Page 21234..1020..»

Bnai Brith Senior Center – Lehigh County, Pennsylvania

Posted By on April 11, 2016

This program is sponsored by the Lehigh County Office of Aging and Adult Services in cooperation with the B’nai B’rith Housing Authority.

You are coordially invited to join our program so that you can stay active and be informed.

Programming provided free of charge: Guest speakers Current senior information Special health programs

We are always looking for senior center volunteers to help us out. Ask any volunteer how you can sign up for various opportunities.

A nutritionally balanced lunch is provided at 11:30 AM in the B’nai B’rith West Community Room.

Menus are posted on the bulletin board.

Meal reservations must be made at least one day in advance by 10:30 AM by calling (610) 782-3254 or (610) 782-3253. You may also register on a weekly basis. Cancellations, when necessary, are made by calling ASAP.

Seniors 60 years of age or older are expected to make an anonymous contribution towards the cost of the meal. Challenged persons under 60 years of age must pay the full cost of the meal, which is $5.10.

No membership fees required.

For further information, please contact the Lehigh County Office of Aging and Adult Services at (610) 782-3253 or (610) 782-3254 or B’nai B’rith House Offices at (610) 821-0207.

We look forward to seeing you!

Excerpt from:
Bnai Brith Senior Center – Lehigh County, Pennsylvania

ZioNazi/NWO Quotes : Zionism – AntiMatrix…

Posted By on April 8, 2016

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

— Edmund Burke

“Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer … – and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much alive.”

— Harold Wallace Rosenthal, a top Administrative Aide to one of this nation’s ranking senators, Jacob Javits R-NY, in a tape recorded interview by Walter White, Jr., which was conducted in 1976. From the book “The Hidden Tyranny”.

Harold Rosenthal was supposedly murdered for giving this interview in 1976 during which he boasted about how a group of Jews are manipulating the stupid and gullible Goyim.

This interview clearly reiterates “the program” of the “Protocols of Zion”, and, since it was tape recorded, it becomes an undeniable evidence of not only this truly satanic conspiracy, but the Protocols themselves.

The Hidden Tyranny – Harold Wallace Rosenthal interview

Terrorist Menachem Begin

“Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best.

“Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron.

“The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”

— (Menachem Begin – Israeli Prime Minister 1977-1983)

Our race is the Master Race

“This is the REAL holocaust. Judeans, sure of their “god chosen” status, let this look of Palestinian mother drill you forever.”

“When the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony.” – Paul Craig Roberts

Slowly and imperceptibly, duped by lies and lulled into complacency, Americans have let their country slip into the hands of a fifth column: of a hostile ethnic elite whose primary allegiance is to Israel, a country built on stolen land and engaged in systematic genocide.

http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.be/2012_10_01_archive.html

As for the goyim… Zalman’s attitude (was):

“Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.”

…If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA…

SOURCE: Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh quoting the founder of the Chabad movement Shneur Zalman of Liadi – Jewish Week – April 26, 1996

Per ‘The National Observer’ via a document from Abe Foxman’s [Jew A.D.L. president of USA] office.

Anti-Defamation League President Abraham Foxman in an appearance on August 25, 1998, made the following speech:

August 25, 1998, New York, NY.

[ADL (Anti-Defamation League) president Abraham Foxman shows the Masonic sign of aggression “lion’s paw”]

Gentlemen. Welcome to the Second Centennial Meeting of the Learned of Elders of Zion. We have achieved all of the objectives expressed at our first meeting 100 years ago.

We control governments. We have created dissension among our enemies and made them kill each other. We have effectively silenced criticism of our affairs and we are the richest race of men on this earth.

Many of you are very busy men. Let us get to the crux of the matter. As masters of business, politics, law and most importantly … media, we are ready to implement our most important and ambitious program. One that will finally and totally remove from existence the impediments of our absolute control of this earth.

I speak OF THE DEATH OF THE WHITE RACE. The complete removal of all means of reproduction of the so-called Aryan race. Men, we now control the destiny of this race. It is now time to make sure the White race becomes extinct through miscegenation [incest] and having a virtually zero birth rate.

We have all enjoyed the vision repeated all over this world every day of THE LAST WHITE CHILDREN playing with little dark children and knowing that they are being set-up for their eventual destruction.

We can ruin THE ANCIENT PURE BLOODLINE OF AN ARYAN CHILD by convincing him or her of the altruism of begetting interracial children.

We must expose the race mixing of the urban centers to the suburbs and rural areas of this country.

More aggressive programs to integrate these areas are now underway through HUD. It is worth any price to annihilate the next generation of White children. We want every White father to feel the sting of having their children marry colored mates and produce biracial children.

We must use our power to discourage White men and women who still persist in getting together from producing more pure White children. They will be ostracized by not becoming part of the New Society of all races.

This will dissuade most of them. We will deal with the less cooperative goyim [non-jews] by tmurder and imprisonment.

Finally, we will SEE THE END OF THIS WHITE RACE. Impressionable White children will have their minds molded into the agents of their own destruction. Already, our efforts have succeeded in making the “men” of this race grovel at our feet.

Men, you and your ancestors have worked hard to make sure we would have the power to hold the destiny of this race in our hands. Now we have it.

Perish Aryan Goyim (cattle)!” [Applause]

End of speech.

August 25, 1998, New York.

“Good” is applicable to a superman or super-nation, which has the power to distribute and extend its life, and who has the will to become a master of the universe, ignoring the fact that it could cost the masses of the lower creatures, and the lower people, nor with disasters they can therefore be subjected to.

For only one superman and only one super-nation is a color and purpose of human kind, the rest were created only to serve that purpose, to serve as a ladder by which one could climb to the top of the treasured.

— Asher Ginsberg (Ahad Ha’am), “Revaluation of Values.”

“The Morning Post” of London, on Sept. 6, 1920, reproduced his Manifesto to all the Jews of the Universe:

James Rothschild III: Manifesto to all the Jews of the Universe

See the original at: WHAT IS “ZIONISM”? http://etherzone.com/2002/mako121702.shtml

Lord Acton said, “The truth will come out when powerful people no longer wish to suppress it.” Since Sept. 11, more and more people are turning to the “conspiratorial” or “suppressed” view of history for explanations.

In 1891, Cecil Rhodes started a secret society called the “Round Table” dedicated to world hegemony for the shareholders of Bank of England and their allies. These priggish aristocrats, including the Rothschilds, realized they must control the world to safeguard their monopoly on money creation) as well as global resources.

The same folks control the U.S. Federal Reserve and other major central banks.

http://www.savethemales.ca/260602.html

They were united also by a commitment to freemasonry, which at the top, is dedicated to the destruction of Christianity, the worship of Lucifer, and the building of a pagan temple in Jerusalem. They see most of humanity as “useless eaters” and they pioneered eugenics to decrease population and weed out inferior specimens. The eventual annihilation of non-Zionist Jews was rooted in this English movement.

In 1897, the first Zionist Congress took place in Basle. In 1904, the founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl died at age 44 under suspicious circumstances. The movement was taken over by the Round Table. The purpose was to use it and Communism to advance their plan for world hegemony.

During the same week in November 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution took place and the Balfour Declaration promised Palestine to the Jews.

The Round Table group planned three world wars to degrade, demoralize and destroy mankind, rendering it defenceless.

The Third World War, now beginning, pits the Zionists against the Muslims.

http://www.savethemales.ca/071002.html

The purpose of Zionism is to help colonize the Middle East, subvert Islam, and control the oilfields. For this reason Israel continues to receive blank checks. (One analyst estimates the US taxpayer has spent $1.7 trillion on Israel.) This is why the founding of Israel took precedence over the welfare of the Jewish people.

Israel has little to do with the Jewish people. Zionism, Communism, Feminism, Nazism, are creations of the same satanic cabal. These ‘isms are means to the final goal, a neo feudal global dictatorship. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover referred to this when he said: “The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists”.

As unwitting overseers, Israelis will continue as victims of “compulsory suicide.” Americans too are being fitted for this role. Sept. 11 was an example.

Arab terrorism is also backed by this cabal.

Bin Laden, Bush Serve the Same Master http://www.savethemales.ca/251102.html

Osama Bin Laden made more than 260 phone calls to England between 1996-1998.

The aim is to contrive a “war of civilizations” as an excuse to grind down both Muslim states and the West to create a global police state.

What I have been calling “compulsory suicide” is satanic “culling.” The constant reference by Zionist and other leaders to “blood sacrifice” refers to the practice of human sacrifice. Apparently energy is released when people are slaughtered. Recently U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said the Hezbollah owes the U.S. a “blood debt.”)

Our rulers design wars as offerings to Lucifer. They find slaughter and mayhem exhilarating, as long as it is someone else who is sacrificed.

Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Israel_Shahak

This could be the most mind shattering thing you have ever heard of. If this won’t blow your mind, nothing will, or you don’t have anything to blow, just as ZioNazis openly state it about “goyim” – non-“Jews”.

An audio recording of an interview with Chabad Lubavich Rabbi Finkelstein outlining the doctrine of ZioNazis and their “father”, Lucifer.

According to Finkelstein, you are nothing but a cattle to be slaughtered and sacrificed to their “god”, Lucifer, and milked by “god chosen people” for all you have as long as you last.

This is an outline of what they call the “NWO” nowadays – a ZioNazi Luciferian doctrine of world domination and world takeover. The authority with which rabbi Finkelstein speaks is quite something indeed. He speaks as though he knows it all in and out, down to the last dot and comma.

Basically, it outlines their entire doctrine of evil most profound, world domination, parasitism unlimited, wars and revolutions, puppet governments and how they are controlled, ritual sacrifice of hundreds of thousand of children each year and the rest of it. This is pretty much their entire doctrine. Nothing much to be added to it. And it is pronounced clearly by someone of ultimate authority, pretty much clear on its face value.

Finkelstein is quite casual in this interview and tells it all bluntly, in a semi-humorous manner how “goyim” (non-Jews) are being exploited and destroy each other during all the wars and revolutions staged and managed by “god chosen people”.

“Rabbi Finkelstein amazingly gives honest answers about world Jewry’s control of banking, media and governments, their creation of communism, their founding of the Jesuits, their holocaust hoax, their human sacrifice rituals and many more jaw-dropping subjects. I find the only things more shocking than Rabbi Finkelstein’s blunt admissions are his complete callous disregard and playful disdain for us lowly “goyim.” What do you guys think of this?”

http://antimatrix.org/Convert/Books/Rabbi_Abe_Finkelstein_Interview/Rabbi_Abe_Finkelstein_Interview.html – Transcript

Or: Rabbi Abe Finkelstein interview (Audio recording)

http://antimatrix.org/Convert/Books/Audio/Rabbi_Abe_Finkelstein_Interview/Rabbi_Abe_Finkelstein_Interview.mp3

“… You once said that one of your readers, a Jew, once told you that Jewishness is a disease. It seems children of [Theodore] Herzl [father of Zionism] realized that they were ill, and rushed to the other extreme, converted to Christianity and thought it would help them in their illness. But this disease is not treatable.

[Herzl’s children denounced him].

“- Yes. This Jew once told me:

‘Gregory Petrovich, Jews are not a nation or people, this is a disease.'”

(Gregory Klimov, “God Chosen People”)

Chapter 4 – Analysis of anti-Semitism (original in Russian)

The famous Jewish historian Simon Dubnow (was born Shimon Meyerovich Dubnow) (1860-1942) wrote:

“… For the Jews loyalty to the Jewish nation is in the first place, and loyalty to the state in which they reside, in second place.”

From the article “Letters on old and new Judaism” (1897-1907). Professor Eytinger writes about the same, and (p. 624).

He argues that in the early 20s in Germany, the main carriers of anti-Semitism were the intelligentsia, scholars, writers and journalists. What assirolog Frederick Delig published in 1920 book “The Great deception,” argued that the Jews are spiritually barren, that they are “… people who voluntarily renounced their own motherland …”, that all their laws and acts are criminal and immoral in nature, that they have not made any contribution to world culture and ethics, that the Jewish God is a travesty of the idea of deity, and so on and so forth. He was followed by a number of historians, biblical critics and Orientalists, who even surpassed Delig in reviling the Jews.

[Dubnow, “Letters on old and new Judaism” published over a decade in the journal Voskhod (St. Petersburg 1897-1906), collected in book form (St. Petersburg 1907, Tel Aviv 1937), and reprinted in Dubnow, Nationalism and History (1958) at 73-241).]

(Gregory Klimov, “God Chosen People”)

Chapter 4 – Analysis of anti-Semitism (original in Russian)

“Zionism was willing to sacrifice the whole of European Jewry for a Zionist State.

“Everything was done to create a state of Israel and that was only possible through a world war.

“Wall Street and Jewish large bankers aided the war effort on both sides.

“Zionists are also to blame for provoking the growing hatred for Jews in 1988.”

(Joseph Burg, The Toronto Star, March 31, 1988).

“The modern term Zionism first appeared at the end of the 19th century, denoting the movement whose goal was the return of the Jewish people to Erez Israel (Palestine). It was coined by Nathan Birnbaum (a Jew) in his journal Selbstemanzipation (April 1, 1890).”

(Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 16 (1971), p. 1032).

“Zionism is Judaism, and Judaism is unthinkable without Zionism.”

Go here to see the original:
ZioNazi/NWO Quotes : Zionism – AntiMatrix…

Zionism – The Occult Guild Of Antichrist – Rense

Posted By on April 8, 2016

Right now, across the globe, born-again, fundamentalist, bible-believing, evangelical Christians are being led down a path to destruction through a Satanically calculated deception, the roots of which were cultivated in ages past set forth for the final conflict between good and evil on earth. They haven’t a clue they are deceived, in fact, they have filled themselves with the cancer of religious pride so as to become perfectly deluded, thinking themselves the correctors of the foolish and those in error. While wrapped up in useless controversies over denominational dogma or mesmerized by modern Christian media with ‘end-times’ speculations such as ‘The Rapture,’ a far more sinister undertow of self-imposed blindness drags the Church closer and closer toward the ‘great falling away’, or ‘final apostasy.’ Part and parcel to the Zionist objective by more than one faction of the religio-political movement is the establishment of a third temple in Israel,[1] to be erected on the site of the former temple (destroyed in 70 A.D) on the mount of David, presently occupied by the Islamic ‘Dome of the Rock,’ which enshrines what they believe to be the stone upon which Abraham was to offer up his only son Isaac as a sacrifice. This grand desire for a new temple in Jerusalem is shared, as well as financially and politically bolstered, by tens of thousands of evangelical churches (there are actually more non-Jewish Zionists in the world than Jewish due to the overwhelming number of pro-Israel Christians). Repeated attempts by various parties to lay a foundation stone and claim to the holy site since the 60s has always met with extreme opposition by both Islamic and secular Israeli factions, sometimes resulting in riots and bloodshed. The elusive ‘third temple’ appears to be just beyond the grasp, held at bay by remarkable forces, both seen and unseen. The question is, who is more frustrated… those who presume themselves to be laborers for Christ, or those who are of the occult guild of Antichrist? What is the purpose of this third temple & who will it serve? “We should not forget… that the supreme purpose of the ingathering of (Jewish) exiles and the establishment of our state is the building of the temple. The temple is at the very top of the pyramid” [1] There is only one purpose or need for a third temple, and that is for Jews to return to the full Mosaic Law and temple services which involve animal sacrifice for sins. Equally, there is absolutely no use or need for a temple if there is no Ark of Covenant, upon which the blood must be offered, which has been curiously missing since before the time of Christ. It seems highly unlikely that the present guild of priests in training for temple services[2] would even exist if there were not reliable knowledge of the whereabouts of this centerpiece of the temple and its primary function. All other necessary artifacts for temple service, including the Shemen Afarshimon [3] – an original vial of anointing oil for the high priest – and the reappearance of the red heifer (the ash of which is vital to temple services) are in the possession of these Jewish priests today. The anticipated ‘High Priest’ is ultimately the awaited Messiah himself. For the Jews, his first appearing. To Christians, his Second Coming from heaven. But in both cases prophecy says first will come the deceiver, The Son of Perdition — Antichrist. The prophet Daniel foretold the time of the coming of Messiah, noting that he would appear after seventy weeks of years (as Hebrews counted time) from the signing of a decree to free the Jews from captivity in Babylon to return and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. This took place in 444 B.C. [4] when Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia (464-423 BC), signed such a decree and allowed the Jews to return. Exactly as according to the prophecy of Daniel, Y’shua of Nazareth (Jesus) presented himself before the people and to the temple as Messiah and King — only to be rejected by the ruling religious authorities who had conspired against Him from the time of his equally foretold birth. During the ministry of Christ, he declared publicly, “Tear down this temple and in three days I shall raise it up again,” confounding the religious leaders and rabble alike. He was, of course, speaking not of the temple of stone and mortar, but of his own body as the final temple and final sacrifice for sins, as well as his triumphant resurrection from the dead (three days and nights in the tomb) — forever putting away the need or use of the temple sacrifices of animals, which were merely a representative propitiation until the Messiah should come, offering his own life and blood as the price paid in full, acceptable unto God. The redemption of mankind from spiritual oblivion was not forged in the earthly elements of temples and rituals, but in the very person of Christ, made manifest in the flesh, bringing eternal reconciliation, putting away forever those material elements which merely foreshadowed His fulfillment and accomplishment in the incarnation. He presented himself to the temple on the same day the Pascal (Passover) lamb of sacrifice would be brought in and examined by the chief priests as to whether it was worthy and fitting for the task (being without spot or blemish). Not realizing it, they examined the true and final lamb of offering in the court of the temple when facing Jesus, “the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world,” and despite finding no error in him, and being utterly silenced by his wisdom and authority, unable to truly judge him wanting, they nonetheless rejected him and proceeded to enact the final skullduggery which would result in his midnight arrest through the betrayal of his disciple Judas, the conviction in a kangaroo court of the Sanhedrin, and subsequent crucifixion at the hands of the Roman judiciary, which occupied Judea at that time. Even Pontias Pilate, the appointed governor of the region, found no fault in Jesus and sent him back to the Jewish religious authorities, under King Herod (a Jewish puppet of the occupying Roman regency). In the end, the chief priests who conspired against Jesus resorted to the lowest level of psychological and political terrorism in order to force Pilate’s hand, which he quickly washed publicly in a basin to proclaim that he had no blood on his hands in the matter of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Pilate even went so far as to make use of a special appeasement to the people, as it was the time of the feast of Passover, and offered the people their choice between a convicted zealot insurrectionist, Barabbas, or Jesus, to be set free. The crowd, urged on by the ruling class of Jews, cried out for the crucifixion of Jesus, and the release of Barabbas. (Oddly enough, the name Barabbas means “son of the father” in Hebrew, and many have speculated that the Romans did not comprehend that the people were actually calling for Jesus, who called himself the ‘Son of the Father’ in his ministry). Nonetheless, it was Jesus who was sentenced to the cross and Barabbas freed. And as was prophesied, and as He often told his followers, he would rise from the dead on the third day. Christ Himself was the true and final ‘temple.’ Even as His apostle to the gentiles, Paul, later declared to the Athenians, “God, that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made by human hands” (Acts 17:24). It is little understood that when Christ died, the great veil in the temple which enshrouded the Holy of Holies from sight was rent from top to bottom by an unseen force, thus revealing to the people both that access to God’s grace was thrown wide open to all, and that the temple service which had been carried out by the Jews was a sham — for the Ark was not present for the sacrifices and had not been for some time. This was another way of revealing that Christ was the substance/fulfillment of everything put forth symbolically according to the Law, including the Ark, which was itself a picture or type of Christ. It is only upon the true altar of God, through Christ, by his own blood, that God is satisfied with the final propitiation for sins. As scripture states, “…there remains no further sacrifice for sins.”(Hebrews 10:26). Thus, the Ark of Covenant has no purpose and cannot serve God or any human being in any way, shape or form. However, it CAN be used to deceive — and that is exactly what is planned. Everything Old Is New Again Powerful forces again seek to re-establish what should never be again, what was destroyed and left desolate (without the Spirit); they seek to re-enact services and sacrifices which, if offered, are utterly and entirely Satanic in the eyes of God and a grievous blasphemy… “Of how much sorer punishment, do you suppose, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the (new) covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:29) and “But Christ being made an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle (temple), not made with human hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purification of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:11) Knowing this will result in the greatest of blasphemies, nonetheless, millions of Christians seek and look forward to the a third temple and support various Jewish organizations which also desire a return to sacrifices! There appears to be a form of Christian madness in these times whereby many believe that the hand of God can be forced, the events of prophecy summoned, bringing about the end — not realizing that by even attempting such, they place themselves in the role of the agency of evil. The patience Christ and the Apostles exhorted for all believers regarding the Second Coming has been replaced by a zealous, unbiblical anxiety for what they perceive as the Lord’s delay. There is almost an air of contempt that they are being made to suffer in this sinful world so long, as though this were something unusual or peculiar. Jesus even spoke to this, and gave stern warnings for such foolishness. But today it falls on deaf ears, tickled and dulled by candy-coated Gospel pablum, as well as deceptive teachings such as the ‘pre-tribulation rapture’ of the church, which has lulled millions worldwide into a sense of false security and distorted prophetic understanding. This has been a multi-billion dollar enterprise of brainwashing through contemporary Christian media. Quite a number of those chiefly involved in the ‘Pre-Trib’ message have ties to occult figures who are clearly working for the dark side. To return to a temple made with human hands, to the Ark, to the services, to the sacrifices of animal blood is to commit a phenomenal blasphemy. It is to count as unworthy, as unclean, as insufficient and useless the blood sacrifice of The Christ, as Paul declares plainly in Hebrews 9 & 10. This is the desire, goal and plan of Antichrist, to fulfill by Satan that original vanity-driven claim for which he was cast out of the abode of God: namely, that he would seize the throne of God. The Ark of Covenant is a throne [5], its lid of gold is called the Mercy Seat whereupon God, appearing in the form of the Shekinah Glory, appeared in the days of the tabernacle with Moses — a copy or replica of the heavenly Ark or throne of Christ, who in his incarnation, when he ascended to the true Heavenly tabernacle, offered his blood once for all, then sat down at the right hand of Majesty on High. It was over this heavenly Ark that Satan at one time was called ‘the anointed cherub who covers’; he is quite familiar with the substitutionary role which, under the sway of his intense vanity, drove him to seek worship of himself. But that role was stripped from him. Untold millennia ago, even before this present world was formed, the great archangel of God to whom was given the highest of all positions and responsibilities was cast “as profane” from the heights of the dwelling of God for his grievous sins and subsequent violence. He seduced nations of angelic beings to worship him, profaned his sanctuaries and was filled with wrath upon his banishment. So skillful was he in his masquerade of the pre-incarnate Christ (the image of the invisible Godhead), being the most glorious of all created beings, that he brought confusion among the angelics, leading many astray to follow him. These were banished to the black darkness of the lower heavens, ‘wandering stars’ for whom the final eternal gloom of a final hell is reserved in the day of judgment of the ungodly. These beings are referred to by Paul as “principalities and powers in celestial realms above” who, in league with Satan, are manipulating events to culminate in this final blasphemy involving a ‘temple of God.’ There, through the agency of the final Antichrist, “… that man of sin (shall) be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). The ‘seat’ he will take must be the Ark of Covenant, as it is the only legitimate ‘throne’ for such a temple. Consider then the implications of that seat being occupied by the prefect representative of Satan, in the person of the ‘Son of Perdition.’ That throne has been taken away, perhaps hidden, until a transition takes place. For Christ will at some point leave the true throne of heaven and descend to the earth to remove the unholy abomination, “whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming” (2 Thess. 2:8). Thus, it is the desire and will of the architects of eternal evil, the grand Illuminati, to construct this third temple, not for God, but for Satan — in the mad belief that if that throne can be occupied by the absolute unholy, Satan can fulfill his original, willful, declarative rebellion: “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High (God).” (Isaiah 14:13) A Sucker Punch Somehow, Christendom has fallen under a spell of delusion, believing that aiding the Jews in this endeavor for a third temple is a good thing. Yet, the Jews presently have no God, as it is declared, “Who is the liar but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denies the Father and the Son. Whosoever denies the Son, the same does not have the Father either: he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:22). Neither do they have a covenant, for the first was abolished and the New Covenant, with new blood, with “better promises” was established in Christ Jesus, who is Lord, Messiah and King. The Zionist Occult empire operates by the same condemned racist lie perpetrated by their forefathers, the lawyers and the self-absorbed ruling Jewish class that dominated all of Israel; those sociopathic, self-serving legalists who perpetually devised schemes above, around and even within the Law, in order to line their own pockets, subjugate the masses under religious tyranny and fear, and as Christ said, ‘do the will of (their) father, the devil.’ The lie of the ‘chosen people’ was first challenged by John the Baptist to the faces of the religious rulers, who often prided themselves as the children of Abraham for a boast; John upbraided them for their self-righteousness and borrowed piety on the back of Abraham and all the faithful, saying God could raise children of Abraham from mere stones — for Abraham according the flesh meant NOTHING — and later by Jesus as well, in several altercations face to face with chief priests who invoked the name of Abraham to justify their deceit, faithlessness and evil deeds. Jesus told them, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” There was, and remains, a ‘chosen people,’ but they are not by race, or culture or even religion. Rather, as John wrote, “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13) and this, the Israel of God, is defined clearly this way: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision (Jewishness) availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (Galatians 6:15-16). This transition of who and what true Israel is was also declared by Christ when he told the parable of the Vineyard owner in Matthew 21, afterwards saying plainly “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43). Zion in the world walks entirely contrary to this truth; it defies it, opposes it and is the enemy of it, forever. As shown in the arrogance of Menachem Begin (Israeli Prime Minister, 1977-1983) who stated boldly, “Our race (speaking of the Jews) is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.” – Menachem Begin.” Now imagine if any non-Jew of reputable influence ever said such a thing in the 20th century! Imagine the outcry and ramifications! Does this sound like the ‘Israel of God’ of which Paul spoke? Begin merely uttered what millions of zealous Jewish Zionists believe in their hearts, and example in their Apartheid rule of the land of Palestine today. The “Zion” which Christians should be embracing is not of this world: “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” (Hebrews 12:22). We are told time and time again in the scriptures, we are sojourners in this world; that we should not seek the things of the world, for it is quickly passing away; that the great exemplars of faith as recorded in Hebrews 11 sought a “better country” — not meaning any material land on earth, but the Kingdom of God itself, and “a new heaven and a new earth,” forthcoming, “wherein righteousness dwells.” By this deceptive clinging to a claim of Abrahamic inheritance and descent, this one, tiny, corrupt tribe among the 12 tribes of Israel, which in times past usurped the temple sanctuary and controlled a phony priesthood, serving in a temple that had become nothing more than a tomb, unrecognized by God as anything more than an empty shell and a lavish testament to their unpardonable sin, (if only for the faithful few for whom it was a house of prayer) demands to be recognized as “Israel,” even to the vexation of Torah true Jews who know better. Vainly the Jews gave lip service to the former greats of the tribe of Judah, such as King David, and even raised Abraham to the status of a demi-god in their revolting syncretism influenced by the Helenization, and their envy of pagan philosophy and a more pleasing, self-serving spiritual cosmology; all the while killing the prophets and stoning those sent to her for salvation time and time again. So polluted were they that they could not even recognize their true King when standing face to face with him despite the vast record of the prophets which described Him in unmistakable terms; when he would come, where he would be born, how he would be born, that he would heal the blind, restore hearing to the deaf, make the lame walk and even raise the dead. And the clearest picture of all, that he would offer himself up as a sacrifice for sins. Nonetheless, they were absolutely corrupted to the core, and either could not see, or would not see and rejected Him outright. Their vain claim to Abraham and the theft of his righteousness is rooted in their greed and devotion to the world of the flesh, of money, of power and control; misunderstanding that Abraham’s seed were not counted as such according to race, or anything of the flesh, but according to faith and the promise given to that faith, which they feigned in ghastly religious piety according to rudiments of Law twisted to their own advantage (which has since resulted in the cult of ‘Judaism’), not realizing in their zeal for law, “…It (the law) was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come (Christ) to whom the promise was made” (Galatians 3:19). The more they sought to rob the righteous of the chosen status by the Law, the more the Law judged them and condemned them to eternal death. Nevertheless, according to God’s gracious choosing and election, a precious remnant was always preserved — the faithful. These were the children of promise, of faith. Mystically ordained, even foreordained in eternity past, predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. It had nothing to do with race. These of the faith were and remain the only ‘chosen people’ of God who have any claim to any inheritance, and only through Christ. It was said by God unto Abraham that he would be the father of nations, numbering as the sands of the sea and the stars of the heavens at a time when he was of advanced age and his wife far past her ability to conceive. Do the Jews number such in this world? Have they ever? No, they never have. Not even close. Put your thinking caps on… the mystery of the ages is unraveled, and quite evident. This single tribe, most of which is not even authentic today being Askenazi Jews and their descendants, is not ‘Israel’ — neither do they have any right to lay claim to it by name or locale — like Esau trying to buy back his birthright which he sold for a single meal, “For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” (Hebrews 12:17). The Zionist Jews who occupy that land of Palestine are nothing more than squatters, placed there by a world conspiracy orchestrated by the British and the United Nations. They have simply taken the seat of an ancient Royalty which is no more of this world, for it was completed with Christ Jesus, a Jew of the Royal house of David, whose throne is heavenly (that is, of the incorruptible and eternal), not earthly (the corruptible), until all his enemies are put beneath his feet. Zionist Jews today are no different than the ruling class of Jews in Christ’s time, and make the same outrageous, wicked claims for the express purpose of stealing an inheritance which is not theirs, in the form of the land of Palestine and every benefit thereby derived. Worse, they openly and boldly manipulate the world, and law, and through extortion seek an absolute Teflon status in the political world system, as a recent Kinesset ruling demonstrates — a global illegality in questioning any element or fact of the Holocaust! One by one, Israel is working to have these laws adopted around the world under the phony banner of ‘hate-speech’ legislation. The Anti-Defamation League has even gone so far as to suggest that the New Testament Gospel is hate literature, seeking now to make every Bible believing Christian a criminal under “hate-crime” legislation, with support of US State Department. These are the same Zionists these evangelical Christians have been in bed with for generations. It must be a rather rude awakening! It’s A Slow Dance Of Death So what is driving Christian evangelicals to support antichrist Zionist Israel in spite of all this? Hoodwinked by many false converts from Judaism, who so over-emphasize the Jewish roots of Christianity to a complete dominance (naturally reducing the Christian experience to mere religion as is the result of the Judaistic poison), as well as by a myriad of Tele-evangelists/Preachers who feed their spiritually starving congregations with a litany of Old Covenant ‘types and shadows’ obsessions (some even going so far as to lead their congregations back to practices under the Mosaic ordinances, from observing Passover to various feasts and rituals), as well as the “Jewishness” obsessed ‘Messianic’ Christians (Jews who have converted to Christianity but who retain a varying degree of Jewish culture and religious tradition and fleshly pride, some to the dissolution or subordination of Christ’s accomplishments at the cross — some overshadowing the Christic New Covenant ordination and rebirth) hinging everything on a single element of prophecy – – the ‘rebirth’ of National Israel. One would be hard pressed to find any evangelical Christian that does not fully believe that the UN creation of the nation of Israel in 1948 was fulfillment of major Biblical prophecy, and regard it as a wonderful thing. Yet, it escapes their grasp, that what happened in ’48 was not the prophesied rebirth of Israel, for the prophets state plainly that ALL Israel will be restored to the land, not merely the singular tribe of Judah, and certainly not what is presently there, being largely Askenasi Jews (Turkish converts to Judaism). Pining over the furthest prophesies of a golden-age Millennium where the Messiah rules and reigns over the entire earth from a throne in Jerusalem, evangelicals have allowed themselves to be swallowed whole by the fraudulent Zionist contingent, which is today nothing more than what Paul called “the concision” 2000 years ago — “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we (believers in Christ) are the (true) circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” (Philippians 3:2). Nothing has changed. They remain the same, anti-christ, worldly, greedy, extorting, violent, carnally rooted, spiritless, godless workers of iniquity about which a good portion of the New Testament letters give ample warning. But apparently to no avail among the evangelical churches today, punch drunk on Zionism (or a mixture of Zionism and “Dominion Now” theology which urges Christians to regard themselves as masters of this world on behalf of Christ and place a strong emphasis on worldly politics, power and control), somehow driven by guilt or a ruse into a false humility towards the Jews; still clinging to dead mandates (such as taking the Gospel “to the Jew first, then the Greek,” which was accomplished and ended when Paul finally realized their judgment was complete and gave up on them), blind to their support and political allegiance to that which is fully anti-christ and which seeks the ultimate blasphemy against the God of Heaven, these churches, these Christians empower the greatest evil on earth today. The warnings are clear — To have no union with them, to watch for their devises and schemes always — who better to know of such things than a member of that very religio-political mafia than Paul himself, in both the flesh and in the mind? “Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinks that he has reason that he might trust in the flesh, I more so: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.” (Philippians 3:4). He knew them well, for he knew himself, and his experience on the road to Damascus, when he was changed from Saul into Paul, from a murderer of Christians in his Zionist zeal, to a follower of the ever-living Christ and conformed to a man of peace, he made plain the warning about the “enemies of the cross.” The churches are without excuse in this despicable pro-Israel politic, which is stained in the world with much blood, rooted in the corruptions of the flesh, hopeless for reformation, condemned to the eternal grave, drowning in sin and founded upon the unpardonable blasphemy of the Spirit of Grace. Notes [1] Rabbi Shlomo Chaim Hacohen Aviner, cited in Grace Halsell, Forcing God’s Hand (Washington: Crossroads International, 1999), p. 71. [2] http://bayzan.net/article_view.php?id=200 (See 5.3.1 Training the Priests – The Temple Mount Yeshivas) [3] October issue, 1989, National Geographic Magazine. Discovered April, 1988 in Cave 13, Qumran/ location of many of the Dead Sea Scrolls. [4] Some scholars place the decree at 457 BC, or distinguish between two different decrees, one to return to rebuild the city, and a second to rebuild the temple. Either way, Y’shua of Nazareth (Jesus) is the only person to appear at that time which fulfilled all of the Messianic prophecies to the letter. [5] http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ark.html – Its upper surface or lid, the mercy-seat, was surrounded with a rim of gold; and on each of the two sides were two gold rings, in which were placed two gold-covered poles by which the ark could be carried (Num. 7:9; 10:21; 4:5, 19-20; 1 Kings 8:3,6). At each end, there were two cherubim over the ark, with their faces turned toward each other (Lev. 16:2; Num. 7:89). Their outspread wings over the top of the ark formed the throne of God, while the ark itself was his footstool (Ex. 25:10-22; 37:1-9). Comment Marcie Musen 9-29-5 Dear Jeff, I just finished reading “Zionism – The Occult Guild of Antichrist”. What a brilliant and in-depth article filled with mighty truth. Thank you for putting up on your site and for your time. A reader, Marcie Musen Comment Randy Dellinger 10-3-5 Aloha! As a Seventh Day Adventist Christian, I find this article by Alton Raines to be refreshingly profound and scripturally sound. I have often wondered how evangelicals could be so easily swept up by this zionistic pendulum that is so contrary to Holy Scripture. And therein lies the answer…how can one know the counterfeit if they never study the original? Satan’s master deceptions can never be recognized for what they are if Christ’s so-called followers refuse to embrace His Word by studying it for themselves. This is why the Bible clearly states in Revelation 14 that in the final days of earth’s history, just prior to the return of our Lord and Savior, there will be only two groups of people: those having the mark of the beast power who placed their loyalty in man and man’s teachings as compared with those who have maintained loyalty to God “who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus”. Nothing else matters, as Solomon so succinctly states, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgement, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.” Ecclesiastes 12:13-14. Excellent and inspired work, Mr. Raines! Randy Dellinger

Go here to see the original:
Zionism – The Occult Guild Of Antichrist – Rense

Louis Farrakhan Joins List Of Extremists Praising Donald …

Posted By on April 5, 2016

Nation of Islam (NOI) leader Louis Farrakhan made anti-Semitic accusations of Jewish governmental control while praising presidential candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 Saviours Day sermon at the NOIs Mosque Maryam in Chicago on February28.

Farrakhan delivering his Saviours Day sermon (Part 1) at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit

While Part 1 of Farrakhans 2016 Saviours Day sermon last week at Detroits Joe Louis Arena largely avoided the topic of Jews, in Part 2 of his sermon yesterday, Farrakhan stated that Trump is the only manthat stood in front of some members of the Jewish community and told them I dont want your money Any time a man can say to those who control the politics of America, I dont want your money, that means if I dont take your money, you cant control me. And they cannot afford to give up control of the presidents of the United States. However, Farrakhan also distanced himself from a full endorsement of Trump stating, Not that Im for Mr. Trump, but I like what Im lookingat.

The NOIs Saviours Day provides Farrakhan with an annual platform to display his hatred for Jews. This year, in addition to his comments about Trump representing a break from the supposedly other Jewish-controlled presidential candidates, Farrakhan also blamed Jews, which he refers to as the Synagogue of Satan for the Iraq War and9/11.

While Farrakhan tried to defend his use of the phrase Synagogue of Satan by discussing its origins from the Book of Revelations, his allegations of nefarious Jewish control over the American government and world events still very much constitute anti-Semitism. For example, Farrakhan claimed, [former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz, so-called Jew, but a member of the Synagogue of SatanSatan is a human being without human characteristics. Thats why the revelator called them beasts in human form. These are people sitting in the Pentagon, planning the destruction of Muslim nations.

He added, Wolfowitz had 10 years now, to plan how theyre gonna clean out the Middle East and take over those Muslim nations. They needed another Pearl Harbor. They needed some event that was cataclysmic, that would make the American people rise up, ready for warthey plotted a false flag operation and when a government is so rotten that they will kill innocent people to accomplish a political objective, you are not dealing with a human. Youre dealing with Satan himself, the Synagogue of Satan. He concluded, Now they got into the Bush administration and on 9/11 the Twin Towers went downGeorge Bush, and those devils, Satans around him. They plotted 9/11. Aint no Muslim took control of noplane.

Promotional flyer for Part 2 of Farrakhans Saviours Day sermon in Chicago

The idea that Jews are to blame for 9/11 is nothing new for Farrakhan, who told his Saviours Day audience last year that it is now becoming apparent that there were many Israelis and Zionist Jews in key roles in the 9/11 attacks.

Despite Farrakhans decades-long history of racism and anti-Semitism, Farrakhan continues to receive support from celebrities and elected officials. Farrakhan was also provided with a platform to promote anti-Semitism in Iran earlier this month as a special guest at multiple high-level events, meeting with current and former Iranian government officials.

Farrakhan also announced that he does not intend to speak again any time soon, but did not elaborate on the reason. Farrakhan has been absent from some key NOI events recently due to his ailing health, but even at the age of 82, Farrakhan continues to avoid the topic of a successor. During Saviours Day he said, If you want to know who my successor is then you ask Allah because Im not wise enough to make that choice and I have not made any such choice because its not in my pay grade. Despite the NOIs apparent policy of avoiding this topic, the organization has at times spotlighted Mosque Maryams Assistant Minister Ishmael Muhammad as a possible successor.

The rest is here:
Louis Farrakhan Joins List Of Extremists Praising Donald …

National American Indian Heritage Month | Law Library of …

Posted By on April 4, 2016

To view PDFs

Back to Commemorative Observances

National American Indian Heritage Month celebrates and recognizes the accomplishments of the peoples who were the original inhabitants, explorers and settlers of the United States.

National American Indian Heritage Month had its origins in 1986 when Congress passed Pub. L. 99-471 (PDF, 93KB) which authorized and requested the President to proclaim the week of November 23-30, 1986 as American Indian Week. As directed by Congress, President Reagan issued Presidential Proclamation 5577 (external link) in November 1986 proclaiming the first American Indian Week. Both law and proclamation recognized the American Indians as the first inhabitants of the lands that now constitute the United States as well as making mention of their contributions to American society:

In 1987 Congress passed Pub. L. 100-171 which again called upon the President to designate the week of November 22-28, 1987 as American Indian Week while in 1988 Congress passed Pub. L. 100-450 which designated the week of September 23-30, 1988 as National American Indian Heritage Week. According to Pub. L. 100-450 this change from November to September was made because the last week of September begins the harvest season in the United States. Then in 1989 Congress passed Pub. L. 101-188 which asked the President to proclaim the week of December 3-9, 1989 as National American Indian Heritage Week.

As requested by Congress, Presidents Reagan and George Bush issued annual proclamations in 1987, 1988, and 1989 for National American Indian Week, honoring the achievements of the American Indians.

In 1990 Congress passed Pub. L. 101-343 (PDF, 211KB) which authorized and requested the President to issue a proclamation designating the month of November 1990 as National American Indian Heritage Month. Congress chose the month of the November to recognize the American Indians as this month concluded the traditional harvest season and was generally a time of thanksgiving and celebration for the American Indians. President George W. Bush issued Presidential Proclamation 6230 (external link) which paid tribute to the rich history and culture of the American Indian tribes. In 1991 Congress passed Pub. L. 102-123 which authorized and requested the President proclaim the months of November 1991 and 1992 as National American Indian Heritage Month. Congress passed Pub. L. 103-462 authorized the President to proclaim November 1993 and 1994 as National American Indian Heritage Month.

Since 1995 Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama have issued annual proclamations which designate November as National American Indian Heritage Month. These proclamations celebrate the contributions of the American Indians and urge the peoples of the United States to learn more about the American Indian cultures.

The public laws between 1986 and 1988 which designate a week in November as American Indian Heritage Week are published in the United States Statutes at Large which is available at many Federal depository libraries. The specific citations are as follows:

Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders have been used by presidents to rule on substantive issues of law; to administrate the executive branch of government; and to make general announcements to the public. These general announcements which exhort the public to observe a holiday such as Thanksgiving or honor a particular group of citizens as in National Black History Month are usually issued in the form of a Presidential Proclamation. On many occasions Congress will pass a law specifically requesting the President to take certain action such as proclaiming the recognition of a particular group of citizens as Jewish or Hispanic Americans.

Listed below are links to the Presidential Proclamations for American Indian Week or National American Indian Heritage Month beginning with 1986 along with the citations to the Code of Federal Regulations or the Federal Register the official publications for Presidential Proclamations.

Presidential proclamations as well as Presidential statements, messages, remarks for National American Indian Heritage Month between 1997-2010 can be searched from the Government Printing Offices Advanced Search page in the collections for the Code of Federal Regulations, the Compilation of Presidential Documents and the Federal Register.

Presidential proclamations for the annual observances of American Indian Week and National American Indian Heritage Month between 1986-1996 can be browsed through American Presidency Project (external link) by selecting the year and clicking on the Display button.

Treaties and agreements between the United States and the American Indian peoples between 1778 and 1971 can be found in Kapplers Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties (external link).

Library of Congress: Native American Heritage Month

National Indian Law Library (external link)

American Indian Library Association (external link)

Back to Top

Last Updated: 07/31/2015

Here is the original post:
National American Indian Heritage Month | Law Library of …

Scripture Catholic – Zionism

Posted By on March 30, 2016

Zionism is a movement that seeks a spiritual and national restoration of Israel, the land of the Jewish people. Specifically, Zionists believe that the Jews have a divine right to the real estate it formerly possessed during the reign of King Solomon, based on the promises that God made to Abraham in the book of Genesis:

On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphra’tes, the land of the Ken’ites, the Ken’izzites, the Kad’monites, the Hittites, the Per’izzites, the Reph’aim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Gir’gashites and the Jeb’usites. (Gen. 15:18-21).

Zionism is part of a greater eschatological worldview that sees the restoration of Israel as a sign of the end-times (this is often called Dispensational pre-millennialism). Christian Zionists believe that, once Israels land is restored and its ancient borders are secured, Christ will come again to rule with the Jews in Israel for a millennium. They base their beliefs on the 1,000 years of Apoc. 20:2-6 (even though this apocalyptic language is only symbolic). During His reign, Christ will appoint 144,000 Jewish leaders to rule with Him over the Gentiles until the end of the world (Apoc. 7:4; 14:1,3).

However, prior to Christs earthly reign from Jerusalem, Zionists believe that Gentile Christians who are still living at this time will be secretly taken up into heaven. This will pave the way for the Jews to rule with Jesus for the millennial period. They call this secret taking of Christians up to heaven The Rapture, and base this belief on Pauls letter to the Thessalonians:

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord (1 Thess. 4:15-17).

The rapture (a word that is not used in Scripture) will supposedly occur in connection with a period of tribulation for the Church (based in part on Dan. 9:27). Some Zionists believe the rapture will occur before the tribulation, and are thus called pre-tribulation rapturists. Some believe the rapture will occur during the tribulation (mid-tribulation rapturists), and some believe the rapture will take place at the end of the tribulation (post-tribulation rapturists).

This schema of events can be summarized as follows:

Tribulation (7 years) Christs 1,000 year reign The end _________________|____________________________________|

Pre mid post

(Rapture)

After the period of tribulation and rapture, Christ and the Jews will rule the Gentiles through an earthly kingdom for 1,000 years. During Christs millennial reign, most Zionists believe that there will be a mass conversion of the Jews to Christianity. They base this on Pauls letter to the Romans, where Paul says and so all Israel will be saved (Rom. 11:26; we exegete this passage below). At the end of the millennial period, Christ will bring an end to the world and judge the living and the dead.

Proponents of Zionism view the war in Iraq as fulfilling biblical prophecy. Israel will have an easier time removing Christians and Muslims from Palestine (the land Israel believes is theirs by divine right) if Islamic military forces are weakened or eliminated. The United States military (which happens to be led and advised by many Fundamentalist / Evangelical Christians) is helping to make that happen. A weaker Muslim world means a stronger Israel, and that will help the Israelis secure the land it believes God has promised them (even if they secure it through violence and human slaughter). This, Christian Zionists believe, will usher in the return of Jesus Christ.

Zionism is based on a distorted and erroneous reading of Scripture, and began with the English preacher John Nelson Darby. Zionism was perpetuated in America by Cyrus Scofield during the early 20th century, who published the popular Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. Zionist eschatology is held by most Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and Evangelical Protestant sects, and is one of the biggest falsehoods ever fabricated about the end times. We will briefly address some of the most obvious problems with Zionism from a biblical perspective below.

1. God does not owe the Jews any land or protection.

Zionism is based on the faulty assumption that God still owes the Jews the land He promised to give to Abrahams descendants. Scripture, however, teaches that God has already fulfilled His promises to the Jews. For example, regarding the land in question, God says through Joshua:

Thus the LORD gave to Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers; and having taken possession of it, they settled there (Jos. 21:43).

God also declares through Solomon that all his promises to Israel have been fulfilled:

“Blessed be the LORD who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised; not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he uttered by Moses his servant (1 Kings 8:56).

God further says through the prophet Nehemiah that His promise to grant the land to Abrahams descendants has been fulfilled:

Thou art the LORD, the God who didst choose Abram and bring him forth out of Ur of the Chalde’ans and give him the name Abraham; and thou didst find his heart faithful before thee, and didst make with him the covenant to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Per’izzite, the Jeb’usite, and the Gir’gashite; and thou hast fulfilled thy promise, for thou art righteous (Neh. 9:7-8).

Thus, those who believe that God still owes the Jews land and protection by divine decree deny the plain meaning of Scripture and make God a liar.

In fact, the loss of Israels ancient holdings is a sign of Gods divine judgment against the Jews for rejecting His Son, Jesus Christ, their Messiah. God warned Israel in the Old Testament Scriptures:

But if you turn aside from following me, you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them; and the house which I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight; and Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples. And this house will become a heap of ruins; everyone passing by it will be astonished, and will hiss; and they will say, `Why has the LORD done thus to this land and to this house?’ Then they will say, `Because they forsook the LORD their God who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshiped them and served them; therefore the LORD has brought all this evil upon them. (1 Kings 9:6-9).

Scripture is clear that God owes the Jews nothing more, and suggests that the Jews are suffering the ramifications of rejecting Jesus Christ. They have been broken off of the root of Christ because of their unbelief (Rom. 11:19-20). However, Paul says that the Jews can be grafted in again, if they do not persist in their unbelief, for God has the power to do so (Rom. 11:23).

We should also note that the Old Covenant that God entered into with the Jews has been superseded by the New Covenant of Christ (the Church calls this doctrine supercessionism). This happened the moment that God tore the curtain of the Jewish Temple in two (Matt. 27:51). When we speak of the Old Covenant, we are referring to the Mosaic covenant, that is, the law that God gave the Jews through Moses (see 2 Cor. 3:14). We are not referring to the Abrahamic covenant which, because it was based on grace through faith, was incorporated into the New Covenant of Christ. This is why Paul says that Abraham is the father of the children of the New Covenant (see Rom. 4:16; 9:7; Gal. 3:29; James 2:21; see also Gal. 3:9,14,16,18).

The only place where the phrase Old Covenant is used in the New Testament is in Pauls letter to the Corinthians, and Paul says that through Christ it is taken away (see 2 Cor. 3:14). Referring to the abrogation of the Old Covenant, Paul tells the Hebrews that a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (Heb. 7:18). The phrase set aside (from the Greek aphetesis) means to annul. Again, referring to the Old Covenant, Paul says He abolishes the first in order to establish the second (Heb. 10:9). The word abolish (from the Greek anaireo) means to abrogate or destroy. Paul uses very specific language to teach that the Old Covenant has been rendered null and void by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (see also Heb. 8:7).

This means that the Jews are no longer in a saving covenant with God until they renounce Judaism and are baptized into Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has affirmed this fact throughout her history (e.g., the Council of Florence; the Council of Trent; Second Vatican Council, Pius XIIs Mystici Corporis). Thus, even though the Second Vatican Council affirmed a persons civil (but not moral) right to religious liberty, it taught that the Church must preach the gospel to the Jews, as she does to everyone else (Nostra Aetate, 23).

2. The Rapture is not a secret event.

Zionists believe that Christians who are living right before Christ comes to rule for the 1,000 year period will be secretly taken up into heaven (although they differ on whether this will happen before, during or after the tribulation period that precedes the millennium). Because Zionists believe the rapture will be secret, it will be accompanied by confusion since unbelievers wont understand what is going on.

However, the very Scripture passages that Protestants use to advance the rapture theory say something quite different about the phenomenon. It says that the rapture will be no secret event, but will be accompanied by the Lords own cry of command from heaven, with the archangels call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God (1 Thess. 4:16).

These cries, calls and trumpet blasts will be no secret to anyone, living or dead. In fact, these events will literally wake the dead, for they will inaugurate the consummation of the world and the resurrection of all people at the end of time. For Protestants to argue that the rapture will be a secret event is plainly refuted by Scripture.

3. The Rapture occurs after the Resurrection on the last day.

Recall that Zionists believe that the rapture will occur before the millennial reign of Christ (either before, during or after the seven-year tribulation). After the rapture, Christ will rule from Jerusalem for 1,000 years. Thus, Zionists separate the rapture from the end of the world by 1,000 to 1,007 years. The end of the world will immediately follow the millennial period, at which time Jesus will raise the living and the dead.

The Scriptures, however, say that the rapture occurs coincident with the end of the world, not a millennium before the end of the world. Again, turning to the rapture passage in 1 Thessalonians, Paul says: For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep (v.15). In other words, those Christians living at the time of the rapture are not taken first.

Instead, the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (vv.16-17). These passages clearly teach that the resurrection of the dead precedes the rapture. Therefore, to know when the rapture occurs, we must first know when the resurrection of the dead occurs.

Scripture teaches that the resurrection of the dead occurs on the last day of the world (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). Because the resurrection of the dead occurs on the last day of the world, and the rapture follows the resurrection, this means that the rapture also occurs on the last day (there can be no day after the last day). Since the rapture occurs on the last day, it cannot occur on any other day (that is, there is no pre-millennial rapture).

4. The Rapture is the raising of the righteous and the unrighteous at the same time.

As we have seen, the Zionist / Rapture eschatology holds that believing Gentile Christians will be taken up into heaven before the millennial reign of Christ to clear the way for the Jews. Christ will then choose 144,000 Jewish evangelists to rule with Him from an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem for 1,000 years. This reign will bring about a mass conversion of the Jews by the end of the millennium period.

But we have already seen that the rapture occurs on the last day (John 6), and immediately follows the resurrection of the dead (1 Thess. 4:16-17). This necessarily means that the righteous and the unrighteous will be raised at the same time, because there is no day that can follow the last day where the unrighteous could be raised.

Scripture, of course, confirms this conclusion. In John 5:28-29, the Lord Jesus says:

Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

Jesus says that the resurrection will occur at the hour (v.28). This is the same as saying the resurrection will occur on the last day because an hour is part of one day, and that is the last day per John 6, 11 and 12. Jesus also says that all who are in the tombs will hear his voice (v.28). This follows Pauls teaching on the resurrection/rapture event when he says that the Lord will descend from heaven with a cry of command, and the dead in Christ will rise first (1 Thess. 4:16).

Finally, Jesus is clear that at this hour both those who have done good and those who have done evil will rise at the same time. The good will be raised to life, and the evil will be raised to judgment. There is simply no exegetical basis for inserting a millennial period between the resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust. Jesus says that the resurrection happens at the hour, when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth. Thus, Scripture teaches that the rapture of the living occurs coincident with the resurrection of all of the dead, both the good and the evil, at the same time, on the last day of the world.

5. The Zionist / Rapturist eschatology requires three comings of Christ.

The Protestant scheme of a rapture preceding the millennium and final coming requires three comings of Christ. First, Christ came at the Incarnation. Second, Christ would come at the rapture. Third, Christ will come at the end of the world.

This scheme is absolutely false and contradicts the perennial teachings of the Church. It is also refuted by Sacred Scripture. For example, Paul says in his letter to the Hebrews:

And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him (Heb. 9:27-28).

Paul says that Christ will appear a second time. This second appearance of Christ is nothing short of His second and final appearance at the end of the world, when He will judge the living and the dead. Paul draws a parallel between our death and Christs death, and our judgment and Christs second appearance. Following the literary parallel, Christs second appearance is the very moment of our judgment, for Christ is the lawgiver and judge (James 4:2; 5:9).

Because this Second Coming of Christ refers to the end of the world, Christ will no longer deal with sin because He will have already rendered His judgments upon the wicked. In other words, at Christs second and final coming, the fate of all humanity will be sealed. For those who have done evil, it will be too late to repent.

The Scriptures are clear: When Christ comes again, it will be His second and final coming at the end of the world. On this last day and at this hour, Christ will judge the living and the dead. The righteous will be raised to eternal life, and the unrighteous will be raised to judgment and eternal punishment.

6. Scripture does not teach a future mass conversion of the Jews.

Because Christian Zionists believe that Christ will set up an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem and reign with the Jews for 1,000 years, they believe that this will bring about a mass conversion of the Jewish people to Christ before the end of the world. They base this belief primarily on Pauls letter to the Romans, where Paul says all Israel will be saved. Here are the relevant passages in full:

I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob” “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins (Rom. 11:25-27).

There are obvious problems with the Zionistic interpretation of Pauls statements.

First, Paul is not speaking about a future millennial reign of Christ from Jerusalem that precedes the end of the world. No such thing is mentioned either in Romans 11 or any where else in Scripture. Paul is also not speaking about a future conversion of the Jews. Instead, he is speaking about the present conversion of the Jews. How do we know this?

Because Paul is focused solely on the Jews present (not future) condition in Romans 11, specifically, their current hardness of heart. Paul tells them that they were the natural branches that were broken off because of their unbelief, but they can be grafted back in again if they do not persist in their unbelief (v.17-23). In other words, Paul is saying that if the Jews change their present condition (hardness of heart and unbelief), then this will result in their present conversion (not a future, en masse conversion of yet-to-be-born descendants).

The Jews needed to hear Pauls message because they began to think that God had forsaken them (after all, God tore their Temple curtain in two, and Paul was now telling them that their Jewish works of law could only condemn them, not save them). Paul explains that, even though God has abrogated the Old Covenant, He has not rejected the Jewish people. Paul says in verses 1-2, Has God rejected His people? By no means!…God has not rejected His people whom he foreknew.

Thus, Pauls whole point in Romans 11 is to teach the Jews that they have salvation, here and now, not in the Old Covenant of works, but in the New Covenant of grace (v.6). Paul even says that the purpose of his mission to the Romans was to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them (v.14). Paul is talking about saving the Jews of his day, and never refers to some fuzzy event in the distant future when God will suddenly effect a miraculous, universal conversion of their offspring. What good would that do for the Jews who lived during the Church age? God doesnt work that way. God wants to save the Jews now.

Zionists read Romans 11:25-27 with futuristic glasses to make the passages conform to their pre-millennial eschatology, but nothing in the text warrants such a reading. Many read into the text a sequential ordering of conversions based on Pauls presentation of: (1) a hardening has come upon Israel; (2) until the full number of the Gentiles comes in; (3) and so all Israel will be saved. Based on the words until (regarding the Gentiles conversion), and so, often translated as then (regarding the Jews conversion), Zionists see the Jews conversion coming after all the Gentiles are saved, which will be at the end of time.

But Paul is not speaking about the timing of the conversions; he is speaking about the manner of the conversions. When Paul says and so all Israel will be saved, the Greek word for so (houtos) is an adverb which means in the same manner, and modifies the verb will be saved. Thus, houtos describes how Israel will be saved, not when Israel will be saved. In certain Protestant translations, so is erroneously translated as then, which contributes to the confusion and Zionist bias of a future conversion.

Paul explains the manner in which God will save the Jews: So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace (Rom. 11:5). That is, Paul says that a remnant of Jews will be saved by grace. Paul calls this a mystery (v.25) because, even though the Jews appear entirely cut off from God, God is still saving a remnant of them by grace. Why does Paul emphasize the manner in which God is saving the Jews (via remnant and grace)? Paul does this for a couple of important reasons.

First, the Jews had wrongly believed that they were saved by the Mosaic works of law. In Romans 11:6 and elsewhere, Paul teaches them that they are saved by grace and not works of law. In using the word houtos, Paul connects the manner in which the Jews are saved in verse 26 to the manner in which the Gentiles are saved in verse 25. Paul does this to show that, as the Gentiles are saved through the grace of the New Covenant, so (in the same manner) the Jews are saved as well. This would have been especially striking to devout Jews, since the Gentiles were being saved but were never under the Mosaic law. Paul is teaching that both Jews and Gentiles are saved in the same manner (by grace, not works of law), as they are now one in the New Covenant (see Gal. 3:28-29).

Second, Paul is emphasizing that the Jews had a bad track record with God, which is why God is saving only a remnant of them. This is why Paul mentions that in Elijahs time only 7,000 of out of ten million Jews didnt bend the knee to Baal (v.4). In emphasizing the remnant, Paul is urging the Jews to repentance. He wants to change the course of events. Paul says that if they do not persist in their unbelief, they will be grafted back in (v.23). Since Paul says if they dont persist in unbelieving, the Jews conversion is not a given; for Paul, it is still an open question. Because God is saving a remnant of the Jews, Paul says he is trying to save some of them (v. 14). Pauls teaching is consistent with Isaiahs prophecy: For though your people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return (Isaiah 10:22; see Rom. 9:27).

Why will only a remnant return? Because Israel will persevere in their rejection of the Messiah throughout history. When Paul says until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, the Greek for until (achri hou) in Romans 11:26 generally continues the action of the main verb (here, the hardening of Israel; see, for example, 1 Cor. 15:25; Apoc. 2:25). That being the case, the Jews will be hardened until the full number of the Gentiles comes in, which is at the end of time. This would mean that the Jews will be hardened until the end of time. In fact, when Christ comes at the end of the world, John says that the tribes of the earth will wail on account of him whom they pierced (Apoc. 1:7). This is the wailing of fear and judgment, not mass conversion. As Isaiah says, only a remnant of them will return (Isaiah 10:22).

We dare not prognosticate about how many Jews (or Gentiles) will be saved versus lost, for this is in our Lords hands. But there is nothing in Romans 11 or elsewhere about a mass conversion of Jews (Paul and Isaiah say only a remnant). There is also nothing about a future conversion of Jews (Paul is speaking only of the Jews of the present time). We can only conclude that the cumulative total of Jews chosen by grace as a remnant constitutes the all Israel that will be saved. As such, all Israel would be the elect of the Jews. Alternatively, all Israel could also be viewed as the sum total of both Jews and Gentiles who will be saved. This is an equally plausible interpretation, since the Church is the new Israel of God (cf. Gal. 6:16; Lumen Gentium 2,9; Ad Gentes 1,5; this view was also advanced by Augustine and Theodoret).

Even if, as some argue, the Greek until (achri hou) in Romans 11:26 does not continue the action of the main verb regarding Israels hardening (which is possible; see Gal. 4:19-20; Apoc. 7:2-3), this would not demonstrate that there will be a mass conversion of the Jews in the future. It would just mean that the hardening upon Israel will cease to the extent that a remnant of the Jews can be saved.

Some Zionists also try to push the conversion of the Jews into the future because Paul says that Israel will be saved in connection with the Deliverer coming from Zion (v. 26). Paul says that this Deliverer will banish ungodliness from Jacob, establish his covenant, and take away their sins (v.27). Zionists view the Deliverer as Jesus Christ who comes a second time to reign with the Jews during the millennium. Once again, this is a complete distortion of Scripture.

In Romans 11:26, Paul is quoting from Isaiah 59:20, which says nothing about a millennial reign of the Messiah at the end of time, and certainly nothing about a future national and spiritual restoration of Israel. Isaiah is writing about Gods anger against Israel for their sins, and how He is going to send the Deliverer to forgive their sins if they repent. Isaiah goes on to mention that the Deliverer will establish my covenant with them (v.21).

God establishes His New Covenant at the First Coming of Christ, not the Second Coming. As we have seen with Hebrews 9:27-28, when Christ comes the second and final time, He will not come to establish a covenant or forgive sin. He will come to judge sin according to the covenant He has already established at His First Coming.

Thus, Romans 11:25-27 must be read in the context of Christs First Coming, not a future, pre-millennial, second appearance before the end of the world. Jesus is the Deliverer who comes from Zion to establish the New Covenant with His Incarnation. Just as Isaiah said that the Deliverer will banish ungodliness from Jacob, so Gabriel tells Mary at the Annunciation that Christ would reign over the house of Jacob (Luke 1:33). Just as Isaiah said the Deliverer will take away sins, so Zechariah says that Jesus would grant the forgiveness of sins (Luke 1:77). Just as Jeremiah (who Paul quotes in Romans 11:27) said that God will establish his covenant with the Jews, Zechariah says that God has remembered his holy covenant in Christ (Luke 1:72). All these parallels, and many more, are only understood in the context of the First Coming of Christ.

Out of the 100 or so prominent Church Fathers, I have discovered less than a dozen who actually wrote about a conversion of the Jews at the end of time (Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Augustine, Gregory the Great, John Chrysostom, and John Damascene; there are also some brief remarks from Thomas Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine). There may be more, but it is safe to say that there is no patristic consensus on the question of a future conversion. Moreover, none of the Church Fathers ever wrote about a national or spiritual restoration of Israel.

The few Fathers who addressed the issue of a future conversion of the Jews often equivocated about whether there would be large-scale conversion beyond the normal quota that God is saving through a remnant. The Fathers who touched upon this subject do not provide any in-depth exegesis of Romans 11:25-27 (of course, the Church has never given an official interpretation either). There is no compelling patristic evidence that supports an extraordinary, en masse conversion of the Jewish people at the end of time, and certainly nothing to support the belief that this would occur during or after some earthly, millennial reign of Christ before His final coming.

Indeed, if there were a consensus of the Fathers on the interpretation of Romans 11:25-27, we would be bound to follow it (Council of Trent, Vatican I). This is because a consensus indicates the teaching has apostolic origins. However, where there is not a consensus, the Church teaches us to follow the literal and obvious sense of the Scriptures (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus). Therefore, a future conversion of the Jewish people is, at best, an open question. It certainly could happen, but this cant be demonstrated from Scripture. It is more consistent with Scripture to believe that God is saving the Jews currently, who accept Jesus Christ, in the same manner as the Gentiles, that is, through the grace of the New Covenant.

The Church has condemned pre-millennial eschatology which was previously known as Chiliasm. Although Chiliasm was discredited by the early Church during the first few centuries of her existence, pre-millennialism came back in the 19th and 20th centuries with the wave of Protestant evangelicalism. As a result, the Holy Office, on July 21, 1944 under Pope Pius XII, decreed:

In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely (Denzinger 2296).

The traditional Catholic view is that the millennium of Apocalypse 20 began with the First Coming of Christ. This view holds that the rapture occurs at the Second Coming of Christ, which is the end of the world. At this time, both the living and the dead, will be resurrected the righteous to eternal life, and the unrighteous to eternal punishment. Because there is no millennial period between the Church age and the end of the world, the Catholic and Scriptural view is often called the amillennial view. This view was held by Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Rufinus, Venerable Bede, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Theodoret and Aquinas.

Zionisms belief in a restoration of Temple worship and sacrifice in Jerusalem during the millennium is not only anti-Scriptural, it is anti-Christian. Paul repeatedly condemned the observance of Jewish rituals throughout his epistles (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians). The Church has also declared that any observance of the Jewish law is alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation (Council of Florence).

In fact, the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia stated that the future Antichrist would be of Jewish extraction, from the tribe of Dan, and the 1936 edition stated that he would rebuild Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple, in which he will set himself up as God. Paul warned us of this very event when he said the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thess. 2:3-4.

In summary, Zionism is an anti-Catholic movement that attempts to remove the Church as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, and the only authoritative voice for interpreting these prophecies. By turning Scripture into a wax nose for their own political and religious fantasies, Zionists make the Jews and Israel, and not the New Testament Church, the focus of Gods divine plan. Zionism is blatantly false and has no basis in Sacred Scripture or Tradition.

Top

Continued here:
Scripture Catholic – Zionism

Jew Watch – Jewish World Conspiracies – zionism

Posted By on March 30, 2016

James Stenzel Presents… This Scholarly Library of Facts about Domestic & Worldwide Zionist Criminality

The Jew Watch Project Is The Internet’s Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Zionist History Free Educational Library for Private Study, Scholarship, Research & News About Zionism We Reveal Zionist Banksters, News Falsifiers, PR Liars, Neocons, Subversives, Terrorists, Spies & More The Jew Watch Project’s 1.5 Billion Pages Served Demonstrate Our Focus on ProfessionalismAn Oasis of News for Americans Who Presently Endure the Hateful Censorship of Zionist Occupation

Top: Jewish World Conspiracies: Zionism:

This paper will explore American perceptions of Palestine in 1929, the year of the Arab uprising. It will consider three groups within the American milieu: the press as represented by the New York Times (hereafter NYT), Los Angeles Times (LAT), Chicago Tribune (CT) and Washington Post (WP), the American Zionists, and the State Department (hereafter written SD). It will seek to explore on the one hand the shared interpretation of events that existed among the press and the American Zionist movement, and on the other the competitive posture that existed between the Zionists and the SD. The paper concludes that the shared views of the Zionists and the press reflected popular perceptions of Palestine that would, in the end, leave SD views isolated and politically vulnerable.

Based largely on the positions taken by the press of the day, the paper also maintains the following:

a) The American public shared a specific Western way of seeing the non-Western world (along with an attendant discourse) that justified British occupation of Palestine and its allied Zionist program.[1] A major aspect of this way of seeing was the conviction that imperialism, as it operated in the 1920s, was altruistic and therefore basically positive. For instance, the WP once expressed the view that the peoples of “the former Turkish Empire” would “welcome a substitution of the enlightened rule of civilized countries…for the tyrannous and inefficient rule of the Sultan.” And, when some of them did not, it reacted with perplexity that these people would prefer “self-government with all its faults to good government under a foreign power.”[2] The attitude expressed by the Post was not novel. It had roots in America’s own historical sense of manifest destiny that had carried the nation across the North American continent and beyond to the Philippines, where the United States still held imperialist sway.

b) This attitude flowed from a second tenet (also suggested in the WP quote given above), which defined a bipolar world wherein a civilized West had an altruistic mission to bring enlightenment to primitive, non-Western peoples.

c) This way of seeing the non-Western world largely shut out any countervailing frame of reference that might have legitimized the worldviews of “native peoples” (thus the Post’s perplexity). As a result there was a general lack of awareness of, or interest in, the feelings and desires of those standing in the way of what the West defined as progress. “Native” resistance often came as a surprise.

The Mandate system negotiated by Woodrow Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference nicely fit this paradigm of altruistic imperialism. Conceived, according to Arthur Balfour, “in the general interests of Mankind, “[3] it was to serve as a tutoring service by which modern forms of self-governance would be taught and the general blessing of progress given to non-Western peoples.[4] In fact it operated as vehicle for the distribution of conquered territories, including Palestine, into (mainly) the British and French empires in a way acceptable to Wilson’ s (and through him America’s) sensibilities. Thus Americans believed that British imperialism allied with Zionism would redeem Palestine, the Holy Land, from a state of stagnation by bringing to it not only good government but also trade, technological advancement, health improvements and the like. Or, as the LAT once put it, “a program of plain development of the country for the benefit of its inhabitants.” [5]

Under these circumstances, there was little public debate over British occupation in Palestine or the right of Jews to return and colonize the country.[6] Rather, what was debated was the degree to which the U.S. government should openly identify itself with Zionist ambitions for that colonization process. The issue was an important one because of the active lobbying of the American Zionist movement, which sought to influence the discourse on Palestine, particularly in the press. The American Zionists pushed for an open form of U.S. support that linked the Jewish National Home (hereafter JNH) with the general notion of the spread of Western civilization, the American way of life, progress and modernity. The implication was that these things were really a part of the American national interest in Palestine, and on that basis Zionism warranted government backing. Some of these arguments came through clearly in the debates leading up to the passage of the 1922 congressional resolutions on Palestine[7] and would reappear in the late summer and fall of 1929. The SD on the other hand, took a more low-key position. It worked from the realization that American economic, missionary/educational and archaeological interests in the Middle East as a whole required a policy which, if consistent with the belief in altruistic imperialism, also sought to maintain the general goodwill of the Arab Muslim majority. The Department therefore supported the British Mandate but resisted open endorsement of the Zionist program. This, however, did not mean the SD actively resisted Jewish settlement in Palestine. As long as U.S. interests were protected, as they seemed to be in the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine (ratified in 1925), the SD was satisfied to adhere to a policy of non-involvement on the question of the JNH.

Because their way of seeing Palestine gave greatest weight to the altruistic nature of imperialism while precluding serious consideration of the “native” point of view, the American public (as distinct from the SD) was largely unaware that the Mandate process in that land was creating deep structural divisions between the majority Arabs and minority Jews. British assistance in the establishment of a JNH had led to increased Jewish immigration, which, from the Arab point of view, portended long-term demographic, and therefore cultural and political, transformation. Jewish acquisition of land displaced Arab peasants, and Labor Zionist practices displaced Arab laborers.[8] Yet none of this led the American Zionists, the U.S. government or the press to predict open rebellion.

Thus, when in August 1929 a major Arab uprising occurred, it took Americans by surprise. This event did not lead, however, to any questioning of basic assumptions. The explanations offered all flowed from the frame of reference inherent in the established way of seeing Palestine. The uprising did heighten the competitive struggle between the SD and the American Zionists over the proper attitude of the government toward the JNH. In that competition the press was a major vehicle for the propagation of the Zionist position and instrumental in encouraging public opinion to support a more active and official commitment to the Zionist program.

THE BIPOLAR WORLDVIEW

Press Portrayal of Zionist Activity

In the first half of 1929, none of Palestine’s potential for violent conflict was evident in the press. The NYT, the American newspaper that covered Mandate Palestine most fully and consistently, saw mostly hopeful progress. Here it took its cue from American Jewish sources such as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the wire service from which many American newspapers got much of their information on Palestine, the reports and activities of Jewish leaders, or its own resident correspondent in Jerusalem, Joseph Levy. These sources accounted for 93 percent of all the NYT articles published on Palestine in the first six months of 1929. The Zionist picture was one of on-going economic and social “upbuilding” that advanced the cause of civilization. In the NYT this was translated into articles describing how Zionist activities were expanding agriculture,[9] increasing banking activity and factory production,[10] promoting the tourist trade (63,319 visitors in 1928, seven out of ten being American),[11] and creating an active market for American products (particularly automobiles).[12] In social terms, Hadassah (the American Zionist women’s organization) health clinics became a symbol for both the Zionists and the press of how realizing the JNH was literally bringing the Holy Land into the modern world.[13]

This picture identified Zionism with a developmental process which had been made possible by British imperialism. Together they were put forth in language that ranged from the idealistic to the down- to-earth. For instance, the Zionist leader Nabum Soko low de scribed the British-sponsored construction of Haifa harbor for the NYT as “the first great work of civilization in Palestine,”[14] while an NYT story by Joseph Levy describing how “the country is much changed, ” announced “Paved Roads Expedite Travel, Shops Modernized.”[15] Either way, the West’s altruistic mission to bring the benefits of modernity to the East was seemingly fulfilled through the agency of the British- Zionist effort.

Press Portrayal of the Palestinian Arabs

The inherent superiority of the Western benefactor implied the corresponding inferiority of the “native people.” This too was part of the established way of seeing the area. Earlier in the decade the WP had described the Palestinians as “the more ignorant, more indolent and less enterprising population” compared to the immigrating European and American Jews.[16] Palestine was characterized in the NYT as ” an intellectual fairyland because the contrasts are so astounding. The Arabs are in the majority, but they have nothing to give the world comparable to the Jews, either in energy or intellect.”[17] This was in fact the common picture in the American press throughout the decade.[18] In 1929 the 55 health clinics established by Hadassah were used by the NYT not only to demonstrate how Zionism had improved the health of Jews in Palestine and some Arabs as well (a fact acknowledged by local Arab leaders[19]), but also to picture Arab society as “steeped in a belief in myth and magic,” still seeking cures using “all kinds of ancient rites–conjurings, smearings, amulet wearing and weird incantations” and so on. They were, according to the NYT, stuck in “the tenth century.[20]

Most of the time, however, the Arab population was ignored. As Melvin Urofsky has put it, “the Jews…really had given very little thought to the Palestinian Arabs,” looking upon them as “poor, benighted natives.”[21] The press, sharing the same occidental outlook, paid little attention to the opinions, desires and political positions of the Palestinians. In the first seven months of 1929, the NYT published 51 articles on Palestine but carried only a single one-paragraph item on resident Arab demands. It told that Sir John Chancellor, the British high commissioner, was to consult with the foreign secretary “on the demand for the establishment of a Palestine parliament submitted to him by a delegation of anti-Zionist Arabs.”[22] Taking the last five months of 1929, recognizing that the violence of late summer drew most of the press coverage, and add the CT, LAT and WP, the following comparative figures for August to December emerge (see Table). These numbers suggest an affinity for the American Jewish interpretation of events — that is, an interpretation compatible with an established, culturally attuned way of seeing.

PAPERS: NYT, CT, LAT, WP

Some of the few pieces that alluded to the Arab perspective were reports on reactions to the rebellion in Palestine by Arab-American groups both in the United States and South America,[23] as well as statements made by Arab groups and leaders in Palestine.[24] While these were sometimes offered without comment, more often articles reporting on the activities of Arabs were made in the form of critiques. The NYT’s Joseph Levy was particularly prone to this approach. It was a technique that served a cultural purpose. By taking a critical approach, the press could translate the Arab discourse into a form accordant with the Western way of seeing Palestine. Simultaneously, the Arab point of view was rendered out of context and delegitimized. A representative piece was filed by Levy on August 4, 1929, just three weeks before the Arab uprising. He told of Palestinian disappointment at the high commissioner’s comments made before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission in July. Chancellor had told the commission that “Palestine is as yet not ripe for self-government,” thus rejecting the Palestinian Arab request for the parliament or “representative assembly” mentioned above. Levy agreed with this decision and remarked that “the High Commissioner proved himself an excellent strategist and a wise administrator.” He goes on to explain,

The Arab Nationalists of the Holy Land have long been clamoring for representative self-government….They look at their neighbors, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria and Egypt, and feel that they too are entitled to something similar in the way of an assembly. They apparently forget or ignore the shortcomings of each of these governments and fail to realize that not one of them has been successful.[25]

Each of the countries noted in Levy’s article was under colonial occupation, a status which, if considered from the Arab perspective, necessarily skewed the experimental “assemblies” he described as “not successful.” From the Western perspective however, the ability of the Arabs to maintain a modem style of self-government ran against the established way of seeing the Middle East and was in fact one of the justifications for the Mandate system. Or, as it was once put in the NYT, “the notion that the Arabs of Palestine would or could form an independent state is fit for Bedlam only.”[26]

Interpretations of the 1929 Arab Uprising

The same process of translating or interpreting Arab behavior in order to harmonize it with the prevailing way of seeing occurred upon the outbreak of widespread violence in Palestine in late August 1929. The violence initially erupted over Jewish-Arab rivalry at the Wailing Wall (an ancient portion of wall that was at once part of the al-Aqsa mosque complex, the third holiest site in Islam, and part of the remains of the Western Wall of the Second Temple, the holiest site in Judiasm). However, it soon escalated into open rebellion throughout the country.[27]

Because what little attention had been paid to the Palestinians often came through official filters, the violence took many by surprise. As late as June 12, the American Jewish leader Felix Warburg was telling the NYT that “all seems to be at peace in that little country.”[28] Quickly, however, a new round of interpretation began, which, operating of necessity from the established frame of reference, could give only the narrowest basis for understanding Arab actions.

A sense of the reporting’s orientation can be had from the headlines: The CT of 8/25 read “Jews Attacked By Moslems At Wailing Wall”; 8/26: “12 Americans Die In Holy Land Riot”; and 8/31: “British Smash Arab Raids on Jewish Towns.” The WP of 8/28: “British Shoot Warring Arabs in Haifa Riots”; 8/30: “Arab Butchery of Jews Bared in Creed Riots” ; and 8/31: “22 Massacred As Arabs Raze City with Fire.” The LAT of 8/24: “Blood Flows in Holy City”; 8/28: “Arabs Kill Americans”; 9/2: “Arab Mobs Run Wild”; and 9/3: “Arabs Raid Colonies.” Finally, the NYT headline of 8/25 read, “47 Dead in Jerusalem Riot — Attacks By Arabs Spread”; 8/26: ” 12 Americans Killed By Arabs In Hebron”; and 9/3: “British Seize 1,000 Arabs Gathering for an Attack.” These headlines were not so much inaccurate as incomplete Arab violence did result in bloodshed, and the victims were sometimes men, women and children who had given no obvious offense. As the chart above indicates, the newspapers under consideration gave great play to American Jewish reactions, which characterized the Palestinian Arabs as “barbarians, ” “arrogant and intolerant” and the like. Yet the press coverage was incomplete, giving no hint of the broader political, economic and cultural issues that had driven the indigenous population to bloody action. This incompleteness was itself a form of interpretation, depicting Arab behavior so that it conformed with the established way of seeing the Holy Land.

We see examples of this in the stories accompanying the headlines. Here, in the search for motivations behind the violence, most observers concentrated on religious animosities over the shared sacred shrine of the Wailing Wall. Relying once more on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and other Zionist-influenced sources of information, the press drew the following sorts of conclusions. On August 18, the NYT described the violence as coming from “apparently unprovoked assaults” by Arabs, [29] which it later attributed to “aroused Moslem fanatics” whose attention had been focused by an opportunistic leadership on the Wailing Wall.[30] The LAT in an 8/24 piece entitled “Source Of Trouble” stated, “The trouble is said to have arisen out of an attack by the Arabs on the Jews…at the Wailing Wall.”[31] And on 8/30 a frontpage political cartoon was printed depicting a Jewish worshipper at the Wall overshadowed by the figure of a giant Arab about to strike him with a sword.[32] The CT described the violence as “race riots” occurring because of Muslim “objection over aspects of Jewish ritual at the Wailing Wall.” [33] Finally the WP concluded on 8/24 that “Arab assaults on Jews” were caused by “the Wailing Wall controversy.”[34] This preoccupation with the Wailing Wall reflected the Western assumption that religion, not economics or nationalist politics, was the prime motivator of the predominately Muslim population. And the bloody nature of the revolt confirmed the assumption that Islam was a violent religion of “frenzy and fanaticism” practiced by “bigoted Arabs.”[35] Thus the uprising fit the Western way of seeing the Muslim world and precluded the need to seek further causes for the strife.

That the reporting did not generally supply a motivation beyond religious rivalry did not mean that no other elaboration was given. There was plenty of editorial comment in all four newspapers. While sometimes suggestive of a broader context for the violence (suggestions which, due to a lack of story-content backup, were themselves without context), it too was dictated by the Western presuppositions. Thus, the editorial comment reflected the perception of a bipolar world divided between the civilized and the uncivilized, and Arab violence was transformed into a symbolic struggle between those two poles. The Zionist movement, a product of the West, represented the civilized world. As for the British, they had momentarily failed in their duty to stand as frontier guardians of civilization and were therefore obligated to rapidly restore order and protect and promote the JNH.

For instance, the editors of the CT, while suggesting that “observing the growth of Zionist colonies, the Arab must feel that in due time he will be secluded from what is to him, as much as the Hebrew, a Holy Land,”[36] also asserted that “the influence of the Jewish leadership [in Palestine] has been enlightened and humane, and it must be recognized as an important force in the extension of civilization….In such a controversy the interest of western civilization…must rest with the Jews.” The editorial then added that “our own [the U.S.] immediate interest is in the protection of the Jews, some of them American…and all of them in race and religion related to a valued element of our own country.”[37] The CT editors later applauded the fact that “the British government is sending soldiers, battleships and marines…and a permanent force large enough to keep the Arabs in check.”[38] The NYT commented that “whatever may be said of the wisdom of the aspirations and activities of the Zionist organization,” the Jews residing in Palestine have “undeniable rights” given them by both the League Mandate and Great Britain.[39] The present Arab challenge to this was characterized by the NYT as “a recrudesence of horror. We had come to think such reports of rapine and massacre impossible….A complacent civilization finds it all a rude and painful blow.”[40] The paper speculated that the situation in Palestine might trigger other demonstrations by Muslims across the world, an event that would be “dangerous to European interests” and awaken the “old dread of Europe that the Moslems may unite again…and overthrow white dominion.”[41] The NYT chastised Great Britain because it “did not take the precautions which its responsibilities demand….The weariness of the British taxpayer does not remove the British Government’ s obligations as the Mandatory Power in Palestine.”[42]

The LAT praised the rapid use of force by the British to suppress “religious war in Palestine,” which was in danger of “inspiring the natives of every country under British rule to attempt a similiar revolt.”[43] The LAT editors then observed that “it would be ideal were the wild Arabs of the desert to open their hearts to moral suasion, ” but “unhappily, sweet reasonableness does not seem to be the strongest point of the Bedouin sheik. What he does thoroughly understand and appreciate, however, is the song of the bullet and the crash of the high-explosive shell.”[44] The paper noted that “the Zionization of Palestine probably will not be accomplished without further difficulty of the same sort.”[45] Finally, the WP focused on the loss of American life. “The country is shocked at the news that 12 American Jewish boys have been killed and 30 wounded in the attacks the Arabs have suddenly unloosed.” The Post attributed this to “a fanatical outbreak of holy-war fervor originating in incidents at the century-old Wailing Wall.”[46] The paper warned that “the fury of the Palestine outbreaks gives a more menacing aspect to the situation, by indicating the workings of a vast conspiracy that may envelop in flames all Moslem countries under British influence or dominion.”[47] Under the circumstances, the Post urged the British on to maximum effort in Palestine, “nothing short of a complete eradication of this fanatical movement against the Jewish race will be worthy of present-day civilization.” To which it added that “the dispatch of an American warship…prepared to send bluejackets and marines to Jerusalem in case of need might have a beneficial moral effect.”[48]

The overall effect of the press coverage of 1929 was to meld press and Zionist views and present a picture of Arab aggression that was unprovoked, motivated by religious fanaticism and threatening to the beneficent expansion of civilization. Here Zionism functioned, as the CT put it, as an “extension of civilization.” And, since Americans had a “sympathetic interest in the advancement of civilization,” it followed that the United States should “support the establishment, upon just conditions, of Jewish industry and culture in Palestine.” [49] The CT’s assertion was but a milder version of an earlier position taken by Representative Hamilton Fish, who stated in the NYT that the U.S. government should support the Zionist effort because “they will fashion their government after the ideals of ours and believe in our flag…because it represents freedom, liberty and justice, and that is what we want to see eventually in Palestine.”[50] These opinions were characteristic of U.S. press coverage from the announcement of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 onward.[51] This kind of argument was certainly made in the extensive coverage of American Jewish reaction to the violence in Palestine in 1929.[52] While there was no real popular support evidenced in that year for direct U.S. military intervention in Palestine (except by the Zionists and their most ardent supporters), particularly in light of the rapid deployment of British forces in the face of the Arab uprising, this cultural and civilizational identification clearly reflected popular feelings as expressed in the press.

It was a logical and perhaps inevitable development. In the 1920s the bipolar worldview, the spread of civilization, and support for the Zionist movement were all aspects of the same paradigm–elements at once supporting and flowing from a single, comprehensive way of seeing. Working within this context, a pro-Zionist interpretation of the 1929 Arab uprising essentially dominated the American discourse on Palestine. This near monopoly of opinion helped the American Zionists in their effort to enlist the broadest support possible. The general public, as well as the U.S. government, were encouraged to perceive the work of the JNH as an implicit element of American national interests in the Holy Land.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT’S “WAY OF SEEING”

Against this evolving perception stood the State Department. While sharing the Western way of seeing the non-Western world,[53] the Department’ s sense of institutional mission led to a qualifying of the idea of altruistic imperialism. U.S. interests could often be promoted by supporting generic, ideological concepts such as free trade, but for the SD, they did not necessitate espousing the sort of general sociocultural transformations encouraged by the newspaper editorialists or envisioned by the Zionist program. Indeed, where ideals such as the spreading of civilization conflicted with more specfic policy goals, the Department resisted them.

In the 1920s the defining departmental philosophy was, to use Philip Baram’s words, “political-military isolationism and simultaneous expansive economic internationalism.”[54] From the point of view of the SD, Palestine and Zionism were “details of the Near Eastern settlement.” [55] That is, they were aspects of the British-colonial sphere of interest. The JNH was an expression of an alliance between Great Britain and an essentially private foreign concern, the World Zionist Organization. American Zionist pressure (examples of which are given below) for official support of their activities in Palestine threatened to draw the United States into foreign entanglements of a political/ideological nature at a time of “political-military isolationism.” It would also complicate “expansive economic” relations with the Arab majority of the Middle East by, as H. G. Dwight of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs put it, “stir[ring] up the very active sensibilities of the Moslem majority.”[56] Therefore it was decided to “let alone the political and territorial phases” of the postwar Near East. This meant that the Division of Near Eastern Affairs “feels strongly that the [State] Department should avoid any action which would indicate official support of any one of the various theses regarding Palestine, either Zionists’ , anti-Zionists’ or the Arabs’.”[57] This position has been commonly interpreted as anti-Zionist;[58] some have even gone as far as to conflate it with antisemitism.[59]

In the first half of 1929 the SD, like the press, had lost touch with the underlying tensions between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. The cable traffic between the Department and its consulate in Jerusalem in these months focused on economic issues, for instance, access for American companies to the bidding process on British-sponsored development projects like the construction of Haifa harbor.[60] Or they would address related esoteric questions such as whether the British were starting to think of Palestine as a crown colony rather than mandate territory.[61] These issues were important in the minds of U.S. diplomats because they affected implementation of the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine, the treaty that governed U.S.-British relations in that country. This in turn affected the extent and effectiveness of economic access to Palestine by American business.

All such matters, however, were temporarily put aside when on August 23, 1929, the SD received a cable from its consul general in Jerusalem, Paul Knabenshue, announcing “renewed Wailing Wall incidents have given rise to conflicts throughout Old and New Jerusalem between Arabs and Jews. A number of casualties on both sides reported. The authorities are doing everything possible to control the situation. Several [British military] aeroplanes were circling low over the city this afternoon.” [62]

The SD immediately opened a file on the new situation, entitling it “Conflicts Between Arabs and Jews Over Wailing Wall in Palestine.” [63] One might initially conclude from this title that, like the press, there would be little or no SD effort to analyze the situation beyond that of a religious conflict over a shared sacred site. However, over time, Knabenshue would seek to offer a more extensive and probbing analysis. He would suggest that the violent Arab uprising was an almost inevitable result of the manner in which the Balfour Declaration was interpreted and implemented by the British, and actively argue that there should be a change in how the British administered the Mandate in Palestine. In the end, his argument amounted to the proposition that the Palestinian position was actually more compatible than was Zionism with American ideals of altruistic imperialism. The key factor in this thinking was the Palestinian demand for a “representative assembly.” The consul general’s cables on this subject became a source of pressure on the SD to understand and react to the Palestine situation in a way sympathetic with Arab demands.

A second source of pressure on the SD came from the American Zionists. Through petitions and the influencing of public opinion, they would attempt to move the SD toward endorsing American involvement in Palestine as if Zionism were an extension of American national interests. In the end the SD would resist both sources of pressure and hold to a course of non-involvement.

The Knabenshue Analysis

Knabenshue began his analysis for the SD with the contention that the Zionists were at least partially to blame for the 1929 outbreak of violence (or what American Jews of that year began to call “an Arab pogram”[64]). He based this on the belief that Revisionist Zionists had, through demonstrations and parades at the Wailing Wall and in neighborhoods of Muslim Jerusalem just before the violence, behaved in such a way as to provoke the Arab uprising.[65] More important, however, Knabenshue identified what he considered broader contextual roots of the conflict. Thus, “while the controversy over the Wailing Wall undoubtedly furnished the spark which caused the recent explosion…the attendant incidents were, however, merely phases of the present dangerous situation….The basic cause of the serious troubles… arises out of the Balfour Declaration.”[66] Knabenshue noted that the Balfour Declaration had two clauses, the first promising a Jewish national home and the second promising not to violate the “civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities.” In his opinion, when the Declaration was translated into articles of the Mandate, the result was such things as “artificially stimulated” immigration and officially facilitated land transfers. These acts had, according to Knabenshue, led to an “interpretation of the [first part of the] Declaration” in a manner that “violate[d] the second part of the Declaration and in so doing are in violation of paragraph four of Article 22 of the [League of Nations] Covenant, and hence, as might be said from an American point of view, are `unconstitutional.'”[67]

Back in 1922, after earlier Arab disturbances, the British had tried to clarify the situation by interpreting the first clause of the Balfour Declaration through a White Paper. It stipulated, according to Knabenshue, that “Palestine is not to be converted into the National Home of the Jews, but merely, a Jewish home may be established in Palestine.”[68] Nonetheless, the Zionists had continued openly pressing for greater immigration and land transfers, excercising, in the long run, effective pressure on the government in London. Thus Knabenshue pointed out, “to any student of the situation,” including the Palestinian Arab leadership, “it is quite evident that the Zionist’s ambition was, and still is, to convert Palestine into…a Jewish state and by economic pressure to force out the Arabs, or reduce them to impotency, until Palestine should become as Jewish as England is English.”[69] Later, he explained further that Revisionist Zionists were “indiscreet and openly proclaim this policy, but the more moderate element are for the moment endeavoring to conceal this secret, but none the less, definite ambition.”[70] All of this had led to constant and growing Arab-Jewish tension in Palestine, the latest manifestation of which was the 1929 violence.

Knabenshue had a two-part solution to this problem. First, he suggested “the formation of a legislative assembly with proportionate representation, the mandatory authority to have the power to propose legislation to the assembly and to enact it into law by ordinance if the assembly should refuse to pass it.”[71] And second, a “new constitution [for] the country” that would “provide that there can be no legislation or governmental or other activity against Jews as Jews…In Palestine it should be clearly understood that they have equal rights with the rest of the population.”[72] These reforms would establish “that the Jews can settle in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance,”[73] while also providing a legislative avenue to satisfy the “simple and quite understandable” demands of the Arabs for government “represented according to population…immigration control…[and] control of land sales.”[74]

To Knabenshue this seemed a very good compromise, allowing the Jews a place in Palestine while eliminating the worst of Arab fears. It also seemed to make good sense from the American perspective on altruistic imperialism. A supervised representative democracy with constitutional gurantees was the answer. If such changes did not come, then Knabenshue speculated that “we are going to have a bloody uprising in Palestine which is going to be infinitely worse than heretofore, and which will…lead to a serious international situation.”[75]

One can question how well these reforms would have worked in practice. The Zionists were not interested in democracy in the absence of a Jewish majority[76] and had no intention of trading their desire for a future Jewish state for constitutional guarantees under a representative government with an Arab majority. The American Zionist establishment turned quite hostile toward Knabenshue and even tried to get him replaced.[77] A second problem with his reformist ideas was that, though they pointed the way to a quasi-democratic solution, they were not compatible with the culturally established way of seeing the Middle East. Popular opinion saw the Zionist movement as an agent of a superior civilizational force. It embodied progress and development. Such movements do not subordinate themselves, even with constitutional guarantees, to a “more ignorant” non-Western native majority. Thus, even if the SD had chooser to take up and popularize Knabenshue’s solution, it would not have fit the accepted American frame of reference for the problem in Palestine. However, Knabenshue’s superiors, as we will see, had no intention of supporting his position.

Nonetheless, the consul general had hope that, as a result of the Shaw Commission, sent by the British government to investigate the 1929 violence, there would be a move in the direction he outlined. On this expectation, he urged the SD to “prevent anyone speaking on behalf of the United States Government making a statement at this juncture which it might be difficult to retract should subsequent events make desirable a different attitude.”[78] In other words, Knabenshue was telling his superiors to try to prevent the government from irrevocably committing itself to the Zionist cause on the assumption that the Shaw Commission might possibly result in concessions of a democratic nature to the Arabs.

Zionist Pressure

Back in the United States, as Knabenshue almost certainly knew, the Zionists were pressing for just such a commitment. They put forth three main arguments as to why the United States should become more involved in Palestine on the Zionist side. All three would parallel positions popularized in the press. This was an indicator that they had the virtue of being compatible with the established popular way of seeing Palestine, particularly the notion of a bipolar world wherein Western forces sought to advance civilization. At the same time, these arguments would associate the Zionist effort with more specific American interests and responsibilities.

The argument with the greatest impact was that American lives had been threatened and lost, and thus the government should act. In the press coverage of the many rallies, marches and protest meetings held across the country, this message was clearly stated.[79] In the 160 letters and petitions to be found in the SD files from senators, congressmen, and Jewish and non-Jewish organizations, the sentiments expressed below are typical.[80] Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, in a telegram dated August 25, noted the death of American students at Hebron and the large number of American citizens resident in Tel Aviv and Haifa, where fighting had broken out. He then asserted that “the State Department cannot view with complacency these Arab raids upon American interests. The Raleigh now in European waters should be immediately dispatched to the scene of disorder, and the strongest representations should be made to the British Colonial Government.” [81] Representative Jeremiah O’Connell of Rhode Island told Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson on August 28 that “a high duty devolves upon the United States of America to head the way in seeking an amelioration of the present deplorable situation in Palestine….The protection of the rights of our own nationals should be asserted with all the strength and vigor of this powerful nation.”[82] And Rabbi Louis Gross, the editor of the Brooklyn Examiner, “published for Brooklyn Jewry, which is the largest Jewish community in the world,” told President Herbert Hoover in a telegram of August 24 that “the recent massacre of Jews in Palestine” were “scenes of horror enacted which menace the life and limb of American citizens.” Therefore Hoover should use his “powerful moral influence…to avert further calamity in the Holy Land.”[83]

A second and related argument was that a large American financial investment was threatened by the violence.[84] For instance, in Celler’ s communication on August 25, he noted the need to not only “prevent further loss of life” but also the need to prevent the loss of the “property of American Jewry, which has been pouring millions of dollars into Palestine.”[85] Isadore Morrison, acting national chairman of the Zionist fundraising organization United Palestine Appeal, in a telegram to the SD on August 26, reminded the secretary of state that during the past decade American Jews had “sent to Palestine upwards of $25 million dollars.”[86] And William Spiegelman, editor of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, in a telegram sent to Secretary of State Stimson, suggested that the United States might consider taking over the Palestine Mandate, due to its “especial significance to the American public since funds of American citizens have been and are expected to be the largest factor for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Holy Land.”[87]

The third main argument was that not only were there American lives and property at risk, but also the advancement of Western civilization. Thus Morrison in his telegram to the SD added the notion that all those millions invested in Palestine had brought the country “Western culture, industries and commerce.”[88] William Spiegelman, in his communication with Stimson, told the secretary of state that out of the crisis “the JNH in Palestine will emerge with greater strength for the further spreading of western civilization” and asked him for a statement about what the U.S. government was going to do to help.[89] And Senator Robert F. Wagner, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, took to the radio in New York City to build public support for U.S. action in Palestine. Speaking on ABC Radio on September 1, he delivered an address commented upon the next day in the NYT. Wagner declared that the “accumulated decay of 2,000 years had been supplanted by western civilization and standards” thanks to “the personal sacrifice of thousands of the best of the Jewish race.” He then asked, “Is all this to be swept away….Is the noble Jewish dream to be turned into a nightmare by the cowardly dagger of the assassin? The conscience of mankind cries to High Heaven that these shall not come to pass.” He reminded his audience that “the United States Government by appropriate resolution expressed its satisfaction” with the Zionist effort, thus implying a certain American responsibility to support it.[90] As we have seen, other opinion makers such as the CT and WP also identified the Zionist movement with the spread of civilization.

The Government’s Response

The pressure exerted in the form of these three arguments, applied consistently throughout late August and September 1929 and played out against the coverage and editorializing of the press, implied that the JNH was somehow an extension of U.S. national interests. And it was significant enough to make both President Hoover and Secretary of State Stimson take pains to explain and defend their position of non-intervention. For instance, President Hoover responded positively to a request for a statement to the Jewish protest meeting of 20,000 held at Madison Square Garden on August 29. In it he stated that he believed that the recent tragedy in the Holy Land would result in “greater security and greater safeguard for the future, under which the steady rehabilitation of Palestine as a true homeland will be even more assured.”[91] On the other hand, when Hoover received a Zionist delegation at the White House on August 27, he told them that he was “deeply concerned for the safety of all American citizens in Palestine” but that he felt “the British Government had taken strong and extensive measures for the restoration of order.”[92] Hoover also voiced his concern at the anti-British nature of American Jewish protests and indicated that he was determined to resist calls for U.S. intervention. He did not want to embarass the British in any way.[93] Secretary of State Stimson took a similar line. In his stock replies to the myriad letters and petitions the SD received, he assured the Zionists and their supporters that the SD had strongly urged the British to act vigorously in Palestine and had reminded them of their obligation to protect American lives and property, finishing the reply with assurances that the British were indeed doing just that. When approached directly by American Zionists seeking official support he rebuffed them.[94]

The government equally resisted pressure from the other direction. When a representative group of Arab Americans came to the SD on September 6 and presented Stimson with a petition calling on the United States to support “the revocation of the Balfour Declaration” and “the establishment of a National Representative Government” in Palestine, he rebuffed them also.[95] Equally important, the SD resisted Paul Knabenshue’ s efforts to promote a reinterpretation of the Mandate in a way that would limit the definition of the JNH while promoting a democratic and constitutional form of government. When, in 1930, Knabenshue made suggestions as to how this might be accomplished to Stewart Spencer Davis, the acting high commissioner in Palestine, he was pointedly reprimanded by the SD. He was told to “avoid being drawn into any discussions of the situation and scrupulously refrain from expressing an opinion to anyone whomsoever as to the possible position which this government might take” on any possible reinterpretation of the Mandate.[96]

The way the SD handled the 1929 situation, resisting both the entreaties of American Zionists, American anti-Zionists and its own consul general in Jerusalem, argues for a motive of avoiding “entanglements” rather than antisemitism or even ideologically driven anti-Zionism. On the one hand, the department was fully accepting of altruistic imperialism in the form of British-controlled Palestine. Here there was no great risk of entanglement, and U.S. interests were seemingly protected by treaty. On the other hand, the American Zionist vision of altruistic imperialism in Palestine solicited active U.S. government support. To the SD, that equaled entanglement, and therefore they sought to make a distinction between national interests and the JNH.[97] In the process they qualified their pro-imperialist way of seeing Palestine in a manner that the popular point of view, as expressed in the press, did not.

Yet because the American Zionists had the ear of a considerable number of senators and congressmen and were active in presenting their point of view to the press and all other interested parties, the SD never went beyond non-interventionist neutrality on this matter. To be sure, there was much grumbling against Zionism in the form of internal memos at the Division of Near Eastern Affairs.[98] However, in the 1920s, these complaints did not translate into active opposition to the JNH by the SD in its interactions with other branches of the U.S. government or with Britain.[99] For instance, there is no evidence of the Division seeking to shape or change public opinion on the issue of Zionism. And the documents suggest that the Division offered its opinion to Congress (where it might have exercised some influence if it had wished) only when asked. While Zionism was therefore certainly not equated by the SD with American national interests in Palestine, it was not actively campaigned against either. The SD simply sought to avoid any governmental commitment of open support.

CONCLUSION

In 1929 American popular opinion perceived Palestine in terms of a bipolar worldview that denigrated or ignored the indigenous population while asserting the notion of altruistic imperialism. Here the altruistic agent bringing good government, progress and modernity was the Zionist movement assisted by British imperialism.

This way of seeing was revealed in the U.S. press as it covered the 1929 Arab uprising. The coverage basically followed the American Zionist interpretation of events and revealed the fact that the American discourse describing and defining Palestine and the Zionist discourse were closely aligned. This discourse, as manifested in newspapers and other sources (as suggested in the telegrams, petitions and resolutions to be found in the SD’s file on the 1929 uprising) created a source of pressure on the government to identify the Zionist program as worthy of official support. Here American Zionists were able to add to the general arguments–the spread of civilization and Zionism’s similarity to the American pioneer spirit'[100]–the more specific ones of increasing involvement of American citizens and the rapid growth of American investment in Palestine. In other words, there was an ongoing effort urging that the JNH become identified with U.S. national interests in Palestine.

The State Department, holding to a policy of non-involvement, resisted all pressure to take sides in the internal conflicts of Palestine. This was true whether that pressure came from Zionists, anti-Zionists or the Department’s own consul general in Jerusalem. In the case of the Zionists, the SD resisted pressure because of its narrowly focused definition of national interest and the judgment that Zionism was not compatible with it. This produced a de facto competition between State and the Zionists over what really should constitute U.S. national interests in the Holy Land.

However, from a public-relations standpoint, only one side was active. The Zionists had long been promoting their views and, as this paper suggests, their efforts had established and built upon the compatibility of the Zionist interpretation of events in Palestine with the American way of seeing the non-Western world. One important result was a melding of the two views as expressed in the press coverage of the area. The SD, on the other hand, had operated in a much more insular fashion. The Department’s internal memos critical of Zionism should not be mistaken for an offensive posture. Rather the posture was defensive, seeking to hold off any official U.S. identification with the JNH.

There also is no evidence that State Department personnel understood the long-term significance of these contrasting postures. They did not realize that their narrow and static formulation of what constituted American national interests in Palestine was being successfully challenged in the public arena by a more dynamic pro-Zionist interpretation. As a consequence, the SD was increasingly out of touch with a politically important aspect of public opinion. Holding themselves aloof from popular attitudes on Zionism, those in the Division of Near Eastern Affairs held fast to a position that was to grow more and more politically untenable for their elected and appointed superiors. No doubt they would have argued that popular opinion should not define foreign policy, but this is naive. In a democracy, where so much is shaped by special interests, lobbying, financial support and manipulation of mass media, foreign-policy matters important to powerful interest groups could not, in the long run, be resolved solely by a government department out of sync with prevailing opinion.

As the world moved through the era of the European Holocaust, the popular American way of seeing Palestine would continue to be filtered through a Zionist lens. Aided by the contradictions of horror over genocide and fear of opening the immigration gates to the survivors, Americans would come more and more to agree that the U.S. government should lend official recognition and support to the notion of a Jewish National Homeland. Over time, the concepts of a bipolar world divided between the civilized and uncivilized, along with the notion of altruistic imperialism, would pass out of fashion, but the power of the Zionist discourse would prevail. In the increasingly media-centered world of twentieth-century America, the Zionist-press connection easily bested the State Department in shaping popular perceptions and transforming American national interests in Palestine.

[1] Some works that refer to this Western way of seeing are Norman Daniel, Islam and the West (Oxford: Oneworld Press, 1960); Albert Weinberg, Manifest Destiny (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1963); Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the Colonized (Boston: Beacon Press, 1965). See also Kearney Helen McCready. American Images of the Middle East, 1824-1924 (Ph.D. Diss.: University of Rochester, 1976) and Terry Brooks Hammons, “A Wild Ass of a Man”: American Images of Arabs to 1948 (Ph.D. Diss.: University of Oklahoma, 1978).

[2] The Washington Post (WP), February 11, 1921, p. 6.

[3] The New York Times (NYT), June 18, 1922, VI, p. 6.

[4] The Mandate system was described in the NYT as “a form of trusteeship by advanced nations on behalf of the entire civilized world.” See September I, 1929, IX, p. 4. For the text of the British Mandate for Palestine see NYT February 5, 1921, p. 11.

[5] The Los Angeles Times (LAT), August 22, 1922, II, p. 4.

[6] See Lawrence Davidson, “Historical Ignorance and Popular Perceptions of Palestine, 1917” in Middle East Policy, Vol. III, No. 2, 1994.

[7] See NYT April 5, 1922, p. 4, and Records of the Department of State, Record Group 59 (hereafter written RDS) 867n.01/199. See also I. Oder, The United States and the Palestine Mandate, 1920-1948 (Ph.D. Diss.: Columbia University, 1956), pp. 79, 83.

[8] See Mark Tessler, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), pp. 177, 179- 180. For the NYT consideration of Zionist labor practices see December 18, 1927, III, p. 8; January 2, 1928, p. 8; January 29, 1928, III, p. 6; January 20, 1929, III, p. 6.

[9] NYT January 20, 1929, III, p. 6. See also March 30, 1929, p. 17.

[10] NYT July 4, 1929, p. 5. See also January 11, 1929, p. 38 and March 10, 1929, p. 40.

[11] NYT January 20, 1929, III, p. 6. See also July 4, 1929, p. 5

[12] NYT January 20, 1929, III, p. 6.

[13] NYT April 7, 1929, X, p. 17. See also April 17, 1929, p. 26; May 1, 1929, p. 6; May 24, 1929, p. 16.

[14] NYT March 11, 1929, p. 31.

[15] NYT January 20, 1929, III, p. 6.

[16] WP August 30, 1922, p. 6.

[17] NYT August 11, 1925, p. 23.

[18] For examples of this characterization see: NYT July 5, 1920, p. 17; May 7, 1922, II, p. 7; June 11, 1922, VI, p. 7; December 28, 1924, II, p. 2; April 12, 1925, p. 2; August 11, 1925, p. 23; January 7, 1926, p. 25. WP February 11, 1921, p. 6; August 30, 1922, p. 6. LAT February 16, 1921, II, p. 4; August 22, 1922, II, p. 4; July 24, 1922, p. 4; September 28, 1922, II, p. 4. Chicago Tribune (CT) September 19, 1922, p. 8.

[19] LAT September 8, 1929, II, p. 4.

[20] NYT April 7, 1929, X, p. 17. [21] Melvin I. Urofsky, American Zionism From Herzl to the Holocaust (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), pp. 241-242.

[22] NYT January 13, 1929, III, p.

[23] See NYT September 7, 1929, p. 3; September 16, 1929, p. 18 and October 27, 1929, III, p. 2.

[24] See NYT September 8, 1929, p. 22; October 28, 1929, p. 12; October 27, 1929, II, p. 3; December 3, 1929, p. 12 and December 4, 1929, p. 9. For coverage of the Arab position at the Shaw Commission hearings see NYT November 1, 1929, p. 9 and November 29, 1929, p. 13.

[25] NYT August 4, 1929, II, p. 6. For other pieces by Levy see September 19, 1929, p. 6; November 1, 1929, p. 9 and November 4, 1929, p. 10.

[26] NYT April 12, 1925, p. 2.

[27] For a detailed discussion of the 1929 Arab uprising see Martin Kolinsky, Law, Order and Riots in Mandatory Palestine, 1928-35 (London: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), Chapters I through 6.

[28] NYT June 12, 1929, P 30.

[29] NYT August 18, 1929, p. 1.

[30] NYT September 3, 1929, p. 1, 20. See also NYT August 25, 1929, p. 1.

[31] LAT August 24, 1929, p. 1.

[32] LAT August 30, 1929, p. 1.

[33] CT August 25, 1929, p. 1.

[34] WP August 24, 1929, p. 4. See also article by William Shack, WP August 25, 1929, p. 10.

[35] These words were used to describe the Palestinian Arabs by Congressmen William Isovich in an August 26, 1929 telegram to the SD. Records of the Department of State Relating to the Internal Affairs of Turkey 1910-1929, Record Group 59 (hereafter written RDS), 867n.404WW/18.

[36] CT August 27, 1929, p. 14.

Continued here:
Jew Watch – Jewish World Conspiracies – zionism

Zionism

Posted By on March 30, 2016

ZIONISM (POLITICAL BOSS MAFIA) The Reign of Evil

[It is easy to see the Zionists control the world purely through their Gas Chambers Hoax. You couldn’t keep that quiet unless you had absolute power, ditto Israel connection to 911, Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Other evidence is Israel control of: the UK, USA (USA funding of Israel) & Australia, creation of Communism (Russia) & Communist Party of China (CPC), Anti-Semitism, Judaism (Anti Christianity), Catholicism, Jews and Hollywood, Jewish media control, Facebook, Wikipedia,Google, Jews and Freemasonry, Israel (Israel and Rothschilds, Mossad, Ashkenazi Jews), State Terror (911, USS Liberty, Paris Shooting, Entebbe, Sandy Hook, Yvonne Fletcher, 7/7 London bombings, Fake terrorists).]

See: Communism (Russia)Christopher Bollyn Illuminati Eustace Mullins Israel Joseph G. Burg Mossad Anti-Semitism Judaism

‘TROIKA OFTERROR – Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak, President ShimonPeres, andPrime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are pullingthe United States intowar withIran.Thesethree men arearchitectural level plannersof the 9/11 terrordeception; they are Israel’s “Troika of Terror”.’—[2011 Nov] Solving 9/11 to End the Zionist War Plan for Iran by Christopher Bollyn

Quotes Quote banners Anti-Semitism Israeli history quotes Symbols Zionist Auschwitz Hoax Zion Olympics Jews and Freemasonry Israel/Zionist control of UK government Israel/Zionist control of USA government Banners, cartoons, photos Israel connection to 911, Iraq and Afghanistan wars Jews in German army Nazi-Zionist co-operation Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion Gilad Atzmon

Religious Hagee, John

Zionists A-Z Aaronovitch, David Adelson, Sheldon Axelrod Almog Barak, Ehud Begin, Menachem Ben-Gurion, David Ben-Zvi, Yitzhak Biden, Joseph Cameron, David Chertoff Dershowitz Eitan, Rafi Emanuel, Rahm

Snake swallowing tail This is a Jewish New Year postcard, by artist Alain Roth in 1915. Amazingly revealing, the postcard image confirms the documentation found in the long controversial Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. In the protocols the Jewish Zionist conspiracy is described as a symbolic serpent encircling the world! As if to emphasize that this is the correct understanding, the writing in Hebrew at the bottom of this Jewish New Year postcard is the word “Leviathan.” The identity of Leviathan is revealed in Isaiah 27 as the serpent, or Satan. Have a Happy New Year, indeed! http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/codex_magica/codex_magica13.htm

A Comprehensive History of Zionist Crimes

Zionist Terror

ZIONISM. Britains royal family is 100% Jewish

Can We the People Save America from Destruction by World Zionists?

[2014 Nov] James Forrestal- Early Zionist Hit-Job?

[2014 May] Future Libyan President is Bronfman Son-in-Law

Hard Proof that Sandy Hook is a Zionist Plot

[2013 Feb] Sharon Feared Exposure of Israeli Genocide

[2013 Feb] Arch-Zionist gets top BBC strategy job From 2002 to 2004 James Purnell served as chairman of Labour Friends of Israel heading a Zionist lobby group, it would seem, is a prerequisite for high office in Britain. In December 2002 he paid a week-long visit to Israel, courtesy of Labour Friends of Israel. Upon his return to Britain he embarked upon an Israeli propaganda campaign aimed at persuading the British public that black is white and white is black i.e. that the Palestinian victims of the Israeli occupation are in fact the aggressors and that the Israeli occupiers, colonizers and oppressors of the Palestinians are, perversely, the innocent victims of the Palestinians.

[vid 2012 March] Israeli General’s Son on the Demise of the Zionist State

[2007] Defector: “Rothschilds Rule w/ Druid Witches” By Henry Makow Ph.D. “The Illuminati knows the people are going to find out about them …the best thing they can do is call your attention towards something else & say that’s that. So they have reflected the attention on Zionism.

[2004] Jewish Terror: The Story of Lord Northcliffe by Kevin Alfred Strom

[vid] THE NAZI ZIONIST PARTY AND THE HOLOCAUST Eustace Mullins explains connection between the NAtional socialists and ZIonists. The result is a NAZI Party. The transfer agreement: This book documents the agreement between Adolf Hitler and an organization of Zionist Jews in 1933, which made Hitler “the chief economic sponsor of the state of Israel”. A sweeping, worldwide economic boycott of Germany by Jews helped spur a deal between the Nazis and Zionists. At that time, there were few Jews in Palestine, but from 1933 through 1936, 60,000 German Jews immigrated into the region, bringing with them $100,000,000 dollars ($1.6 billion in 2009 dollars)

Faurisson, Professor Robert

Books The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock

Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World by Christopher Bollyn

The Thirteenth Tribe The Khazar Empire and its Heritage By Arthur Koestler

[2009] The Invention of the Jewish People, by Shlomo Sand

THE JEWISH GENOCIDE OF ARMENIAN CHRISTIANS By Christopher Jon Bjerknes

[1995] Final Judgment. The missing link in the JFK assassination conspiracy by Michael Collins Piper This work documents the strong likelihood that Israel used bullets to steal from the American people their right to have their own leader. JFK fought a bitter behind-the-scenes battle to thwart joint Israeli-Red Chinese nuclear bomb development. Only Zionists have held the power necessary to sustain a cover-up in America’s corrupt government and controlled national media

[1988] The Hidden History of Zionism by Ralph Schoenman

[pdf] The Hidden Tyranny, by Benjamin H. Freedman.

[1956] The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reeds

Lenni Brenner “Zionism in the Age of Dictators”

[1956] The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reeds

[2007] The Life of an American Jew in Racist, Marxist Israel by Jack Bernstein

[1962] Guilt and Fate by Joseph G. Burg Scapegoats by Joseph G. Burg Zionist Nazi Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany by Joseph G. Burg National Socialist Crimes of Bad Conscience by Germans Against Germans under Zionist Direction by Joseph G. Burg Major Attacks of Zionists against Pope Pius XII by Joseph G. Burg German Governments by Joseph G. Burg

External Zionism

Adolf Hitler – A puppet of International Jewry tasked with the destruction of Germany

The Nazi-Zionist Connection: The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler

Zionism and Nazism: Is there a difference that makes a difference?, by Roger Tucker

The Hidden History of Zionism By Ralph Schoenman

Americans are Rothschild Proxies in Iraq By Henry Makow Ph.D.(March 14, 2004)

The Zionist Roots of the “War on Terror” (November 18, 2002)

Zionists Made Deal with the Devil (November 4, 2002)

Zionism, Anti Semitism and American Democracy (September 24, 2002)

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org

Ssion (Cody Critcheloe)

Israel Zionism Celebrity sanitizing Psychopathy

Rolling Stones

Original post:
Zionism

Zionism = Racism – InterNLnet

Posted By on March 30, 2016

All nation states are founded on the nationalist belief that each nation has a specific claim to a specific territory. Nationalists can and do recognise other nations claims to other territories, but almost all make an exclusive claim to at least some territory. This claim is, by definition, an expression of group superiority. The members of the nation, according the nationalist movement in question, possess an inherently superior claim to the territory, purely by membership of the group. They do not have to do anything for it. The claim covers not only their claimed right to live there, but their claimed right to exclude others.

There is one exception to this pattern: the diaspora nationalism of the Roma. The Roma do not know exactly where their ancestral homeland is located. Therefore, in sharp contrast to other nationalist movements, Roma nationalism does not claim territory. And until they know where it is, Roma nationalists can not attempt to expel the existing inhabitants of that territory.

All existing nation states do make a claim of superior right to national territory. In all cases, this claim is made on behalf of a single ethnic group, or a cluster of ethnic groups (titular nation plus national minorities). That the groups are ethnic is the source of most of the racism in ideology and policy. If states were exclusively founded on gender, their ideology might be sexist, but not racist.

Conversely, all nation states claim that other groups do not possess that specific right to the territory in question. Irish nationalists believe that the ‘Irish people’ have a superior right to the island of Ireland, and that the Paraguayan people do not possess this right. They believe that individual Irishmen and Irish women are the bearers of this collective right, and that these individuals can not be denied the right to reside in Ireland. They they do not believe this about randomly selected individual Paraguayans. Ireland has no indigenous ethnic minorities so the definition of the nation is relatively simple. However these beliefs can be held on behalf of more than one national group, but never on behalf of all nations of the world – at least not in any existing nation state. The formal expression of these underlying beliefs is the citizenship and immigration policy of the nation states. Note that nothing stops Irish and Paraguayan nationalists from respecting each others claims, especially since they have no common disputed territory. However, that does not make their claims any less racist.

It is often said, that the nation states have widely differing conceptions of citizenship. In fact they all operate in conformity with these two principles of superior claim, and legitimate exclusion. All existing nation states share two other characteristics. No nation state has an absolute open-border policy (totally free immigration), and all nation states allow the acquisition of citizenship by descent.

These four characteristics allow Zionism to be considered racist – in the company of other nationalisms, including the quasi-official ideologies of each nation state.

The superior claim to national territory is the attribution of a superior quality to members of the national group. The denial of this claim to certain other ethnic groups is the attribution of an inferior status to their members. The lack of an open-door immigration policy means, that these claims are translated into real exclusion. Finally, the acquisition of citizenship by descent is a purely biological mechanism: it is racist in the general sense, but it is also closest to the biological ideologies first described by the term ‘racism’.

French and German attitudes are said to represent the extremes of citizenship policy, but in fact both states share a biological concept of citizenship. Both illustrate this core policy, despite their differences in emphasis. Germany has a generally restrictive immigration policy, which it relaxed in the 1960’s and 1970’s to allow labour migration for (West) German industry. The children of the many Turkish immigrants grew up in Germany as foreign citizens, with a Turkish passport and a German residence permit. Even the third generation, often born in Germany of German-born parents, usually speaking only German, were still Turkish citizens. If they committed a crime they were liable to be deported to Turkey, even if they did not speak a word of Turkish and had never been there before. Only in the last few years has naturalisation become almost automatic for the third generation. In contrast, descendants of Germans who settled in eastern Europe, sometimes two or three centuries ago, can arrive in Germany and claim full citizenship. It is not necessary that their parents are German citizens, and they are not required to speak a word of German. The German state will pay for their full integration in German society, because they are considered part of the German ‘Volk’.

French policies are based on different assumptions, about the effectiveness of French society in transferring its own core values. Living in France for a long period, or growing up in France, is considered to effectively assimilate the migrant or the child. (There is an underlying belief in the self-evident superiority of French values). Naturalisation is therefore easier, and in principle birth in France confers citizenship – but the parents must get there first, for the child to be born there.

However in both cases a basic rule applies, which undermines the French pretensions to have a ‘non-racist’ citizenship and nationality policy. The child born of citizens is a citizen. All existing nation states apply this principle, usually without regard to place of birth. The child born to a French-citizen mother and a French-citizen father, in Zambia, is a French citizen. The child born to a German-citizen mother and a German-citizen father, in Zambia, is a German citizen. No special procedure is required of either the parents or the baby, and no supplementary qualifications.

The child of Zambian parents, who have no German or French ancestors and no connection with Germany or France, can make no claim on the citizenship of these countries. Both doors are equally closed. That essential inequality is by definition racist. As an adult, the Zambian child can later try to enter either country, and acquire citizenship. That means going through a special procedure, and meeting certain norms, for instance on educational level. Ultimately, acquiring citizenship might be easier in France, but there is no guarantee there either.

This is the reality of nation states: most people got their citizenship from their parents, and they did nothing for it. They certainly did not have to cross the Strait of Gibraltar in a small boat, and spend 10 years picking tomatoes or cleaning toilets – which is what a Zambian might do to acquire legal residence in an EU country. In other words the average citizen, certainly in the richer countries, is complicit in a grand racist scheme. They benefit greatly from their privilege at birth, while others lose horribly. That is presumably why they don’t like to talk about the issue, but in terms of human suffering this is the worst aspect of the inherent racism of the nation states. If adults in a western city were arrested, and condemned on the basis of their ethnicity to the typical conditions of life in rural Africa, it would be considered a crime against humanity.

Zionism is a diaspora nationalism of the Jewish people. In a diaspora nationalism, most members of the national group are not resident on the claimed national territory, and the nation state can only be achieved by ‘return’ migration. Zionism is an unusual nationalism: it is largely the creation of a single individual, Theodor Herzl. He was the first to make a public claim to a Jewish State, and promoted that idea in Europe. His work reflected the general climate of nationalist revival movements in eastern Europe at the time, especially in the Austro-Hungarian empire. It was almost inevitable, that a Jewish movement would identify Jews as ‘a people’ when all around them Germans, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, and Hungarians were doing the same. The other historically possible options – a purely religious revival movement, and an emancipation movement – were side-tracked.

Zionism is also unusual because, in the early years, there was no clear idea of the national homeland. There was a clear territorial concentration of Jews in Europe, in what is now Poland, Belarus, the Ukraine and southern Russia. However, except for local concentrations, they were in a minority even in this territory. The idea of a Jewish nation state in eastern Europe was never influential in Zionism. Some of the early plans for Jewish resettlement were not even formally nationalist: they made no claim to a state. Resettlement in a British colony, such as Uganda, was for a time the most serious option. The negotiations came to nothing – but the idea influenced British policy, when Palestine became a British mandate territory, after the First World War.

By the time of the Balfour Declaration, Zionism was a standard nationalist movement. Zionists claimed to speak on behalf of a people, the Jewish people. They claimed a nation state for that people in Palestine, on the grounds that it was the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The ‘Jewish people’ for almost all Zionists was (and is) an ethno-national group – and not a religious community. A minority of religious Jews still opposes Zionism for religious reasons.

There is also no nationalist movement to establish a bi-national state on the former mandate territory of Palestine. Zionism is not such a movement, and the State of Israel does not claim to be a bi-national state. In this respect, Zionism is comparable to Czech nationalism or Slovak nationalism – not to Czechoslovak nationalism.. No Zionists call themselves Palestino-Jews or Judaeo-Palestinians. The State is called Israel, not Filastino-Israel or Israelo-Filastina

Within this framework, which includes contradictory ideas about Israeli citizenship, the four racist characteristics can be identified.

Firstly, the Zionist movement historically made a claim to territory on behalf of ‘the Jewish people’, an exclusive geopolitical claim. It claimed that individual Jews had a right to residence in that territory, which did not apply to randomly selected non-Jews outside that territory. None of the early Zionists advocated the ethnic cleansing, which in fact preceded the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 – but none of them believed that non-Jews had a right to the Jewish homeland either. Zionists attribute a superior quality to Jews, namely the exclusive right to the Jewish national territory. The State of Israel, by definition, claims Israeli territory for Israeli’s. It attributes a superior quality to Israeli’s, although paradoxically that includes the Arab minority with Israeli citizenship. However, the State of Israel is not ‘Israelist’ – in the sense of consistently presenting these claims for both its Jewish and Arab citizens. In official pronouncements, such as its defensive speech to the Durban anti-racism conference, Israel continues to claim state legitimacy as the national homeland for the ‘Jewish people’. It is therefore not correct to say, that in Israel Jewish diaspora nationalism has been succeeded by Israeli nationalism. The legitimising ideology of Israel is still largely Zionism, and not ‘Israelism’.

Secondly, Zionism attributes an inferior status to members of non-Jewish ethno-national groups: that they lack the absolute right to residence in the Jewish homeland, and to citizenship of a Jewish nation state. The State of Israel confers no right of residence or citizenship on persons born outside Israel, unless they have specific links to Israel, to the Jewish people, or to Judaism. That excludes about 99% of the world population. The only exception to the general pattern of nationalist exclusion is, that the State of Israel extends citizenship to the historically resident Arab minority. However, some groups in Israel dispute even their right to residence, and propose their expulsion as part of a ‘peace settlement’ – together with the expulsion of Palestinians from all or part of the occupied territories. According to a 2003 opinion poll in Israel (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies), 31% now support the expulsion of the Arab minority, and 46% support clearance of the territories.

The most obvious exclusion, which was not foreseen by the early Zionists, is the status of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Theodor Herzl never imagined that a Jewish state would be an occupying power, and therefore the de facto government, for a large non-Jewish population. In addition, about three million people belong to the clearly identifiable ‘Palestinian-refugee’ minorities, in other Arab countries, although most were born in their present country of residence. The State of Israel clearly attributes an inferior status to this population: namely that they do not possess the right to Israeli citizenship. This population is generally equivalent to the ‘Palestinian people’ in the occupied territories, although it includes small non-Jewish, non-Arab minorities. The members of this population, (primarily Palestinian), can not vote, for instance, and if they did all vote in Israeli elections, it would mean the end of the State of Israel. Again it is true that all nation states operate this exclusion, and none of them extend citizenship to everyone, certainly not to hostile populations. That does not make such policies any less racist, since the exclusions are by definition on ethnic or national grounds.

That would not matter so much, if Israeli borders were open to all immigrants: but they are not, and this is the third racist characteristic of Zionism. Israel has one of the highest immigration rates in history, but immigration policy has always been restrictive. Although Israel grants citizenship to the resident Arab minority, it does not permit Arab immigration, even by former residents of its territory. Only those who stayed in their villages in 1948 got Israeli citizenship: those who crossed the front line to the Arab side can not get back – not as a citizen, and probably not as a visitor. Other Arabs, who have no connection with Palestine, can not simply migrate to Israel, nor can most of the world’s population. Israeli immigration is essentially for Jews only, and this is the most obviously racist policy of present Zionism. In this case, the State of Israel has a formal and explicit policy of Jewish immigration, which is clearly Zionist. It is the logical consequence of the original Zionist demand for a Jewish state formed by migration, meaning migration of Jews.

In one respect Israeli policy differs from most national immigration policies: citizenship can be indirectly acquired on religious grounds. A person who converts to Judaism can be a Jew in the sense of the Israeli Law of Return, if the conversion is accepted as valid by religious authorities in Israel. The convert can then go to Israel (entry can not be legally refused), and can claim Israeli nationality and citizenship. Sometimes this is quoted by Israel’s supporters, to show Israel is not racist. In theory, all the inhabitants of the Palestinian territories can sincerely convert to Judaism tomorrow, and on acceptance of their conversion move to Israel. – where they will all presumably live as good and prosperous Israeli citizens. In practice this is absurdly unlikely. And the question is: why should they have to convert to Judaism, when native-born atheist or Buddhist Israelis can still be part of the Jewish people?

This is the fourth racist characteristic, equally present in the state policies of Israel and present Zionist belief. It was not very relevant for the early Zionists, who were too far from a Jewish state to think about its future citizenship policy. Nevertheless, it was predictable even at the time Herzl wrote, on the basis of the general characteristics of European nation states (and of the Austro-Hungarian empire where he lived). The child of an Israeli citizen mother and and Israeli citizen father is an Israeli citizen. (I am not sure if this applies to the children of Israeli Arabs, born in the occupied territories). The child acquires this privilege without effort: no application under the Law of Return, no conversion to Judaism, no other qualification for citizenship. The child simply acquires the rights (and duties) of an Israeli citizen through unconscious biological process. The child without this biological advantage (birth, or parentage, or genetic material) does not automatically acquire citizenship. Life in Israel is not always pleasant, and many western Jews hesitate to emigrate there, but within the region an Israeli-born child has the advantage. The child born to Israeli settlers in central Hebron will statistically live longer, be better educated, and have a higher standard of living, then the Palestinian child born in an adjoining house. This advantage is part of the general advantage of being born in a rich country, which about one-fifth of the world’s population share.

In citizenship and immigration issues, biology determines fate. Not inevitably, but because nation states are structured that way. There is no inherent moral reason why states should limit immigration, or residence, or citizenship, simply on grounds of birth. In fact, it is hard to think of any moral justification for it. It is clearly racist in the general sense of the word, and its derivation from the ideology of nationalism indicates the racist origins of that ideology. The nationalism underlying the nation state Israel, which is accurately called Zionism, is no different in this respect. Here too, Zionism is racist.

Follow this link:
Zionism = Racism – InterNLnet

Zionism Verses The Bible by Pastor Thomas Williamson

Posted By on March 30, 2016

Zionism Verses The Bible

Much of our Christian emphasis on foreign policy in the Middle East today is based on the promise that God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

The first half of this verse is a promise that God made to just one person, Abraham. The original Hebrew is in the second person singular, meaning that God is speaking only to Abraham. The King James Version correctly reflects this grammatical construction, since “thee” is singular, referring only to one person, whereas “ye” would refer to multiple persons.

Matthew Henrys commentary states of Genesis 12:3a that “This made it a kind of league, offensive and defensive, between God and Abram.”

Of the second half of the verse, Matthew Henry says, This was the promise that crowned all the rest; for it points to the Messiah, in whom all the promises are yea and amen. Note, (1), Jesus Christ is the great blessing of the world, the greatest that ever the world blessed with.”

Recently Genesis 12:3 has been spiritualized by Christian Zionist preachers, who say that this verse applies not just to Abraham, but also to Abrahams descendants, specifically to the modern state of Israel founded in 1948. Supposedly, it means that evangelical Christians as individuals, and America as a nation, are bound to provide unquestioning support, financial and otherwise, to the state of Israel. It is said that if America fails to back up Israel in every way possible, financially, militarily and otherwise, then God will be through with America and will have us nuked.

When it is pointed out that the various Arabs nations, including Palestine, are also descended from Abraham, the Christian Zionists say that the promise of Genesis 12:3 applies only to the descendants of Isaac (Of course, there is no mention of Isaac in Genesis 12:3. They often misquote the verse, saying it refers to “blessing Israel,” but Israel is not mentioned in the verse either).

Zionists say, based on their non-literal, speculative, spiritualized interpretation of Genesis 12:3, that we are to give total, unquestioned support to some of Abrahams children, while others of Abrahams children are to be hated, persecuted, ethnically cleansed, bombed back into the Stone Age, maybe even nuked.

But in Genesis 21:13, 17-18 God also bestows His blessing on Ishmael and his descendants, saying, “For I will make him a great nation.” According to the same principles of interpretation by which we have made Genesis 12:3 a command for political support of the modern nation of Israel, Genesis 21:18 must be taken as a command for political support of the modern Arab nations. (Anybody want to start up a “Christian Ishmaelist” movement to lobby for Arab national greatness?)

Christian Zionists claim to have 70,000,000 followers in America, who insists that our politicians render unquestioning obedience to the military and political agenda of the Israeli Government.

Does God really demand that we support all actions and activities of the Israeli Government, even if those actions violate Gods moral standards of righteousness?

It should be pointed out that even in Old Testament times, when Israel was a nation specially chosen by, and ruled over by, Jehovah, He did not expect His people to support and endorse all actions of the government of Israel.

When the Government of Israel committed human rights violations, the prophets openly condemned them, 2 Kings 6:21 23, 2 Chronicles 28:9-11, Nehemiah 5:7-11, Jeremiah 34:11-17, Amos 2:6-7, etc. Nowadays, liberal Jewish groups still protest human rights violations in Israel. Nevertheless, most fundamentalists Christians would never dream of doing such a thing it is against their religion. It is their duty to either deny that such violations take place, or else to endorse and commend such violations. We have been told that God will smite us if we disagree with anything that Israel does.

The lawgiver Moses commanded the Hebrews that they should not oppress the strangers or non-Jews in their lands, Exodus 12:49, 22:21, 23:9, Leviticus 19:33-34, 25:35, Deuteronomy 10:18-19, 23:7, 24:17, 27:19. That message, of course, is not mentioned today it is considered “politically incorrect.”

When King Ahab and Queen Jezebel unjustly expropriated the vineyard of Naboth, the prophet Elijah publicly denounced the kind for this unjust action, 1 Kings 21:17-24, Jehu cited this official action of the government of Israel against Naboth as justification for overthrowing that government, 2 Kings 9:25-26.

But nowadays, when the Israeli government expropriates the lands and properties of Palestinians without compensation, we look the other way and say nothing about it.

In Jeremiah 27:1-5, the prophet Jeremiah picketed a public meeting of the government of Judah with representatives of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon. He was protesting the foreign policy of Judah. We would never do anything like that today it would be considered a violation of the command to “bless Abraham.”

In Jeremiah 27:6-17, the prophet advocated the surrender of Israels territory to the King of Babylon, in return for peace today, we would call it “land for peace.” But today, our warmongering televangelists denounce “land for peace” as unthinkable for any reason whatsoever, and threaten Gods wrath against anyone who would support such a thing.

Supposedly it is better for Jewish and Arab children of Abraham to keep on killing each other over the land (while these sanctimonious war profiteers collect the money from sales of their Armageddon videos. Could it be a conflict of interest to allow American foreign policy to be dictated by these mega-millionaire preachers, who stand to make a profit if there is a war in the Middle East?)

We have seen that Gods inspired prophets did not meet the Christian Zionist standard of blind, unquestioning support for Israel. As it turns out, todays Christian Zionists do not meet that standard, either.

Whenever the modern Israeli government takes any action that does not fit in with the speculative doomsday scenarios of the Armageddon Theology, the Christian Zionists will loudly protest and insist that the Israelis are doing wrong.

For instance, in 1994 Christian Zionist leaders, including Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed, publicly condemned the policies of the Israeli government under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was seeking a peace settlement with the Palestinians. Robertson has also attacked the policies of Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres.

It seems hypocritical for Christian Zionists to threaten the wrath of God against those who express disagreement with any policy of the Israeli government when they have done the same thing themselves.

Modern-day Israelis and other Jews are well aware of the fact that the Christian Zionists believe, based on a mistaken interpretation of Zechariah 13:8, that there must be a devastating war in the Middle East in which two-thirds of all the Jews will be slaughtered. It is commonly understood that the Christian Zionists do not really care about what is best for the Jews, as evidenced by their constant lobbying efforts to stir up World War III in the Middle East. Million Jews may wind up dead, but it will be good for sales of the Armageddon videos that are peddled on the televangelists broadcasts and web-sites.

This raises the question who is really “blessing Israel;” those who are working for peace in the Middle East, or those who are agitating for a war designed to get two-thirds of all Jews wiped out?

Some gullible evangelical Christians may not understand these issues, but our Jewish friends understand what is at stake very well they are being prepared to serve as cannon fodder for the next Holocaust.

Gershom Gorenberg, in his book “The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount,” says, “Ive listened to.American evangelical ministers who insist on their deep love for Israel and nevertheless eagerly await apocalyptic battles on Israels soil so terrible that the dry river bed will, they predict, fill with rivers of blood.”

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, has stated that “People who say there can be no peace are not really friends of Israel.”

Robert O. Freedman, political science professor at Baltimore Hebrew University, says concerning Christian Zionists, “Once you get in bed with them, you are, to a certain extent, subscribing to their view of what America ought to be. And that, in my view, is not in the best interests of the Jewish people.”

Former Shin Bet secret chief Carmi Gillon and former police commissioner Assaf Hefetz, commenting on the activities of Temple Mount extremists who are financially supported by fundamentalist Americans, warned that an attack on the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem “would lead to an all-out war and unleash destructive forces that would imperil Israels existence.”

The eagerness of some televangelists, to get a war going in the Middle East (along with their vociferous Arab-bashing and Muslim-baiting), must be considered in context of their belief in the infamous Armageddon Theology, which insists that 2/3 of all the Jews must die.

Grace Halsell, in her book “Prophecy and Politics” observed: “Convinced that a nuclear Armageddon is an inevitable event within the divine scheme of things, many evangelical dispensationalists have committed themselves to a course for Israel that, by their own admission, will lead directly to a holocaust indescribably more savage and widespread than could have generated in Adolf Hitlers criminal mind.”

American Christians who really want to be a blessing to all the children of Abraham (Jews and Arabs) need to realize that they do not have to render blind, knee-jerk support to the most extremist elements of Zionism, or to those who are actively trying to foment massive wars in the Middle East that would be contrary to the interests of the Israeli people. Not everyone is going to agree that stirring up a war to get 2/3 of all Jews killed is a good thing for the Jews.

Nor should we forget that our Prime Directive as Christians is found in the Great Commission. Our mission is to evangelize, baptize and teach, not to try to hasten Christs coming by agitating war and violence in the Middle East.

Zionism is based on a total misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches. It is true that God gave Palestine to Hebrews in ancient times. But the Bible teaches that their possession of the land was under a conditional covenant with Jehovah. If the Hebrews disobeyed their God, they would lose the land. This is clearly taught in Genesis 17:9-14, Exodus 19:4-5, Leviticus 26:40-45, Deuteronomy 7:12, Joshua 23:15-16, 1 Kings 9:6-9, 2 Chronicles 7:19-22, Jeremiah 34:12-22, Ezekiel 33:23-29, Matthew 21:43, etc.

When the Jews rejected their Messiah, God sent the Romans to dispossess the Jews from their land in 70 AD. This was Gods complete punishment on the Jews for crucifying Christ therefore, the Jews today should not be persecuted for something that happened 2000 years ago. However, their former title deed on the land of Palestine is not abrogated.

The New Testament teaches that Christians are to focus on the heavenly Jerusalem, not the earthly one, John 4:21, Galatians 4:24-28, Hebrews 12:18-24. We are told in Hebrews 11:13-16 that even Abraham has no further interest in a restored Jewish state on earth, because he is in a much better place in heaven.

Christian Zionism is a movement that claims to be based on the Bible, but as we have seen, it is actually contrary to what the Bible teaches. All Christians should repudiate Zionism and should work for a peace settlement in the Middle East that will be of mutual benefit to Abrahams Jewish and Arab children in Palestine.

Mr. Thomas Williamson is an ordained Baptist minister who lives in Chicago, Illinois. He contributes to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from time to time. END

2002 Thomas Williamson

DNA studies confirm that 97% of people who call themselves Jews, ARE NOT descendents of Abraham.

In 2001, Dr. Ariella Oppenheim, a biologist at Hebrew University, published the first extensive study of DNA and the origin of the Jews. Her research found that virtually all the Jews came from Khazar blood.

The newest DNA research science from Dr. Eran Elhaik and associates at the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, has confirmed that:

The various groups of Jews in the world today DO NOT share a common genetic origin, and their genome is largely Khazar.

In fact, DNA research shows that the Palestinians actually have more Israelite blood than do the Khazar Jews!

These DNA research results should cause you to question everything you know about modern day Jews and the state of Israel.

Today theyre called Ashkenazi Jews, but they are a Jew by religion, not by blood. Most of them have Turkish-Mongol DNA.

The 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. XI p 533, stated that probably 95% of the persons included in these estimates of Jewish populations are Ashkenazim.

The 1973 Jewish Encyclopedia documents that approximately 90% of the worlds so-called Jews are Khazar. A. N. Poliak, Professor of Medieval Jewish History at Tel Aviv University, says that the majority of Eastern European Jews are Khazar and Japhetic in origin, not Semitic. Immigration statistics indicate approximately 90% of the worlds so-called or self-styled Jews living in 42 countries of the world are emigrants of Eastern European Khazar Jews.

Jesus words that Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles are confirmed, as 97% of the so-called Jews in Israel are Gentiles.

To read a more in-depth study about this, click on Jews Who Are Not Jews.

Since theyre not the descendents of Abraham, then they dont have a right to the land or to persecute the Palestinians, who they kicked off of the land. And Christians should not support them.

Babylonian Talmud is Satanic!

Their Babylonian Talmud is anti-Christ and anti-Christian. The Ashkenazi Jewish leaders believe that their Babylonian Talmud supersedes the Bible in authority, and it says blasphemous things such as:

– Jesus is in hell, being boiled in hot excrement. Gittin 57a – Jesus mother was a whore who played the harlot with carpenters. Shabbath 104b – Christians are allied with hell, and Christianity is worse than incest. Abodah Zara 17a – Just the Jews are humans, the non-Jews are no humans, but cattle. Kerithuth 6b

Since their Babylonian Talmud is clearly anti-Christ and anti-Christian, Christians should not support them.

Jewish Kaballah is Witchcraft, A Substitute for the Gospel

The Egyptian Kaballah is based on witchcraft and astrology. The false religion was birthed when the Jews were held captivity in Babylon. Gershow Scholem (1897-1982), Professor of Kabbalah at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said that the Kabbalah contains a great deal of black magic and sorcery, to invoke the powers of devils to disrupt the natural order.

Since their Egyptian Kaballah is based on witchcraft and astrology, which God forbids, Christians should not support them. Kaballah teaches that there are 125 levels of enlightenment, which can only be gained through studying Kaballah. To ascend to the top means to attain godhood, which is what the serpent promised to Eve if she ate the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:5-7). Kaballah is a New Age religion, intended to keep men Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2nd Timothy 3:7).

6-Sided Jewish Star of David is An Occult Symbol

The six-sided star on their flag represents 666 and Satan. King David never used a star, so thats just a lie to cover what it really represents. Solomon fell away from God and he built altars to and worshiped false gods, such as Ashtoreh and Remphran. He used the star in his seal as a symbol of protection. It is the supreme symbol of satanic tyranny against God and humanity, and has long been used in Egypt and Babylon magic, occultism, witchcraft and the casting of zodiacal horoscopes by astrologers.

The 6 points, 6 triangles, and the 6 sides of the hexagram = 666!

The hexagram is on the flag of Israeli, because the Satan-led, Jesuit-controlled, Rothschild family, owns and controls Israel. Since the hexagram on their flag represents 666 and Satan, it identifies Israels Ashkenazi Jewish leaders as antichrist, and Christians should not support them.

Remember, the coming Beast (the Antichrist) is coming to Jerusalem!!! 2nd Thessalonians 2:4, Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Jew Not Mentioned in Book of Revelation

Jesus doesnt mention the Jews or the state of Israel, in His book of Revelation.

As much as Pastors talk about the Jews, the city of Jerusalem and the state of Israel, the fact is that in Jesus words to us in the book of Revelation:

He only references people called Jews, to tell us that they are NOT Jews. Rev 2:9, 3:9 He calls the city of Jerusalem, spiritual Sodom and Egypt. Rev. 11:8 The other references are to the New Jerusalem that descends from heaven Revelation 7:4 refers to 144,000 (12,000 from each of the 12 tribes) being sealed for God, but the tribe of Judah (Jews) is only one of those tribes.

12,000 Jews is a fraction of the current population of 17 million worldwide.

Because Jesus doesnt tell us to focus on the physical Jews or Israel, we should stay focused on supporting spiritual Jews, our family in Jesus.

Marching To Zion | 2 | 3 | 4 (100% truthful video documentary exposing the evils of Zionism)

Revelation 17:18, And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Here is the original post:
Zionism Verses The Bible by Pastor Thomas Williamson


Page 21234..1020..»