"

The Words of Gilad Atzmon,
March 25, 2010:

"As it happens, Jewish history is a set of fables tied clumsily together to portray a false image of a victorious narrative. Jewish history is a set of blind spots bundled together by myth, fantasies and lies, in order to present the illusion of a coherent past narrative and a vague semblance of chronology. Israeli professor Shlomo Sand taught us that the Zionists, and to a certain extent their Bundist rivals, were far from being shy of "inventing" the history of their Jewish nationhood. But it goes further, even the holocaust, which could be a major illuminating corner in Jewish reflection, was transformed into a rigid chapter that perpetuated blindness. As a vision of the past, it is there to hide and to disguise, rather than to reveal and inform. In a Jewish history book, you won't read about 'Judea's declaration of war against Nazi Germany'. In Jewish history texts chronology always launches when Jewish suffering begins. Jewish history transcends itself beyond the notion of causality. It persuades us that persecution of Jews occurs out of nowhere. The Jewish historical text avoids the necessary questions as to why hostility evolves time after time, why do Jews buy so many enemies and so easily?

Instead of a history text, Jews have the Holocaust, an event that matured into a religion.

The new Jewish religion preaches revenge. It even establishes a new Jewish God. Instead of old Yehova, the new Jewish God is 'the Jew' himself: the brave and witty being, the one who survived the ultimate and most sinister genocide, the one who came out of the ashes and stepped forward into a new beginning.

To a certain extent the Holocaust religion signals the Jewish departure from monotheism, for every Jew is a potential little God or Goddess. Gilad Shalit is the God 'innocence', Abe Foxman is the God anti Semitism, Maddof is the God of swindling, Greenspan is the God of 'good economy', Lord Goldsmith is the God of the 'green light', Lord Levy is the God of fundraising, Wolfowitz is the God of new American expansionism and AIPAC is the American Olympus where American elected human beings come to ask for mercy and forgiveness for being Goyim and for daring to occasionally tell the truth about Israel."

Excerpts from Gilad Atzmon's book:
The Wandering Who?

"The `Jewish people' is a made-up notion, consisting of an imaginary past with very little to back it up forensically, historically or textually.

"Nor has much been found in the Sinai Desert to prove the story of the legendary Egyptian exodus - apparently 3 million Hebrew men, women and children marched there for forty years without leaving a single Matzo Ball behind.

"Jews do not have a common origin, that their Semitic origins are a myth. Jews have no origin in Palestine whatsoever, and therefore their act of so-called `return' must be realised as pretext for a tribal expansionist invasion.

"If Shlomo Sand is correct, then the Jews, rather than being a race, comprise a collective of many people who have been hijacked by a national movement based on myths.

"If Jews are not a race and have nothing to do with Semitism, then `anti-Semitism' is, categorically, an empty signifier. In other words, criticism of Jewish nationalism, Jewish lobbying and Jewish power can only be realised as a legitimate critique of ideology, politics and practice.

"Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a Latvian-born philosopher at the Hebrew University, was probably first to suggest that the Holocaust has become the new Jewish religion.

"This new religion is coherent enough to define its `antichrists' (Holocaust deniers), and powerful enough to persecute them (through Holocaust denial and hate-speech laws).

"The Holocaust religion serves both right and left Jewish political discourse, but it appeals to the goyim as well, especially those who preach and advocate killing in the name of `freedom', democracy and `moral interventionism'.

"That which maintains the Jewish collective identity is fear.

"To be a Jew is to see a threat in every Goy, to be on a constant alert.

"...whatever is good for the Jews is simply good.

"The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats. With 24 seats Jews are eight times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims. If Muslims, for instance, were over-represented to the same extent as the Jews (i.e. eight times) they'd have 200 seats. All hell would break loose.

"Jewish history engages with the basic question of whether a given account is `good for the Jews' or not.

"The dismissal of factuality or lack of commitment to truthfulness are actually symptomatic of contemporary Jewish collective ideology and identity politic.

"In the Jewish intellectual insular world, one first decides what the historic moral is, then one invents `a past' to fit.

"As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionist lobbies and their plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes.

"With millions of besieged Palestinians, Israel has given itself the reputation of a pariah state.

"How is it that, in spite of the Holocaust, Israel and Jewish lobbies invest so much energy in evoking hatred towards enemies of Israel and world Jewry?

"...envisage an horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called `pre-emptive' nuclear attack on Iran escalates into a disastrous nuclear war, in which tens of millions of people perish.

Another Excerpt:

Beaufort , an award-winning Israeli war film produced in 2007, is an astonishing exposure of Israeli fatigue and defeatism. It tells the story of an IDF special infantry unit, dug in at a Byzantine fortress atop a mountain in South Lebanon. The action takes place in 2000, days before the first Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

The unit is surrounded by Hizbullah fighters. Day and night they live in trenches, hide in concrete shelters and are subject to unending barrages of mortar rounds and missiles. Though they all dream about their lives after returning from the hell in which they are caught, they die one after another at the hands of an unseen enemy. Israeli audiences loved Beaufort . I believe they saw in it an allegory of their own terminal state. As much as the Israeli soldiers in the film long to run away as far as they can, whether that means settling in New York or getting stoned in Goa, Israeli society is coming to terms with the country´¿Żs temporality and futile existence. Like the soldiers, Israelis want to become New Yorkers, Parisians, Londoners and Berliners (apparently even the number of Israelis queuing for Polish passports is increasing daily). Beaufort evokes a society under siege, the realisation that there may be no escape routes left, whether in physical terms or as a result of growing indifference. Time is running out.

Atzmon, Gilad (2011-09-30). The Wandering Who?: A study of Jewish identity politics (p. 99). O-Books. Kindle Edition.

Birobidzhan (Russian: Биробиджа́н; Yiddish: ביראָבידזשאַנ)
is the Jewish Homeland
where Israel should have been, and not in Palestine

Michele Suzanne Renouf, Lady Renouf (nee Mainwaring):

(born 1946) is an Australian-born advertising model, now a British national, and a lifelong international television commercials actress with a thirty year membership of British Actors Equity. She has become known in recent years for her defence of Holocaust deniers such as David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Richard Williamson, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Z´¿Żndel, and Fredrick T´¿Żben in broadcasts and her Telling Films documentaries. Though not a revisionist author or researcher herself she has been frequently characterized by opponents as a Holocaust denier. Renouf is also known for speeches and articles criticising the rabbinical hermeneutics of Judaism which have attracted considerable controversy.

Birobidzhan is a town and the administrative center of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, Russia. It is located on the Trans-Siberian railway, close to the border with the People's Republic of China, and is the home of two synagogues, including the Birobidzhan Synagogue, and the Jewish religious community of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. The city was planned by the German architect Hannes Meyer and was granted urban-type settlement status in 1928 and town status in 1937.

According to Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, the Chief Rabbi of Birobidzhan and Chabad Lubavitch representative to the region, "Today one can enjoy the benefits of the Yiddish culture and not be afraid to return to their Jewish traditions. It's safe without any anti-Semitism, and we plan to open the first Jewish day school here."[citation needed] Mordechai Scheiner, an Israeli father of six, has been the rabbi in Birobidzhan for the last five years. He is also the host of the Russian television show, Yiddishkeit. The town's synagogue opened in 2004. Rabbi Scheiner says there are 4,000 Jews in Birobidzhan, just over 5 percent of the town's 75,000 population. The Birobidzhan Jewish community was led by Lev Toitman, until his death in September, 2007. Jewish culture was revived in Birobidzhan much earlier than elsewhere in the Soviet Union. Yiddish theaters opened in the 1970s. Yiddish and Jewish traditions have been required components in all public schools for almost fifteen years, taught not as Jewish exotica but as part of the region's national heritage. The Birobidzhan Synagogue, completed in 2004, is next to a complex housing Sunday School classrooms, a library, a museum, and administrative offices. The buildings were officially opened in 2004 to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Concerning the Jewish community of the oblast, Governor Nikolay Mikhaylovich Volkov has stated that he intends to "support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations.". In 2007, The First Birobidzhan International Summer Program for Yiddish Language and Culture was launched by Yiddish studies professor Boris Kotlerman of Bar-Ilan University. The city's main street is named after the Yiddish language author and humorist Sholom Aleichem.

For the Chanukah celebration of 2007, officials of Birobidzhan in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast claimed to have built the world's largest chanukia.

This is the Jewish Homeland where Israel should have been, and not in Palestine, after dispossession of its native people, the Palestinians.


Dr. William Pierce made his valuable observation some years ago: 'Jews aren't the only crooks, but they're certainly the biggest crooks. If you hear about a 100-thousand-dollar swindle, it could be anybody. If you hear about a 100-million-dollar swindle, then you know that it has to be a Jew. Even more so if we hear about 50-billion-dollar swindle! Re. Bernard Madoff Affair.

It was Benjamin Franklin who said: "The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity."

Who Chose The Chosen People
It is a Must Watch

Quotes by Israelis

Dr Shlomo Sand, a Jewish expert on European history at Tel Aviv University in Israel, argues that the idea of a Jewish nation, whose need for a safe haven was originally used to justify the founding of the state of Israel, is a myth invented little more than a century ago. Dr. Sand, in his book "When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?", drew on extensive historical and archaeological research to support not only this claim but several more, all equally controversial. In addition, he argues that the Jews were never exiled from the Holy Land, that most of today's Jews have no historical connection to the land called Israel and that the only political solution to the country's conflict with the Palestinians is to abolish the Jewish state. The idea for the book had come to him many years ago, Dr. Sand said, but he waited until recently to start working on it. "I cannot claim to be particularly courageous in publishing the book now," he said. "I waited until I was a full professor". For 2,000 years, Dr. Sand argues, Jews stayed away from Jerusalem not because they could not return but because their religion forbade them from returning until the messiah came..

Why Are Jews Persecuted?
By Jayne Gardener

I always used to wonder what it was about Jews that made people throughout history despise them. If they were indeed "God's chosen"

I thought, they had to be the unluckiest people in the history of the world.

Why were they persecuted throughout history? Why had the Nazis herded them into cattle cars and taken them to "extermination camps" to dispose once and for all of the "Jewish problem?"

I suddenly recognized that if Hitler had developed a "Final Solution" to the Jewish question, that there had to have been a "Jewish Problem.

" Could the Jews have in any way behaved in such a manner that would make the countries in which they resided turn against them, or were they just unfortunate, innocent victims?

I set out to find answers for my questions, mainly turning to the Internet, but also reading various books on the subject. What I found became increasingly disturbing to me.

I had not known that throughout history, the Jews had been expelled from 79 countries, some countries more than once.

I had not known that many of the claims they made about the Holocaust that I had believed unquestioningly for so long were in fact fraudulent.

The books I had read and the movies I had seen about the "Holocaust" and wept over were nothing but thinly veiled attempts to garner unwavering sympathy for the state of Israel and an excuse to extort billions of dollars from Germany and 1.25 billion dollars from the Swiss banks.

I discovered that a book I had read many times as a teenager and cried about, Anne Frank's Diary, had been at least partially written by someone other than Anne Frank.

I learned that the confessions at the Nuremburg Trials and the executions of so many German "war criminals" were extracted under torture and the defendants were being tried, judged and condemned by their very accusers.

I learned about the "false flag" operations, especially the Lavon affair and the tragedy of the USS Liberty, an American ship that was attacked by the Israelis during the 1967 war. 34 young American men were killed and many more wounded.

To add insult to injury, the Israelis claimed that it was simply an unfortunate case of mistaken identity, something the survivors of the Liberty have always vehemently denied. They, however, were threatened with court martial if they were ever to tell their stories.

I learned about the Jonathan Pollard spy case and other incidents of Israeli Jews spying against their supposed "closest ally."

I became shocked and horrified as I learned about the treatment of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces and the Jewish settlers. Israel purports to be the only democracy in the middle east, but it's only a democracy for Jews. Non-Jews are not considered equal.

I was saddened to see pictures of innocent Palestinian children burned beyond recognition or suffering from serious gunshot wounds after being targeted by the IDF for no other reason than that they are Palestinian.

I found out about the Jewish history of avariciousness, larceny, lying, manipulation and their questionable and usurious business practices.

I learned about their roles in the radical homosexual movement, the radical feminist movement, the pornography industry as well as their over-representation in the abortion industry.

I discovered their role in organized crime, in the slave trade, in the civil rights movement and in Communism, an ideology that is responsible for the deaths of untold millions and the repression of many millions more.

I learned that it was Jewish supremacists behind the war against Christianity and Christmas. It is they who want God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and all symbols of Christianity removed from public life.

They have driven Christianity from the public schools despite Christianity being the majority religion.

They have taken Christmas out of the public school calendar despite the fact that it is a statutory holiday and it is named Christmas.

I read about the anti-Gentilism and hatefulness of the Babylonian Talmud and their utter disrespect for, and hostility towards Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary and Christianity and Christians in general.

I learned about their "chutzpah" in claiming that Gentile lives were worth no more than the lives of barnyard animals but that they considered Jewish lives to be akin to God Himself. It's okay to steal from a Gentile or to kill a Gentile, but Jewish lives are sacred.

I learned of their control of the majority of wealth, the media and academia despite them making up less than 2% of the population (even lower in Canada).

They are behind the ridiculous political correctness movement and hate crime legislation that was drafted so as to silence anyone who might figure out their agenda and attempt to shed light on it.

Men like German Rudolf, David Irving and many more, previously recognized as great historians, were arrested, charged with hate crimes and incarcerated simply for having made academic inquiry into a specific period of history.

Other so called "revisionists" or "holocaust deniers" have been intimidated, harassed, assaulted and smeared simply for trying to get at the truth.

It is patently clear that the war in Iraq is due solely to Israel wanting to hobble her enemies by destabilizing their governments in order to achieve hegemony in the middle east.

It would be unthinkable for Israeli Jews to die for this cause, so they manipulated the US into the war with the help of the Jewish Zionist "Israel firsters" in the Bush administration in order that the blood of way too many young American men and women is shed instead.

It is they who control the middle eastern foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world, the USA. It is they who control congress, the senate and the puppet president, George W. Bush.

They have such control in movies and television that we are now subjected to endless programs and Hollywood movies that mock Christianity, Christian values and degrade the traditional family.

After sober reflection on what I had discovered about Jewish supremacy and Zionism, I had to abandon all my previously held notions as to the history of Jewish persecution.

What I have trouble understanding is why they continue this behavior in whichever society they live, knowing that eventually they will overplay their hand and their perfidy will be exposed yet again. Has history taught them nothing?

As more and more people become aware of what is going on and who is responsible for it, anger is going to rise as it already has in the former Soviet Union and eastern European countries. They may control television, movies and the print media, but they don't control the internet. At least not yet. Blogs and websites devoted to "outing" the Jewish supremacists will ultimately be their downfall.

If everyone who sees this information
passes it on to at least one other person,
the crimes and misdeeds of the Jewish
supremacists and Zionists will be exposed.
Please, do your part.

The Holocaust for the Jews has become a religion. It could well be the most sinister religion known to man, for in the name of Jewish suffering, it issues licences to kill, to flatten, to nuke, to annihilate, to loot, to ethnically cleanse. It has made vengeance into an acceptable Western value.

Atzmon, Gilad (2011-09-30). The Wandering Who?: A study of Jewish identity politics (p. 149). O-Books. Kindle Edition.

Top Ten Myths about
the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict:

Here is an excellent article on the "Top Ten Myths about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," by Jeremy R. Hammond. Hammond is an independent journalist and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, an online source for news, critical analysis, and opinion commentary on U.S. foreign policy. He was among the recipients of the 2010 Project Censored Awards for outstanding investigative journalism, and is the author of "The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination", available from Amazon.com.

Ed Corrigan By Jeremy R. Hammond

Myth #1 Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region.

Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a Jewish State in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land. For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or religious. Rather, Arab attacks on Jewish communities were the result of Arab fears about the stated goal of the Zionists to take over the land.

After major violence again erupted in 1929, the British Shaw Commission report noted that In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents. Representatives from all sides of the emerging conflict testified to the commission that prior to the First World War, the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which today is almost unknown in Palestine. The problem was that The Arab people of Palestine are today united in their demand for representative government, but were being denied that right by the Zionists and their British benefactors.

The British Hope-Simpson report of 1930 similarly noted that Jewish residents of non-Zionist communities in Palestine enjoyed friendship with their Arab neighbors. It is quite a common sight to see an Arab sitting in the verandah of a Jewish house, the report noted. The position is entirely different in the Zionist colonies.

Myth #2 The United Nations created Israel.

The U.N. became involved when the British sought to wash its hands of the volatile situation its policies had helped to create, and to extricate itself from Palestine. To that end, they requested that the U.N. take up the matter.

As a result, a U.N. Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) was created to examine the issue and offer its recommendation on how to resolve the conflict. UNSCOP contained no representatives from any Arab country and in the end issued a report that explicitly rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. Rejecting the democratic solution to the conflict, UNSCOP instead proposed that Palestine be partitioned into two states: one Arab and one Jewish.

The U.N. General Assembly endorsed UNSCOPs in its Resolution 181. It is often claimed that this resolution partitioned Palestine, or that it provided Zionist leaders with a legal mandate for their subsequent declaration of the existence of the state of Israel, or some other similar variation on the theme. All such claims are absolutely false.

Resolution 181 merely endorsed UNSCOPs report and conclusions as a recommendation. Needless to say, for Palestine to have been officially partitioned, this recommendation would have had to have been accepted by both Jews and Arabs, which it was not.

Moreover, General Assembly resolutions are not considered legally binding (only Security Council resolutions are). And, furthermore, the U.N. would have had no authority to take land from one people and hand it over to another, and any such resolution seeking to so partition Palestine would have been null and void, anyway.

Myth #3 The Arabs missed an opportunity to have their own state in 1947.

The U.N. recommendation to partition Palestine was rejected by the Arabs. Many commentators today point to this rejection as constituting a missed opportunity for the Arabs to have had their own state. But characterizing this as an opportunity for the Arabs is patently ridiculous. The Partition plan was in no way, shape, or form an opportunity for the Arabs.

First of all, as already noted, Arabs were a large majority in Palestine at the time, with Jews making up about a third of the population by then, due to massive immigration of Jews from Europe (in 1922, by contrast, a British census showed that Jews represented only about 11 percent of the population).

Additionally, land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district of Palestine, including Jaffa, where Arabs owned 47 percent of the land while Jews owned 39 percent and Jaffa boasted the highest percentage of Jewish-owned land of any district. In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land. At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land. In the whole of Palestine, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, which remained the case up until the time of Israels creation.

Yet, despite these facts, the U.N. partition recommendation had called for more than half of the land of Palestine to be given to the Zionists for their Jewish State. The truth is that no Arab could be reasonably expected to accept such an unjust proposal. For political commentators today to describe the Arabs refusal to accept a recommendation that their land be taken away from them, premised upon the explicit rejection of their right to self-determination, as a missed opportunity represents either an astounding ignorance of the roots of the conflict or an unwillingness to look honestly at its history.

It should also be noted that the partition plan was also rejected by many Zionist leaders. Among those who supported the idea, which included David Ben-Gurion, their reasoning was that this would be a pragmatic step towards their goal of acquiring the whole of Palestine for a Jewish State something which could be finally accomplished later through force of arms.

When the idea of partition was first raised years earlier, for instance, Ben-Gurion had written that after we become a strong force, as the result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine. Partition should be accepted, he argued, to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine. The Jewish State would then have to preserve order, if the Arabs would not acquiesce, by machine guns, if necessary.

Myth #4 Israel has a right to exist. The fact that this term is used exclusively with regard to Israel is instructive as to its legitimacy, as is the fact that the demand is placed upon Palestinians to recognize Israels right to exist, while no similar demand is placed upon Israelis to recognize the right to exist of a Palestinian state.

Nations dont have rights, people do. The proper framework for discussion is within that of the right of all peoples to self-determination. Seen in this, the proper framework, it is an elementary observation that it is not the Arabs which have denied Jews that right, but the Jews which have denied that right to the Arabs. The terminology of Israels right to exist is constantly employed to obfuscate that fact.

As already noted, Israel was not created by the U.N., but came into being on May 14, 1948, when the Zionist leadership unilaterally, and with no legal authority, declared Israels existence, with no specification as to the extent of the new states borders. In a moment, the Zionists had declared that Arabs no longer the owners of their land it now belonged to the Jews. In an instant, the Zionists had declared that the majority Arabs of Palestine were now second-class citizens in the new Jewish State.

The Arabs, needless to say, did not passively accept this development, and neighboring Arab countries declared war on the Zionist regime in order to prevent such a grave injustice against the majority inhabitants of Palestine.

It must be emphasized that the Zionists had no right to most of the land they declared as part of Israel, while the Arabs did. This war, therefore, was not, as is commonly asserted in mainstream commentary, an act of aggression by the Arab states against Israel. Rather, the Arabs were acting in defense of their rights, to prevent the Zionists from illegally and unjustly taking over Arab lands and otherwise disenfranchising the Arab population. The act of aggression was the Zionist leaderships unilateral declaration of the existence of Israel, and the Zionists use of violence to enforce their aims both prior to and subsequent to that declaration.

In the course of the war that ensued, Israel implemented a policy of ethnic cleansing. 700,000 Arab Palestinians were either forced from their homes or fled out of fear of further massacres, such as had occurred in the village of Deir Yassin shortly before the Zionist declaration. These Palestinians have never been allowed to return to their homes and land, despite it being internationally recognized and encoded in international law that such refugees have an inherent right of return&.

Palestinians will never agree to the demand made of them by Israel and its main benefactor, the U.S., to recognize Israels right to exist&. To do so is effectively to claim that Israel had a right to take Arab land, while Arabs had no right to their own land. It is effectively to claim that Israel had a right to ethnically cleanse Palestine, while Arabs had no right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in their own homes, on their own land.

The constant use of the term right to exist in discourse today serves one specific purpose: It is designed to obfuscate the reality that it is the Jews that have denied the Arab right to self-determination, and not vice versa, and to otherwise attempt to legitimize Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, both historical and contemporary.

Myth #5 The Arab nations threatened Israel with annihilation in 1967 and 1973.

The fact of the matter is that it was Israel that fired the first shot of the Six Day War. Early on the morning of June 5, Israel launched fighters in a surprise attack on Egypt (then the United Arab Republic), and successfully decimated the Egyptian air force while most of its planes were still on the ground.

It is virtually obligatory for this attack to be described by commentators today as preemptive. But to have been preemptive, by definition, there must have been an imminent threat of Egyptian aggression against Israel. Yet there was none.

It is commonly claimed that President Nassers bellicose rhetoric, blockade of the Straits of Tiran, movement of troops into the Sinai Peninsula, and expulsion of U.N. peacekeeping forces from its side of the border collectively constituted such an imminent threat.

Yet, both U.S. and Israeli intelligence assessed at the time that the likelihood Nasser would actually attack was low. The CIA assessed that Israel had overwhelming superiority in force of arms, and would, in the event of a war, defeat the Arab forces within two weeks; within a week if Israel attacked first, which is what actually occurred.

It must be kept in mind that Egypt had been the victim of aggression by the British, French, and Israelis in the 1954 Suez Crisis, following Egypts nationalization of the Suez Canal. In that war, the three aggressor nations conspired to wage war upon Egypt, which resulted in an Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula. Under U.S. pressure, Israel withdrew from the Sinai in 1957, but Egypt had not forgotten the Israeli aggression.

Moreover, Egypt had formed a loose alliance with Syria and Jordan, with each pledging to come to the aid of the others in the event of a war with Israel. Jordan had criticized Nasser for not living up to that pledge after the Israeli attack on West Bank village of Samu the year before, and his rhetoric was a transparent attempt to regain face in the Arab world.

That Nassers positioning was defensive, rather than projecting an intention to wage an offensive against Israel, was well recognized among prominent Israelis. As Avraham Sela of the Shalem Center has observed, The Egyptian buildup in Sinai lacked a clear offensive plan, and Nassers defensive instructions explicitly assumed an Israeli first strike.

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin acknowledged that In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

Yitzhak Rabin, who would also later become Prime Minister of Israel, admitted in 1968 that I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it.

Israelis have also acknowledged that their own rhetoric at the time about the threat of annihilation from the Arab states was pure propaganda.

General Chaim Herzog, commanding general and first military governor of the occupied West Bank following the war, admitted that There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger.�

General Ezer Weizman similarly said, �There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting.�

Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev acknowledged, �We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such possibility.�

Israeli Minister of Housing Mordechai Bentov has also acknowledged that �The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.�

In 1973, in what Israelis call the �Yom Kippur War�, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise offensive to retake the Sinai and the Golan Heights, respectively. This joint action is popularly described in contemporaneous accounts as an �invasion� of or act of �aggression� against Israel.

Yet, as already noted, following the June �67 war, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 242 calling upon Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel, needless to say, refused to do so and has remained in perpetual violation of international law ever since. During the 1973 war, Egypt and Syria thus �invaded� their own territory, then under illegal occupation by Israel. The corollary of the description of this war as an act of Arab aggression implicitly assumes that the Sinai Peninsula, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip were Israeli territory. This is, needless to say, a grossly false assumption that demonstrates the absolutely prejudicial and biased nature of mainstream commentary when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

This false narrative fits in with the larger overall narrative, equally fallacious, of Israeli as the �victim� of Arab intransigence and aggression. This narrative, largely unquestioned in the West, flips reality on its head.

Myth #6 � U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 called only for a partial Israeli withdrawal.

Resolution 242 was passed in the wake of the June �67 war and called for the �Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.� While the above argument enjoys widespread popularity, it has no merit whatsoever.

The central thesis of this argument is that the absence of the word �the� before �occupied territories� in that clause means not �all of the occupied territories� were intended. Essentially, this argument rests upon the ridiculous logic that because the word �the� was omitted from the clause, we may therefore understand this to mean that �some of the occupied territories� was the intended meaning.

Grammatically, the absence of the word �the� has no effect on the meaning of this clause, which refers to �territories�, plural. A simple litmus test question is: Is it territory that was occupied by Israel in the �67 war? If yes, then, under international law and Resolution 242, Israel is required to withdraw from that territory. Such territories include the Syrian Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

The French version of the resolution, equally authentic as the English, contains the definite article, and a majority of the members of the Security Council made clear during deliberations that their understanding of the resolution was that it would require Israel to fully withdraw from all occupied territories.

Additionally, it is impossible to reconcile with the principle of international law cited in the preamble to the resolution, of �the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war�. To say that the U.N. intended that Israel could retain some of the territory it occupied during the war would fly in the face of this cited principle.

One could go on to address various other logical fallacies associated with this frivolous argument, but as it is absurd on its face, it would be superfluous to do so.

Myth #7 � Israeli military action against its neighbors is only taken to defend itself against terrorism.

The facts tell another story. Take, for instance, the devastating 1982 Israeli war on Lebanon. As political analyst Noam Chomsky extensively documents in his epic analysis �The Fateful Triangle�, this military offensive was carried out with barely even the thinnest veil of a pretext.

While one may read contemporary accounts insisting this war was fought in response to a constant shelling of northern Israeli by the PLO, then based in Lebanon, the truth is that, despite continuous Israeli provocations, the PLO had with only a few exceptions abided by a cease-fire that had been in place. Moreover, in each of those instances, it was Israel that had first violated the cease-fire.

Among the Israeli provocations, throughout early 1982, it attacked and sank Lebanese fishing boats and otherwise committed hundreds of violations of Lebanese territorial waters. It committed thousands of violations of Lebanese airspace, yet never did manage to provoke the PLO response it sought to serve as the casus belli for the planned invasion of Lebanon.

On May 9, Israel bombed Lebanon, an act that was finally met with a PLO response when it launched rocket and artillery fire into Israel.

Then a terrorist group headed by Abu Nidal attempted to assassinate Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov in London. Although the PLO itself had been at war with Abu Nidal, who had been condemned to death by a Fatah military tribunal in 1973, and despite the fact that Abu Nidal was not based in Lebanon, Israel cited this event as a pretext to bomb the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, killing 200 Palestinians. The PLO responded by shelling settlements in northern Israel. Yet Israel did not manage to provoke the kind of larger-scale response it was looking to use as a casus belli for its planned invasion.

As Israeli scholar Yehoshua Porath has suggested, Israels decision to invade Lebanon, far from being a response to PLO attacks, rather flowed from the very fact that the cease-fire had been observed. Writing in the Israeli daily Haaretz, Porath assessed that The governments hope is that the stricken PLO, lacking a logistic and territorial base, will return to its earlier terrorism. In this way, the PLO will lose part of the political legitimacy that it has gained undercutting the danger that elements will develop among the Palestinians that might become a legitimate negotiating partner for future political accommodations.

As another example, take Israels Operation Cast Lead from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009. Prior to Israels assault on the besieged and defenseless population of the Gaza Strip, Israel had entered into a cease-fire agreement with the governing authority there, Hamas. Contrary to popular myth, it was Israel, not Hamas, who ended the cease-fire.

The pretext for Operation Cast Lead is obligatorily described in Western media accounts as being the thousands of rockets that Hamas had been firing into Israel prior to the offensive, in violation of the cease-fire.

The truth is that from the start of the cease-fire in June until November 4, Hamas fired no rockets, despite numerous provocations from Israel, including stepped-up operations in the West Bank and Israeli soldiers taking pop-shots at Gazans across the border, resulting in several injuries and at least one death.

On November 4, it was again Israel who violated the cease-fire, with airstrikes and a ground invasion of Gaza that resulted in further deaths. Hamas finally responded with rocket fire, and from that point on the cease-fire was effectively over, with daily tit-for-tat attacks from both sides.

Despite Israels lack of good faith, Hamas offered to renew the cease-fire from the time it was set to officially expire in December. Israel rejected the offer, preferring instead to inflict violent collective punishment on the people of Gaza.

As the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center noted, the truce brought relative quiet to the western Negev population&, with 329 rocket and mortar attacks, most of them during the month and a half after November 4, when Israel had violated and effectively ended the truce. This stands in remarkable contrast to the 2,278 rocket and mortar attacks in the six months prior to the truce. Until November 4, the center also observed, Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire.

If Israel had desired to continue to mitigate the threat of Palestinian militant rocket attacks, it would have simply not ended the cease-fire, which was very highly effective in reducing the number of such attacks, including eliminating all such attacks by Hamas. It would not have instead resorted to violence, predictably resulting in a greatly escalated threat of retaliatory rocket and mortar attacks from Palestinian militant groups.

Moreover, even if Israel could claim that peaceful means had been exhausted and that a resort military force to act in self-defense to defend its civilian population was necessary, that is demonstrably not what occurred. Instead, Israel deliberately targeted the civilian population of Gaza with systematic and deliberate disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks on residential areas, hospitals, schools, and other locations with protected civilian status under international law.

As the respected international jurist who headed up the United Nations investigation into the assault, Richard Goldstone, has observed, the means by which Israel carried out Operation Cast Lead were not consistent with its stated aims, but was rather more indicative of a deliberate act of collective punishment of the civilian population.

Myth #8 God gave the land to the Jews, so the Arabs are the occupiers.

No amount of discussion of the facts on the ground will ever convince many Jews and Christians that Israel could ever do wrong, because they view its actions as having the hand of God behind it, and that its policies are in fact the will of God. They believe that God gave the land of Palestine, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to the Jewish people, and therefore Israel has a right to take it by force from the Palestinians, who, in this view, are the wrongful occupiers of the land.

But one may simply turn to the pages of their own holy books to demonstrate the fallaciousness of this or similar beliefs. Christian Zionists are fond of quoting passages from the Bible such as the following to support their Zionist beliefs:

And Yahweh said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth; so that if a man could number the dust of the earth, then your descendants could also be numbered. Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you. (Genesis 13:14-17)

Then Yahweh appeared to him and said: Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you. Dwell in the land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. (Genesis 26: 1-3)

And behold, Yahweh stood above it and said: I am Yahweh, God of Abraham your father, and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants. (Genesis 28:13)

Click: Jews Are Not Descendants of Abraham

Yet Christian Zionists conveniently disregard other passages providing further context for understanding this covenant, such as the following:

You shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments, and perform them, that the land where I am bringing you to dwell may not vomit you out. (Leviticus 20:22)

But if you do not obey Me, and do not observe all these commandments but break My covenant I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it. I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.(Leviticus 26: 14, 15, 32-33, 28)

Therefore Yahweh was very angry with Israel, and removed them from His sight; there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone. So Israel was carried away from their own land to Assyria, as it is to this day. (2 Kings 17:18, 23)

And I said, after [Israel] had done all these things, Return to Me. But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. (Jeremiah 3: 7-8) Yes, in the Bible, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, told the Hebrews that the land could be theirs if they would obey his commandments. Yet, as the Bible tells the story, the Hebrews were rebellious against Yahweh in all their generations.

What Jewish and Christian Zionists omit from their Biblical arguments in favor of continued Israel occupation is that Yahweh also told the Hebrews, including the tribe of Judah (from whom the Jews are descended), that he would remove them from the land if they broke the covenant by rebelling against his commandments, which is precisely what occurs in the Bible.

Thus, the theological argument for Zionism is not only bunk from a secular point of view, but is also a wholesale fabrication from a scriptural perspective, representing a continued rebelliousness against Yahweh and his Torah, and the teachings of Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus the Christ) in the New Testament.

Myth #9 Palestinians reject the two-state solution because they want to destroy Israel.

In an enormous concession to Israel, Palestinians have long accepted the two-state solution. The elected representatives of the Palestinian people in Yasser Arafats Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had since the 70s recognized the state of Israel and accepted the two-state solution to the conflict. Despite this, Western media continued through the 90s to report that the PLO rejected this solution and instead wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

The pattern has been repeated since Hamas was voted into power in the 2006 Palestinian elections. Although Hamas has for years accepted the reality of the state of Israel and demonstrated a willingness to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip alongside Israel, it is virtually obligatory for Western mainstream media, even today, to report that Hamas rejects the two-state solution, that it instead seeks to destroy Israel.

In fact, in early 2004, shortly before he was assassinated by Israel, Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin said that Hamas could accept a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Hamas has since repeatedly reiterated its willingness to accept a two-state solution. In early 2005, Hamas issued a document stating its goal of seeking a Palestinian state alongside Israel and recognizing the 1967 borders.

The exiled head of the political bureau of Hamas, Khalid Mishal, wrote in the London Guardian in January 2006 that Hamas was ready to make a just peace. He wrote that We shall never recognize the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms.

During the campaigning for the 2006 elections, the top Hamas official in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar said that Hamas was ready to accept to establish our independent state on the area occupied [in] 67″, a tacit recognition of the state of Israel.

The elected prime minister from Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, said in February 2006 that Hamas accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.

In April 2008, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter met with Hamas officials and afterward stated that Hamas �would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders� and would �accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace�. It was Hamas� �ultimate goal to see Israel living in their allocated borders, the 1967 borders, and a contiguous, vital Palestinian state alongside.�

That same month Hamas leader Meshal said, �We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition.�

In 2009, Meshal said that Hamas �has accepted a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders�.

Hamas� shift in policy away from total rejection of the existence of the state of Israel towards acceptance of the international consensus on a two-state solution to the conflict is in no small part a reflection of the will of the Palestinian public. A public opinion survey from April of last year, for instance, found that three out of four Palestinians were willing to accept a two-state solution.

Myth #10 � The U.S. is an honest broker and has sought to bring about peace in the Middle East.

Rhetoric aside, the U.S. supports Israel�s policies, including its illegal occupation and other violations of international humanitarian law. It supports Israel�s criminal policies financially, militarily, and diplomatically.

The Obama administration, for example, stated publically that it was opposed to Israel�s settlement policy and ostensibly �pressured� Israel to freeze colonization activities. Yet very early on, the administration announced that it would not cut back financial or military aid to Israel, even if it defied international law and continued settlement construction. That message was perfectly well understood by the Netanyahu government in Israel, which continued its colonization policies.

To cite another straightforward example, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate passed resolutions openly declaring support for Israel�s Operation Cast Lead, despite a constant stream of reports evidencing Israeli war crimes.

On the day the U.S. Senate passed its resolution �reaffirming the United States� strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas� (January 8, 2009), the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) issued a statement demanding that Israel allow it to assist victims of the conflict because the Israeli military had blocked access to wounded Palestinians � a war crime under international law.

That same day, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement condemning Israel for firing on a U.N. aid convoy delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza and for the killing of two U.N. staff members � both further war crimes.

On the day that the House passed its own version of the resolution, the U.N. announced that it had had to stop humanitarian work in Gaza because of numerous incidents in which its staff, convoys, and installations, including clinics and schools, had come under Israeli attack.

U.S. financial support for Israel surpasses $3 billion annually. When Israel waged a war to punish the defenseless civilian population of Gaza, its pilots flew U.S.-made F-16 fighter-bombers and Apache helicopter gunships, dropping U.S.-made bombs, including the use of white phosphorus munitions in violation of international law.

U.S. diplomatic support for Israeli crimes includes its use of the veto power in the U.N. Security Council. When Israel was waging a devastating war against the civilian population and infrastructure of Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the U.S. vetoed a cease-fire resolution.

As Israel was waging Operation Cast Lead, the U.S. delayed the passage of a resolution calling for an end to the violence, and then abstained rather than criticize Israel once it finally allowed the resolution to be put to a vote.

When the U.N. Human Rights Council officially adopted the findings and recommendations of its investigation into war crimes during Operation Cast Lead, headed up by Richard Goldstone, the U.S. responded by announcing its intention to block any effort to have the Security Council similarly adopt its conclusions and recommendations. The U.S. Congress passed a resolution rejecting the Goldstone report because it found that Israel had committed war crimes.

Through its virtually unconditional support for Israel, the U.S. has effectively blocked any steps to implement the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The so-called �peace process� has for many decades consisted of U.S. and Israeli rejection Palestinian self-determination and blocking of any viable Palestinian state.

- Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent journalist and editor of Foreign Policy Journal, an online source for news, critical analysis, and opinion commentary on U.S. foreign policy. He was among the recipients of the 2010 Project Censored Awards for outstanding investigative journalism, and is the author of "The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination", available from Amazon.com. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Visit: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

Woman and Sex in Jewish Religion-Torah (Arabic):

المرأة والجنس في الديانة اليهودية

كتب نضال الصالح

اليهودية دين التوراة واليهود ، كما وصفهم حاخاماتهم (( أمة التوراة )) وهو تعبير يعني الجماعة ولا يعني القومية أو العرقية ، وبدون التوراة لا يوجد يهود كما أكد معظم حاخامات اليهود. واليهود لا يقرأون التوراة كما يقرأها المسيحيون ، ولكنهم يقرأونها بعيون التلمود أي من خلال التأويل التلمودي للتوراة. التلمود يمثل الشريعة القانونية التي تقوم عليها اليهودية وهو المصدر الأساسي الذي يستمد منه الحاخامات التعاليم وعلى أساسة يدرس ويتمرن حاخامات اليهود. تعتمد اليهودية على ما يسمى التلمود البابلي وهو يحتوي على كل من( المشناة والجمارة ) البابلية كمصدر رسمي للتشريع و يحتوي التلمود بمجمله على مجموعتين من المواضيع الأولى: هي القوانين والشرائع التي على اليهودي أن يتبعها في مختلف أوجه حياته وتسمى : " الهالاخاة" أي الطريق .... والقسم الثاني يحتوي على قصص وحكايات وفكاهات يدعى : " المدراش " أو " الأغادا "، وليس لهذا القسم قيمة شرعية. الهالاخاة : صارمة في أوامرها ونواهيها ومحرماتها ، فخلافا للمسيحية مثلا التي تحتوي على عشرة أوامر ونواهي مثل : لا تسرق ولا تقتل ..... إلخ فإن اليهودية تحتوي على ( 613 ) من الأوامر والنواهي التي تدعى ( ميتسفا ) وجمعها (ميتسفات) ومنها ما يقارب المئة تتعلق بالجنس . يتكون التلمود من ستة كتب ، وكل كتاب يتحدث عن موضوع معين ويتكون من عدة أجزاء تتحدث عن مواضيع تتعلق بالتيمة الأساسية مثل: ´¿Ż كتاب " زرعيم"، يتحدث عن الزراعة ويتكون من إثني عشر جزءا تتحدث عن كل ما يتعلق بالزراعة وتفاصيلها. ´¿Ż الكتاب الثالث إسمه "نشيم"، ويتكون من سبع أجزاء تتحدث عن المرأة وكل التفاصيل المتعلقة بها والجزء الخامس من هذا الكتاب إسمه "سوتاه" ويتحدث عن المرأة الزانية والبغاء . ´¿Ż الكتاب السادس إسمه "تهاروت" ويتكون من إثي عشر جزءا تتحدث عن الطهارة وكل ما يسبب النجاسة لليهودي، مثل حيض المرأة وإفرازات الرجل. مجموع كتب التلمود هو أربع وستون كتابا. قراءة التوراة تبين لنا أن الذي كتبها رجال ، وأن التوراة رجولية بشكل واضح . الأب الأول للبشرية هو رجل "آدم" والمرأة نشأت من ضلعه وكانت سببا في طرده من الجنة. نجد في التوراة كلمة إبن ( بن ) تتكرر 4029 مرة ، في الوقت الذي نجد فيه أن إبنة( بات) تتكرر في التوراة 579 مرة فقط !!! . كلمة رجل ( إش) ذكرت في التوراة 2183 مرة أما إمرأة (إشا) فلقد ذكرت 781 مرة. كلمة أب (أف) ذكرت 1211 مرة أما الأم (إم) فلقد ذكرت 220 مرة فقط .. وهكذا في كل الأسماء ، الرجل هو الغالب بكل وضوح. وبناء على ذلك فإن التلمود يمشي في خطى التوراة ، فلقد كتبه رجال وحاخامات التلمود وجميعهم رجال . اليهودي يقول في صلاته كل صباح (شاخاريت)، أي شكرا لله الذي لم يجعل مني غير يهودي، شكرا لله أنه لم يخلقني إمرأة . ( ميناخوط فول 43ب ). التلمود يتحدث كثيرا عن الجنس ويعتبر واجب الرجل هو الإنجاب ولكنه ليس من واجب المرأة. نجد في التلمود كثيرا من الشطحات الجنسية تدل على وسع الخيال الجنسي عند الحاخامات (( كتبة التلمود )). والتلمود مليء بهذه الشطحات ولا مجال لذكرها جميعها ، ولكننا سنذكر بعضا منها كدلالة فمثلا : 1. يقول التلمود ( شاباث فوليو 54 أ) أنه : إذا سقط رجل من فوق سطح بيت ووقع على إمرأة ودخل عضوه عن غير قصد في مهبلها فإنه لا يعتبر زاني ولا يعاقب !!... وهنا يسرح كتبة التلمود في شرح الوضع القانوني لهذه العملية الجنسية الغير مقصودة ويعدد الحالات المختلفة لها كأن تكون المرأة غريبة أو أن تكون إمرأة أخيه وغيره. ليتصور القارئ هذا الخيال التلمودي المريض كأن يقع رجل من على سطح حائط ويسقط على إمرأة وأثناء هذا السقوط وعن غير قصد يدخل في المرأة!!!.هل يوجد خيال أكثر مرضا من هذا الخيال السخيف ؟؟؟؟؟ 2. وفي كتاب ( يباموث 59 ب) يقول التلمود بأنه : إذا قفز كلب بلدي على فتاة أثناء تنظيفها الأرض ودخل عضوه فيها وجامعها فإنها لا تعتبر غير نظيفة ويسمح لها بالزواج من حاخام حتى رفيع المستوى!!! وزواج المرأة من حاخام يعتبر أكبر تكريم لها ودلالة على عفتها. 3. يحدد التلمود سن الفتاة القابلة لممارسة الجنس بثلاث سنوات ويوم واحد!! ويجد أن الفتاة بهذا السن تصلح لكي تكون زوجة حاخام . 4. أما سن الولد الذي يؤهله للجماع فيحدده كتبة التلمود بتسع سنين ويوم واحد وقال بعض الحاخامات ثمان سنين ويوم واحد . ونجد هذا موثقا في عدة أماكن من التلمود: (Sanh. 55b; Sanh.69a-69b; Yebamoth 57b-58a; Yeb. 60b......Exhs. 55, 81, 156, 159, ). 5. وفي مكان آخر يقول التلمود : إذا قام رجل بالإتصال الجنسي مع فتاة اصغر من ثلاث سنين ويوم واحد لا يعتبر ذلك فعل جنسي !!! لأن الرجل كأنه وضع إصبعه في عين الفتاة !!!. 6. وإذا قام صبي عمره اقل من تسعة سنوات ويوم واحد بالعملية الجنسية مع إمرأة بالغة فلا يعتبر ذلك زنا !!! لأنه كأنما جرحها بعود من الخشب !!! (كيثوبوت 11 ألف و 11 ب). 7. كما لا يعتبر التلمود العملية الجنسية مع الحيوانات زنا ولا يعاقب فاعلها!!. (سوتاه 26ب). 8. المرأة التي تجامع حيوانا لا تعتبر زانية ولا تعاقب بل يعاقب الحيوان!!!. ( سنهدرين 55 ب ). 9. كذلك لا تعتبر العملية الجنسية بقضيب مرخي زنا ولا يعاقب عليه !!!. (يباموث 55 ب). وأذكر عندما دعيت إلى قسم الجنايات في مركز شرطة (براتسلافا) بناءا على الدعوى المقامة ضدي من قبل الجالية اليهودية حول كتاباتي ومقالاتي ، قال لي الضابط المحقق: " إنك تكتب ما ليس هو معقول ولا يمكن إثباته ويعاقب عليه القانون السلوفاكي والأوروبي . وضرب لي مثلا قولي : (أن التلمود يحدد سن الفتاة القابلة للجنس ثلاث سنوات ويوم ). فأخرجت له التلمود المترجم إلى الإنجليزية ويسمى: طبعة" سونسينو" والمعترف بها من جميع خامات اليهود وقد سجلتها على دسك وعرضتها عليه. وبعد أن قرأها اصفر وجهه ثم إحتقن وصاح : " يا إلهي أنا لي بنت عمرها ثلاث سنوات وشهر وأنا سأقتل أي رجل يلمسها". ثم دعا بقية الضباط وقرأ عليهم النص فإستنكروا جميعهم ذلك وبصقوا إشمئزازا لهذه الأعمال المخزية . ثم قال لي المحقق : " إذهب واكتب وإفضحهم ونحن معك". قارئ التلمود يحتاج فعلا إلى معدة قوية ومنيعة حتى لا يتقيئ أثناء قراءته الشطحات الجنسية التلمودية . 10. ففي كتاب (سنهدرين 69 ب) نجده يقول : " إذا لاطف ولد غير بالغ ( أي عمره أقل من تسع سنين ويوم واحد) والدته وقام معها بالعملية الجنسية ، هنا إختلف الحاخامات ، بعضهم إعتبر الأم صالحة للزواج من حاخام والبعض الآخر إعتبرها غير صالحة !!!. 11. أما إذا كان عمر الولد تسع سنين ويوم واحد ومارس الجنس مع أمه فتعتبر زانية ولا تصلح للزواج من حاخام!!!. 12. المرأة في التلمود محتقرة وتوصف بأسوأ النعوت وتقارن بالحيوانات. فعندما توفت زوجة الحاخام "أليزرا" جاءه طلابه ليعزوه فنهرهم قائلا : " عندما تموت المرأة كأنما خسر الرجل حمارا أو ثورا". (بيراكوخ 16 ) 13. ويقول التلمود أيضا : أنه إذا ماتت زوجة حاخام ، كأنما خسر ثورا أو حمارا وعليك أن تقول له : "عوضك الله عن خسارتك".(بيراكوخ 16 ب ). 14. الرجل في نظر التلمود يساوي مئة إمرأة .( بيراكوخ 45 ب) ويحدثنا التلمود عن جماع الرجل وفوائده ويقول من جملة ما يقول: أ ــ من جامع أمه يصبح عاقلا . ب ــ ومن جامع أخته يصبح حكيما . ج ــ ومن جامع إمرأة متزوجة يحصل على مكان في العالم الآخر. هناك حالات كثيرة تعتبر المراة في التلمود نجسة ويجب عزلها عن الآخرين حتى لا تعديهم ، مثلا : أ ــ المرأة الحائض نجسة ويجب عزلها لمدة سبعة أيام وعند تقديم الطعام لها يجب أن يبتعد المرء عنها عدة أمتار، وكل من يلمسها يصبح نجسا حتى يتطهر وإذا عاشرها الرجل أثناء الحيض يصبح نجسا ويجب عزله لمدة سبع أيام. ب ــ والمرأة بعد الولادة نجسة يجب عزلها وإذا كان المولود ولدا تصبح الأم نجسة ويجب عزلها لمدة سبعة أيام ، أما إذا كان المولود بنتا تصبح نجسة ويجب عزلها لمدة أربعة عشر يوما .(تيهاروت: جزء نيدا وجزء توهوروث). ج ــ يقول الحاخام (يوخانان) أن الرجل الذي يجامع إمرأته الحائض عليه أن يقدم ضحية وإذا جامع زوجة أخيه الحائض فليس عليه أن يقدم ضحية لأنه خجل ان يسأل زوجة أخيه إن كانت حائض أم لا؟؟؟؟.(بيساخيم 64-72 أ و ب). التلمود كما قلنا يتكون من أربع وستين كتابا ولا يمكننا في هذا المقال أن نبين كافة ما يحتويه من مواقف تحط من قيمة المرأة ومن الشطحات الجنسية فيه ، لكن في إعتقادي أن الأمثلة التي ذكرناها في هذا المقال كافية للدلالة على هذا. ويجب أن لا ننسى ما ذكرناه في بداية هذا المقال أن التلمود يمثل الشريعة القانونية التي تقوم عليها اليهودية وهو المصدر الأساسي الذي يستمد منه الحاخامات التعاليم وعلى أساسة يدرس ويتمرن حاخامات اليهود . كما يجب أن لا ننسى أن إسرائيل تعتبر نفسها يهودية و تسعى إلى هودنة الدولة ، فأي دولة تلك التي ستقوم على اليهودية هذه ، يمكننا أن نتخيل !!!.

US President Benjamin Franklin's comments on Jews

During the drafting of the Constitution in 1789, Benjamin Franklinsaid at the convention concerning Jewish immigration. (Original in the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia.)

"There is a great danger for the United States of America. That great danger is the Jew. Gentlemen , in whichever land the Jews have settled, they have depressed the moral level and lowered the degree of commercial honesty. They have created a State within a State, and when they are opposed, they attempted to strangle the nation financially as in the case of Portugal and Spain."

"For more than 1700 years they have lamented their sorrowful fate, namely that they were driven out of the motherland; but gentlemen, if the civilized world today should give them back Palestine as theirproperty , they would immediately find pressing reasons for not returning there. Why? Because they are vampires and cannot live on other vampires. They cannot live among themselves. They must live among Christians and others who do not belong to their race."

"If they are not excluded from the United States by the Constitution, within less than a hundred years they will stream into our country in such numbers that they will rule and destroy us, and change our form of government for which Americans have shed their blood and sacrificed life, property and personal freedom. If the Jews are not excluded, within 200 years our children will be working in the fields to feed the Jews, while they remain in the Counting House gleefully rubbing their hands."

"I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude the Jew forever, your children`s children will curse you in your grave."

"Their ideas are not those of Americans. The leopard cannot change his spots. The Jews are a danger to this land, and if they are allowed to enter, they will imperil its institutions."

"They should be excluded by the Constitution." - Ben Franklin....1789

Click and read the whole article
Uri Avnery's article reviewes actual Jewish history,
the (very different) way it is perceived and presented,
and its present-day implications

watch the video - BBC Bias: The Gaza Freedom Flotilla

Click to watch
UK Jewish Member of Parliament:
Israel acting like Nazis

Click to read article by Jayne Gardener

By the Maps:
Click to watch & Understand Israel's
Increasing Grip On Jerusalem

16_rosebar.jpg (9349 bytes)

go to the top