QUOTES ARCHIVE
"The Jews of North African origin are strongly attached to Israel, don't hide their ethnic affiliation and don't fear a charge of 'dual loyalty' to both France and Israel. The young generation doesn't bow to the old French Jewish model of being French first and Jewish later, and aren't embarrassed about showing a 'communitarian' preference for a particular political candidate."—JTA, "French Jews Favor Conservative", The Jewish Week, www.thejewishweek.com, http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13926, (20 April 2007).
"Active Canadian Jews, I have observed, live with a completely different dynamic. They're proud of their Canadian citizenship, but don't have a deep sense of Canadian national identity. Their national identity is ebulliently Jewish, belonging to the Jewish nation."—Gary Wexler, "US Jews can learn from the Canadian community", The Jerusalem Post www.jpost.com, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879238105&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull, (3 April 2007).
"SUBSIDIZING THE REFUGEE CAMPS
Senator GORE. Mr. Secretary, I realize that we do not have power, as Senator Symington has punctuated, to give instructions and directions there.
There is one problem, it seems to me, about which we can have a say, and that is continued subsidization of this refugee camp. I went there ten years ago and found it an impossible situation in which they have continued all the while to feed and clothe, support those people, and there are some 200,000 more than when they went into the camp. So surely we can have something to say about no longer continuing to subsidize this.
Secretary RUSK. Well, that constitutes some pressure on the Arabs. It does not constitute any pressure on Israel.
Senator GORE. Well, Israel has taken over some of them, in the Gaza Strip and also in Jordan. They are now claiming sovereignty. So it seems to me it might be a pressure on both.
Secretary RUSK. Well, I do think that the refugee matter should be raised and looked at wholly anew in connection with a settlement of this present situation.
Senator GORE. The point I am trying to make is this is one subject on which we can have a say, and that is how long we are going to continue to pay a very heavy cost of these refugees if they are not dispersed into the countryside.
Secretary RUSK. Well, I do not want to underestimate influence in this situation, but I just want to point out that it is not necessarily decisive when you are talking with countries about what they consider the life and death issues for them.
TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR DONATIONS TO ISRAEL
Senator HICKENLOOPER. Do we not give tax forgiveness for moneys contributed to Israel, which is rather unusual? We could stop that.
Secretary RUSK. I believe contributions to the UJA are tax exempt, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. That is right.
The only country. Do you think you have the votes in the Senate to revoke that?
Senator CASE. Are you in favor yourself?
Senator HICKENLOOPER. I think we ought to treat all nations alike.
Senator CASE. That is correct. But are you in favor of it?
Senator HICKENLOOPER. As long as we do not give it to other nations, I do not——
The CHAIRMAN. The trouble is they think they have control of the Senate and they can do as they please.
Senator SYMINGTON. What was that?
The CHAIRMAN. I said they know they have control of the Senate politically, and therefore whatever the Secretary tells them, they can laugh at him. They say, 'Yes, but you don't control the Senate.''
Senator SYMINGTON. They were very anxious to get every Senator they could to come out and say we ought to act unilaterally, and they got two, three.
The CHAIRMAN. They know when the chips are down you can no more reverse this tax exemption than you can fly. You could not pass a bill through the Senate.
Senator HICKENLOOPER. I do not think you could.
The CHAIRMAN. Changing that tax exemption contribution to the UJA. I would bet you ten to one you could not begin to pass a bill You do not believe they could under any circumstances.
Senator SYMINGTON. A bill to do what?
The CHAIRMAN. To revoke the tax exemption of gifts to the UJA. That is one of their major sources of income. You yourself have pointed out the money they paid for the French arms they got from the U.S.
Senator SYMINGTON. Each year the money we give annually for this is less than 1 percent of the cost of Vietnam.
The CHAIRMAN. I agree with that.
Senator HICKENLOOPER. There you go.
U.S. CONTRIBUTIONS PAY THE ISRAELI ARMS
The CHAIRMAN. But you know very well, you said yourself, that the arms they buy from France are largely paid for by contributions that come from this country.
Senator SYMINGTON. Because we would not sell it to them, so instead of selling them the arms——
Senator GORE. Has the President recommended that this be repealed?
The CHAIRMAN. No, he has not. I do not wish to make the point except the Secretary is quite correct when he says his leverage on Israel is very limited because of the political situation.
Senator HICKENLOOPER. I am sorry I brought it up.
Secretary RUSK. I did not say it.
The CHAIRMAN. If you did not say it, you do not disagree with it anyway.
Secretary RUSK. I think it should be pointed out though on this tax exempt matter that there are many other organizations, institutions, that would fall into the same principle, private foundations in their expenditures abroad, churches, the voluntary agencies; there are very large sums of money going to foreign countries that are tax exempt in this country as the origin.
Senator HICKENLOOPER. I do not think it is analogous.
Senator GORE. It is tax deductible; you said tax exempt.
Secretary RUSK. Except the organizations are exempt. Contributions to them are tax deductible.
Senator COOPER. I suggest—it is possible after this that Israel may ask that this be removed as a sign of showing they are not absolutely dependent on the U.S."—"BRIEFING ON THE MIDDLE EAST SITUATION, Friday, June 9, 1967, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC.", Executive Sessions of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Together with Joint Sessions with the Senate Armed Services Committee (Historical Series), Volume XIX, Ninetieth Congress, First Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., (1967/2006), pp. 705-728, at 710-712.
"History has shown that progress is possible only if the United States of America assumes its historic role as honest broker between Israel and Palestine[.] We cannot be peacemakers if American government leaders are seen as knee-jerk supporters of every action or policy of whatever Israeli government happens to be in power at the time."—Jimmy Carter, Thirty-Ninth President of the United States of America, as quoted by Paul Kita, "Awards Ceremony Offers Carter Prize, Platform for His Opinions", info Zine www.infozine.com, http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/22062/, (6 April 2007).
"The American friends of Israel who demand such subservience are in many cases sincere and well-intentioned people. I know them. But on this crucial issue, they are tragically mistaken. Their demands subvert America's ability to bring to Israel what she most desperately needs and wants -- peace and security within recognized borders."—Jimmy Carter, Thirty-Ninth President of the United States of America, as quoted in, "US cannot be Mideast peacemaker as "knee-jerk" supporter of all Israeli", Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) www.kuna.net.kw, http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1721738&Language=en, (4 April 2007).
"It's almost politically suicidal in the United States for a member of the Congress who wants to seek reelection to take any stand that might be interpreted as anti-policy of the conservative Israeli government, which is equated, as I've seen it myself, as anti-Semitism."—Jimmy Carter, Thirty-Ninth President of the United States of America, in an interview on, "This week with George Stephanopoulos," ABC, as quoted by Yitzhak Benhorin, "Balanced stand on ME is political suicide, says Carter", www.ynetnews.com, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3369679,00.html, (26 February 2007).
"The Islamic Republic of Iran seeks good neighborly relations with all the surrounding states, and it desires establishment of sustainable peace, friendship and tranquility in the region, particularly in the Persian Gulf."—Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, as quoted in "Iran Seeks Peace, Stability in Persian Gulf", Fars News Agency www.farsnews.ir, http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8511220267, (11 February 2007).
"That Iran is willing to threaten Israel is wrong[. . . .] We pose no threat and if we are conducting nuclear research and development we are no threat to Israel. We have no intention of aggression against any country. [. . .] Today we announce to you that the political will of Iran is aimed at the negotiated settlement of the case and we don't want to aggravate the situation in our region[. . . .] We know that this issue can be settled in a constructive dialogue and we welcome that."—Ali Larijani, Iranian Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and Chief Iranian Nuclear Negotiator, as quoted in Associated Press, "Iran negotiator: Nuclear program 'no threat to Israel'", http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/11/iran.israel.ap/, (11 February 2007).
"Repeatedly and frankly we have announced that in Iran's national security doctrine there is no room for atomic and chemical weapons as we consider them against Islamic laws. Iran's Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei) in this connection had issued a decree that mass destruction weapons are prohibited by the Muslim religion. [. . .] Therefore we support the idea of a Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction[.]"—Ali Larijani, Iranian Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and Chief Iranian Nuclear Negotiator, as quoted in "'No room for WMDs in Iran's national security doctrine,' says Larijani", Islamic Republic News Agency, http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/line-203/0702111128162815.htm, (11 February 2007).
"We are committed not to launch aggression on any country and defend ourselves in the face of any aggression."—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, as quoted in "IR calls for promotion of peace", Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting www.iribnews.ir, http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=231222&n=22, (11 February 2007).
"We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations . . . the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way[. . . .] The legitimate use of force can only be done by the United Nations, which cannot be replaced by EU or NATO[. . . .] The unilateral illegal action has not resolved any problem. [. . .] [N]obody feels secure anymore[. . . .] We should not corner Iran into a hostile environment[.]"—Vladimir Putin, Second President of the Russian Federation, as quoted in Mu Xuequan, Editor, "Russia differences with West obvious at Munich conference", China View www.chinaview.cn, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-02/10/content_5724866.htm, (10 February 2007).
"1 Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples mutter in vain? 2 The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against His anointed: 3 'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.' 4 He that sitteth in heaven laugheth, the Lord hath them in derision. 5 Then will He speak unto them in His wrath, and affright them in His sore displeasure: 6 'Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.' 7 I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.' 10 Now therefore, O ye kings, be wise; be admonished, ye judges of the earth. 11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. 12 Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. Happy are all they that take refuge in Him."—The Jewish book of Psalm 2 [version of the Jewish Publication Society]"
Chapter 1, Article 1, Paragraphs 1 & 2:
"1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 4:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Chapter 6, Article 33, Paragraphs 1 & 2:
"1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means."
"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
"Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
a. Crimes against peace:
i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (I)."
"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."—Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg Tribunal, quoted in Curtis Doebbler, "A Farce of Law: The Trial of Saddam Hussein", Jurist: Legal News & Research, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/farce-of-law-trial-of-saddam-hussein.php, (24 April 2006).
"More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today. [***] Hard-liners are alarmed that American intelligence underestimated the pace and scale of Iraq's nuclear program before Baghdad's defeat in the gulf war. Conscious of this lapse in the past, they argue that Washington dare not wait until analysts have found hard evidence that Mr. Hussein has acquired a nuclear weapon. The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom Cloud."—Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller, "Threats and Responses: The Iraqis; U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts", The New York Times, (8 September 2002 / Late Edition — Final), p. 1.
"It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable[.] [***] The Lord shall return the Arabs' deeds on their own heads, waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them and vanish them from this world[.]"—Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, as quoted in BBC News, "Rabbi calls for annihilation of Arabs", www.news.bbc.co.uk, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1270038.stm, (10 April 2001).
"And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:"—The Jewish book of Deuteronomy 7:2.
"'U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons,' the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. 'In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table.' Clinton spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the largest pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee."—The Associated Press, quoting United States Senator Hillary Clinton, "Sen. Clinton: We must not permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons", www.haaretz.com,http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/821284.html, (2 February 2007).
"With American-Iranian tensions mounting, Democratic presidential contenders are facing a daunting political challenge: how to speak out against Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons in a way that appeals to pro-Israel supporters without alienating the party's overwhelmingly anti-war rank and file."—Jennifer Siegel, "Crisis Over Iran Poses Political Headaches For Democratic Presidential Hopefuls", The Jewish Daily Forward, http://www.forward.com/articles/crisis-over-iran-poses-political-headaches-for-dem/, (2 February 2007).
"While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran."—Forward Staff, "Groups Fear Public Backlash Over Iran", The Jewish Daily Forward, http://www.forward.com/articles/groups-fear-public-backlash-over-iran/, (2 February 2007).
"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly. We – it makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm. And so we will do what it takes to protect our troops.
One of the things that is very important in discussing Iran is not to mix issues. Our relationship with Iran is based upon a lot of different issues. One is what is happening in Iraq. Another is their ambitions to have a nuclear weapon. And we're dealing with this issue diplomatically, and I think this can be solved diplomatically. And the message that we are working to send to the Iranian regime and the Iranian people is that you will become increasingly isolated if you continue to pursue a nuclear weapon.
The message to the Iranian people is that your government is going to cause you deprivation. In other words, you've got a chance to really flourish again as a great tradition. However, if your government continues to insist upon a nuclear weapon, there will be lost opportunity for the Iranian people. They won't be able to realize their full potential.
The Iranian people have got to know that this government and the United States bears no hostility to them. We're just deeply concerned about a government that is insisting upon having a nuclear weapon, and at the same time, rewriting history – the history of the past, and regards, for example, the Holocaust. It troubles a lot of people in this world, and I'll continue to work with, you know, friends and allies to send a clear message."—George W. Bush, Forty-Third President of the United State of America, "Full Transcript: NPR Interview with President Bush", www.npr.org, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7065633, (29 January 2007).
"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons — not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct — were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax — enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin — enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them — despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages — leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal — Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)
Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.)
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.
We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means — sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military — and we will prevail. (Applause.)
And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies — and freedom. (Applause.)
Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country.
Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.
Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.)
We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know — we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.
May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)"—George W. Bush, Forty-Third President of the United State of America, "State of the Union Address", (28 January 2003).
"'The State of Israel will not allow the world to avoid a confrontation with a country calling for the destruction of Israel,' Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday during the weekly cabinet meeting. [***] 'Anti-Semintism is the gentiles' problem, not the Jews', it is the gentiles' disease, not ours. As long as there is anti-Semitism in the world, the world will be sick,' Vice Premier Shimon Peres said."—Ynetnews, www.ynetnews.com, "World can't avoid confrontation with Iran, PM says", http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10486.htm, (28 January 2007).
"More important still, during all that period and to the present time, it was not possible freely to report or discuss a third vital matter: Zionist Nationalism. In this case the freedom of the press has become a fallacy during the past two decades. Newspaper-writers have become less and less free to express any criticism, or report any fact unfavourable to this new ambition of the Twentieth Century. When I eventually went to America I found that this ban, for such it is in practice, prevailed even more rigidly there than in my own country.
Today an awakening is supposed to have occurred in the matter of Communism. During the most fateful and decisive years of the Second War, when the things were being done which obviously set the stage for a third one, it was in fact almost impossible for any independent writer to publish any reasonable criticism, supported by no matter what evidence, about Soviet Communism and its intentions. Now, when the damage is done, Communism is much attacked, but even so the mass of Communist writers who were planted in the American and British press during those years has by no means been displaced; and the attentive newspaper-reader in either country may see for himself how the most specious Communist sophistries are daily injected into the editorial arguments and the news-columns of newspapers professing the most respectable principles.
In the matter of Zionist Nationalism, which I hold to be allied in its roots to Soviet Communism, the ban is much more severe. In my own adult lifetime as a journalist, now covering thirty years, I have seen this secret ban grow from nothing into something approaching a law of lese majeste at some absolute court of the dark past. In daily usage, no American or British newspaper, apparently, now dares to print a line of news or comment unfavourable to the Zionist ambition; and under this thrall matters are reported favourably or non-committally, if they are reported at all, which if they occurred elsewhere would be denounced with the most piteous cries of outraged morality. The inference to me is plain: the Zionist Nationalists are powerful enough to govern governments in the great countries of the remaining West!
I believe Zionist Nationalism to be a political movement organized in all countries, which aims to bring all Jews under its thrall just as Communism enslaved the Russians and National Socialism the Germans. I hold it to be as dangerous as both of those, and when I recall the results that came of the subtle suppression of information in the cases of Stalinism and Hitlerism, I judge that the consequences of this even more rigorous suppression will not be less grave.
I think it a cardinal error to identify 'Jews' with Zionist Nationalism, 'Russians' with Communism, or 'Germans' with National Socialism. I saw the enslavement of Germans and Russians and know different. I believe that the astonishingly powerful attempt to prevent any discussion of Zionist Nationalism by dismissing it as the expression of an aversion to Jews, as Jews, is merely meant to stop any public discussion of its objects, which seem to me to be as dangerous to Jew as to Gentile. Of the three groups which have appeared, like stormy petrels, to presage the tempests of our century, the Zionist Nationalists appear to me the most powerful. National Socialism, I think, was but a stooge or stalking horse for the pursuit of Communist aims. Communism is genuinely tigerish, and was strong enough to infest governments everywhere and distort the policies which were pursued behind the screen of military operations; but, if forced into a corner by the rising unease of their peoples, Western politicians are prepared in the last resort to turn against it.
But Zionist Nationalism! . . . That is a different matter. Today American Presidents and British Prime Ministers, and all their colleagues, watch it as anxiously as Muslim priests watch for the crescent moon on the eve of Ramadan, and bow to it as the faithful prostrating themselves in the mosque at Mecca. The thing was but a word unknown to the masses forty years ago; today Western politicians hardly dare take the seals of office without first, or immediately afterwards, making public obeisance towards this strange new ambition."—Douglas Reed, Somewhere South of Suez, Devin-Adir, U. S. A., (1951), pp. 8-10.
"'Death to Arabs' was just one of the hateful messages left by Jewish settlers on Muslim graves after a destructive rampage on a cemetery and village near Nablus Tuesday."—Ronny Shaked, "Settlers defile Palestinian graves under IDF watch: Jewish settlers desecrate graves, wreak havoc in Palestinian village", www.ynetnews.com, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356741,00.html, (25 January 2007).
VIDEO: Now Playing: Gov. Romney Concludes Remarks on Iran Threat
"Israeli billionaire and media mogul Haim Saban is at the top of the list of donors to political campaigns in the US."—Itamar Eichner, "Israeli billionaire Saban biggest donor to US politicians", www.ynetnews.com, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355786,00.html, (23 January 2007).
"Republican US presidential aspirant Mitt Romney summed up the sentiment of four US presidential hopefuls who addressed the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference over the last two days by saying, 'Iran must be stopped, Iran can be stopped, and Iran will be Stopped.' [***] Another Republican hopeful, Sen. John McCain, said the US should 'intensify' its military support for Israel to ensure that the country maintained it strategic edge over those who were bent on destroying it, such as Iran. [***] Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Edwards, meanwhile, said by video conference that stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons 'is the greatest challenge of our generation.'"—Herb Keinon and Tovah Lazaroff, "US politicians rip Iran in Herzliya", The Jerusalem Post, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1167467797900&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull, (23 January 2007).
"New York's junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is expected to snare the lion's share of the Jewish community's substantial political donations in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination."—E. J. Kessler, "Hillary the Favorite in Race for Jewish Donations", The Jewish Daily Forward, http://www.forward.com/articles/hillary-the-favorite-in-race-for-jewish-donations/, (23 January 2007).
"The Israeli people are facing the threat of a nuclear Holocaust, former US Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich warned the Herzliya Conference held by the Institute for Policy and Strategy at IDC Herzliya on Tuesday afternoon. Meanwhile, he said, the United States could lose a few million people or a number of cities to a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction."—Yaakov Lappin, "Israel faces nuclear Holocaust warns Gingrich", www.ynetnews.com, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3356103,00.html, (23 January 2007).
"Former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney laid out a five-point plan for preventing Iran from going nuclear at the Herzliya Conference in Israel today."—Campaign Confidential, "Iran Hawk: Mitt Romney", The Jewish Daily Forward, http://www.forward.com/blogs/campaign-confidential/iran-hawk-mitt-romney/, (23 January 2007).
"John Edwards[. . .] sounded Joe Lieberman-like on Iran[. . . .]"—Jennifer Siegel, "Iran Hawk: John Edwards", The Jewish Daily Forward, http://www.forward.com/blogs/campaign-confidential/iran-hawk-john-edwards/, (23 January 2007).
"Extolling the ideals of socialist thinker Karl Marx, Chavez defended his government's effort to establish a socialist model and rejected US concerns over a measure to grant him broad lawmaking powers, saying: 'Go to hell, gringos! Go home!' [***] The National Assembly, controlled by the president's political allies, is expected to give final approval this week to what it calls the 'enabling law,' which would grant Chavez authority to pass a series of laws by decree during an 18-month period."—Associated Press, "Chavez tells US to 'go to hell' in talk-show", The Jerusalem Post, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467784737&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull, (22 January 2007). See also: "Enabling Act" or Ermaechtigungsgesetz for a comparison to Adolf Hitler.
"[. . .]First of all, I would have no peace treaty with Syria. That's number one. If Syria really wants peace, if they want peace, see number one, they have to give up land. They have to give up everything up to Damascus. I don't want this Damascus, it's a smelly, stinky place. That I don't need. It's one big toilet. But up to Damascus, I'll take. And Syria has to behave itself, and has to kill out all the terrorists and Hezbullah. It's never gonna happen, but in order for anyone to have peace with Israel they have to give up land. And if Syria will kill terrorists, and give up land, so then we'll promise peace with Syria, and we won't smash their heads in. How does that sound? We won't smash the heads of the diaper heads, we won't smash the pamper heads, we won't smash the huggies heads. That's what I say. . . That's my peace. [. . .]"— Tovia Singer on Israel National Radio, http://www.israelnationalradio.com/Asx/tovias-tu-2.asx, http://www.israelnationalradio.com/#tovia, (16 January 2007 / Hour 2).
"The main umbrella group of American Jewish organizations is set to visit Dubai and Abu Dhabi next month in a sign of the growing concern among Sunni regimes over Iran's nuclear and regional ambitions. The trip, by a delegation from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to the main power centers of the United Arab Emirates, is notable because the Sunni-majority UAE does not have formal diplomatic ties with Israel."—Marc Perelman, "Groups Head to Emirates, as Worries Grow Over Iran", The Jewish Daily Forward, http://www.forward.com/articles/groups-head-to-emirates-as-worries-grow-over-iran/, (19 January 2007).
"A group of rabbis have issued a halachic opinion implying that OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Yair Naveh deserves to be killed. The rabbis, all connected with a movement to resurrect the Sanhedrin, the ancient Jewish governing body, said in their halachic ruling this week that Naveh was guilty of being a moser, a Hebrew word that can be roughly translated as an informant or traitor."—Matthew Wagner, "Rabbis: Naveh deserves to be killed", The Jerusalem Post, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1167467765105&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull, (18 January 2007).
"Two additional halachic laws are of special importance both generally and specifically when related to the Rabin assassination. These two laws, employed since talmudic times to kill Jews, were invoked by the assassin, Yigal Amir, as his justification for killing Prime Minister Rabin and are still emphasized by Jews who approved or have barely condemned that assassination. These are the 'law of the pursuer' (din rodef) and the 'law of the informer' (din moser).[Notation: 'Moser,' the Hebrew word for informer, is a terrible insult for Jews, similar to the word 'collaborator' for Palestinians.] The first law commands every Jew to kill or to wound severely any Jew who is perceived as intending to kill another Jew. According to halachic commentaries, it is not necessary to see such a person pursuing a Jewish victim. It is enough if rabbinic authorities, or even competent scholars, announce that the law of the pursuer applies to such a person. The second law commands every Jew to kill or wound severely any Jew who, without a decision of a competent rabbinical authority, has informed non-Jews, especially non-Jewish authorities, about Jewish affairs or who has given them information about Jewish property or who has delivered Jewish persons or property to their rule or authority. Competent religious authorities are empowered to do, and at times have done, those things forbidden to other Jews in the second law. During the long period of incitement preceding the Rabin assassination, many Haredi and messianic writers applied these laws to Rabin and other Israeli leaders. The religious insiders based themselves on later developments in Halacha that came to include other categories of Jews who were defined as 'those to whom the law of the pursuer' applied. Every Jew had a religious duty to kill those Jews who were so included. Historically, Jews in the diaspora followed this law whenever possible, until at least the advent of the modern state. In the Tsarist Empire Jews followed this law until well into the nineteenth century."—I. Shahak and N. Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Pluto Press, London, (1999), pp. 137-138.
"Over the last couple of weeks, I have talked with people familiar with the meetings four U.S. senators recently had in the Middle East. One of them asked me a question: Can you guess which two meetings were the most similar? I tried and failed, so he gave me the answer: 'The meeting with [King] Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] was the Bedouin version of the meeting with [Israeli opposition leader] Benjamin Netanyahu.' Netanyahu is the most vocal alarmist on Iran, and in the meetings he has with U.S. visitors, he tends to repeat the analogy he uses in public. It's not about Vietnam, and it's not about Cambodia. 'This is 1938,' he says. 'Iran is Germany, and it is about to arm itself with nuclear weapons.' The Saudi monarch, I wrote in Ha'aretz, 'for whom the Nazi analogy is not his natural domain, expressed exactly the same fear, but in somewhat different words.'"—Shmuel Rosner, "Did We Just Declare War on Iran?", www.slate.com, http://www.slate.com/id/2157489/, (12 January 2007).
"We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran. We should also approach European countries so that they support American actions in Iran, so that Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again. We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran."—Brigadier General (Res.) Oded Tira, Former IDF Chief Artillery Officer, "What to do with Iran?", (30 December 2006), http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3346275,00.html
"The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians."—Jimmy Carter, Thirty-Ninth President of the United States of America, "Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine", www.latimes.com, http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-carter8dec08,0,1544474.story?coll=la-news-a_section, (8 December 2006).
"Israel Beiteinu is a racist party which is a danger to the state of Israel, Defense Minister Amir Peretz said during the Labor faction meeting on Monday. 'The decision to appoint Ghaleb Majadle as minister is causing people to say things that are way out of proportion,' Peretz said. 'If there is a danger to the state of Israel, it is the danger [presented by] a racist party like Israel Beiteinu.'"—Gil Hoffman and JPOST Staff, "Amir Peretz calls Israel Beiteinu a 'racist party'", The Jerusalem Post , http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467737898&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull, (15 January 2007).
"A few hours after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to Israel on another diplomatic mission, she hastened to meet with Strategic Threats Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Rice met Lieberman two days after the chairwoman of his Yisrael Beiteinu faction, MK Esterina Tartman, made crudely racist statements against the appointment (which has meanwhile been postponed) of MK Raleb Majadele as the first Arab minister in the country's history. [***] Rice's meeting with Lieberman was like giving a stamp of approval to the racist positions he and his party have adopted. It is not clear why the secretary of state saw a need to hold this meeting, which is not part of the standard protocol for her visits to Israel. Her meeting with Lieberman thus constituted a kind of American recognition of his status and his stances."—Haaretz Editorial, "Down with racism", www.haaretz.com, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/813380.html, (15 January 2007?).
"Israeli media reported that hardline deputy prime minister, Avigdor Lieberman, told Rice that the Israeli Army will have to re-enter the Gaza Strip at some point, and that 30,000 U.N. troops are needed to secure the chaotic Palestinian territory on Israel's southern flank. Lieberman has in the past said Israel should assassinate Hamas' leadership, ignore the moderate Palestinian president and walk away from international peace efforts. His ideas do not necessarily carry weight, but Rice defended the decision to meet with him."—Anne Gearan, "Rice Says She Registers Mideast Demands", The Associated Press/WashingtonPost.com, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400287.html, (14 January 2007).
"The most important thing, and especially if you're a Gentile listening to my voice, if you're not Jewish, the most important thing for the nations to do is to bless Israel. The most important thing is to bless Israel. That's all a Gentile should be thinking about from the morning till night is, 'How do I bless Israel? How do I stand by Zion?' It's the most important thing. And the most dangerous, the worst thing in the world, is to curse Israel—the worst thing. Every Gentile has to think every second of, 'What can I do to strengthen Zion? What can I do to pray for Jerusalem? What can I do to stand by the nation of Israel?'"— Tovia Singer, "Can you Hear the Footsteps of the Messiah?", Israel National Radio, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=119335, (10 January 2007).
"I'm at the point of saying that Bush is going to do everything he can, essentially, to taunt Ahmadinejad into attacking us."—Dr. Jerome Corsi, author of Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians, in an interview with Tovia Singer on Israel National Radio, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=119335, (10 January 2007).
"Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration; it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century."— George W. Bush, Forty-Third President of the United States of America, "Text of President Bush's address on Wednesday, as prepared by the White House", http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4987452, (10 January 2007).
"No one denies that the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives, in power from 1995 until 2006, was overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But with Democratic wins in both houses, the 110th Congress removes from power several maverick Republicans who wanted the United States to be more critical of Israel, and boosts to leadership lawmakers who are not just Israel-friendly but intimately acquainted with the U.S. Jewish community."—Ron Kampeas, "Division of congressional posts seems to favor Jewish issues", http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=17466&intcategoryid=3, (10 January 2007).
"The thing that makes us strong and secure… is that we here in Israel are only the spearhead of a great people spread all over the world, and one day they will come home where they really belong, to the State of Israel[.] [***] Birthright, if you want, is what Israel is all about. Israel is a Jewish state[.] [***] [Jews] have a birthright to come and live here. [***] [T]here is only one place in the world which is ours. [***] [W]e are one people, belong to each other, and that we love each other. [***] When it does happen, and you feel you are ready, we are waiting for you. And when you decide to come here, we will hug you, kiss you… we want nothing more than to have you, the future of the Jewish people, to come here, where they belong[.]"—Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, as quoted by Yaakov Lappin,"Olmert: Israel spearhead for all Jews", http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3349787,00.html, (8 January 2007).
"Most Americans would reject outright any effort by one of our allies to limit fair debate, discussion, and dialogue here in the United States about the nature of American relations with any given state. And yet America as a whole remains mute to the interference by the Israeli Lobby into any meaningful discussion of American—Israeli relations. The end result is that Israel and the Israeli Lobby are herding America down the path toward war with Iran, and most Americans remain ignorant and/or indifferent to this fact. The proof is in the pudding; even as the world debates and discusses the June 2006 incentives package offered to Iran, Israel has already proclaimed its opposition to any such negotiated settlement, and AIPAC has initiated a full-fledged lobbying campaign targeted at the U.S. Congress to keep America on track toward conflict with Iran. No one in the world wants such a confrontation, only Israel. Let there be no doubt: if there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else."—Scott Ritter, Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change, Nation Books, New York, (2006), p. 211.
"It has been taught: R. Jose12 said: Three commandments were given to Israel when they entered the land; [i] to appoint a king; [ii] to cut off the seed of Amalek; [iii] and to build themselves the chosen house [i.e. the Temple] and I do not know which of them has priority. But, when it is said: The hand upon the throne of the Lord, the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation,13 we must infer that they had first to set up a king, for 'throne' implies a king, as it is written, Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king.14 Yet I still do not know which [of the other two] comes first, the building of the chosen Temple or the cutting off of the seed of Amalek. Hence, when it is written, And when He giveth you rest from all your enemies round about etc., and then [Scripture proceeds], Then it shall come to pass that the place which the Lord your God shall choose,15 it is to be inferred that the extermination of Amalek is first. And so it is written of David, And it came to pass when the king dwelt in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from his enemies round about, and the passage continues; that the king said unto Nathan the Prophet: See now, I dwell in a house of cedars etc."—I. Epstein, Editor, "Sanhedrin 20b", The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 27, The Soncino Press, London, (1935), pp. 107-111, at 109.
"So they went nearer and they heard him saying: 'Crown, crown, two sons are kept outside, and there will be no peace or rest until the bird is thrown down in Caesarea.' R. Jose wept and said: 'Verily the Galuth is drawn out, and therefore the birds of heaven will not depart until the dominion of the idolatrous nations is removed from the earth, which will not be till the day when God will bring the world to judgement.'"—H. Sperling and M. Simon, Editors, The Zohar, Volume 2, The Soncino Press, New York, (1933), p. 311.
"We must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran. We should also approach European countries so that they support American actions in Iran, so that Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again. We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran."—Brigadier General (Res.) Oded Tira, Former IDF Chief Artillery Officer, "What to do with Iran?", (30 December 2006), http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3346275,00.html
"* First, Israel should appoint a roving ambassador tasked with responsibility for maintaining relations with Christians in America. This should not be just an honorary title, nor should it go to one of the usual organizational fund-raisers or foreign service hacks. Instead, the government should appoint a person of faith, one who can communicate with evangelicals in terms they both understand and appreciate.
* Second, Israel should reach out to Christian leaders and their communities, and initiate the establishment of 'prayer battalions' in churches across the United States. Like rapid-deployment forces used by the military, these battalions could be mobilized at a moment's notice to pray for specific issues, such as the return of Israel's missing soldiers or the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions."—Michael Freund, Served as Deputy Director of Communications in Israel's Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu, "Right On!: In praise of Christian Zionists", (21 December 2006), http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881944891&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
"The conclusions from Dayan's words are clear: This State has no international obligations, no economic problems, the question of peace is nonexistent. . . . It must calculate its steps narrow-mindedly and live on its sword. It must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no—it must—invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge. . . . And above all—let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space. (Such a slip of the tongue: Ben Gurion himself said that it would be worth while to pay an Arab a million pounds to start a war.) (26 May 1955, 1021)"—Excerpt from a 26 May 1955 entry in Moshe Sheratt's personal diary as quoted in L. Rokach, Israel's Sacred Terrorism, Third Edition, AAUG Press, Belmont Massachusetts, p. 41.
"In 1937, 5.7 percent of the Party were Jews yet they formed a majority in the government. Lenin himself (who was partly Jewish by ancestry) said that if the Commissar was Jewish, the deputy should be Russian: Stalin followed this rule. [***] Many Jewish Bolsheviks used Russian pseudonyms. As early as 1936, Stalin ordered Mekhlis at Pravda to use these pseudonyms: 'No need to excite Hitler!'"— Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Star, Vintage Books, New York, (2003), pp. 305-306.
"In the Great Jalkut Rubeni, in the Parasha Bereshith, [Footnote: Fol. 10. Col. 1.] we have the following Passage, 'The Skin and the Flesh is the Coat of a Man. The Spirit within is the Man. But the Idolaters (meaning all the Nations but the Jewish) are not call'd Men, because their Souls have their Origin from the Unclean Spirit. But the Souls of the Israelites are derived from the Holy Spirit.' And a little farther on in the same Treatise, it is said, [Footnote: Fol. 10. Col. 2.] 'An Israelite is called a Man, because his Soul cometh from the Supreme Man. But an Idolater, whose Soul cometh from the Unclean Spirit, is call'd a Swine. If so, then is an Idolater the Body and Soul of a Swine.' In another Part of the said Treatise, entitled Shaar olam hattobu [Footnote: Fol. 23. Col. 4.], there is a Passage running thus: 'The Wicked are stiled the Dead in their Life-Time, because they have not a Holy Soul from the Foundation, which is called Him that liveth for ever. But they have the Soul from Kelifa (i. e. the Shell) by which is meant the Devil) who is call'd Death, and the Shadow of Death: And through the Sparklings of the same they live.'"—Johann Andreas Eisenmenger, The Traditions of the Jews, Contained in the Talmud and other Mystical Writings, Volume 1, J. Robinson, London, (1748), pp. 254-255.
"We Zionists wish to urge self-help on the people; thereby no exaggerated and unsound hopes will be awakened. On this ground, also, publicity in dealing with this point is of the highest value. [***] The confidence of the State, which is necessary for a settlement of large masses of Jews, can only be gained by publicity and by loyal action."—Theodor Herzl, "The Zionist Congress: Full Report of the Proceedings", The Jewish Chronicle, (3 September 1897), pp. 10-15, at 11.
"I hear, for ex., that your accomplishments are being used to make propaganda, with the 'Jewish Newton, who is simultaneously an ardent Zionist' (I personally haven't read this yet, but only heard it mentioned). [***] But I cannot go along with the propagandistic fuss with its inevitable untruths, precisely because Judaism is at stake and because I feel myself so thoroughly a Jew."—Letter from Paul Ehrenfest to Albert Einstein of 9 December 1919, English translation by A. Hentschel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, Document 203, Princeton University Press, (2004), pp. 173-175, at 174.
"In 1983 AIPAC distributed to students and faculty around the country a ten-page questionnaire on political activism on their campuses. Its instructions include: 'Please name any individual faculty who assist anti-Israel groups. How is this assistance offered? What are the propaganda themes . . . ?' The survey results form the body of the AIPAC College Guide: Exposing the Anti-Israel Campaign on Campus, published in April 1984.
While AIPAC claims to respect the right of all to free speech, number eight on its list of 10 suggested 'modes of response' to pro-Palestinian events or speakers on campus reads: 'Attempt to prevent.'"—Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, Lawrence Hill & Company, Westport, Connecticut, (1985), p. 181.
"I don't understand your optimism,' Ben Gurion declared. 'Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.'"—David Ben-Gurion, as quoted in: N. Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox, Grosset & Dunlap, New York, (1978), p. 99.
"I know this will annoy many of your readers. . . But the anger is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians. Instead of Israel fighting against Hizbullah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hizbullah."Meyrav Wurmser, as quoted by Yitzhak Benhorin in, "Neocons: We expected Israel to attack Syria", http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3340750,00.html, (16 December 2006).
"21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. 24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. 25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. 26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them. 27 And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. 28 And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob. 29 And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: 30 And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. 31 And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. 32 And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? 33 And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. 34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright."—The Jewish book of Genesis 25:21-34.
"You and I both know the powerful influence of AIPAC, which is not designed to promote peace. I'm not criticizing them, they have a perfect right to lobby, but their purpose in life is to protect and defend the policies of the Israeli government and to make sure those policies are approved in the United States and in our Congress—and they're very effective at it. I have known a large number of Jewish organizations in this country [that] have expressed their approval for the book and are trying to promote peace. But their voices are divided and they're relatively reluctant to speak out publicly. And any member of Congress who's looking to be re-elected couldn't possibly say that they would take a balanced position between Israel and the Palestinians, or that they would insist on Israel withdrawing to international borders, or that they would dedicate themselves to protect human rights of Palestinians—it's very likely that they would not be re-elected."—Jimmy Carter, Thirty Ninth President of the United States of America, as quoted by Eleanor Clift, "Last Word: Jimmy Carter Revisiting 'Apartheid'", Newsweek International, (25 December 2006 — 1 January 2007).
"Thus what was on offer was no more and no less than the establishment of a fascist Jewish state in Palestine as an ally of German fascism!"—Klaus Polkehn, "The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941", Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 5, Number 3/4, (Spring-Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82, at 79.
"The United States has made a massive commitment to the future of Iraq in both blood and treasure. As of December 2006, nearly 2,900 Americans have lost their lives serving in Iraq. Another 21,000 Americans have been wounded, many severely.
To date, the United States has spent roughly $400 billion on the Iraq War, and costs are running about $8 billion per month. In addition, the United States must expect significant "tail costs" to come. Caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the U.S. involvement in Iraq."—James A. Baker, et al.,The Iraq Study Group Report, Vintage Books, New York, (2006), p. 32.
"The conflict includes not only the Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip, but Israeli Arabs also[.] [***] The linkage between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli Arab population — it will destroy us, it is impossible. What is the logic of creating one and a half country for one people and a half country for the Jewish people? [***] It's not racism [***] The test is loyalty, not their religion."—Avigdor Lieberman as quoted by Ira Stoll in "Israel's Lieberman Calls for Tougher Stance on Israeli Arabs", The New York Sun, (13 December 2006).
"Revolting as it is, it would be an interesting study in psychology to analyze the motives, other than fear and cowardice, that have prompted Jewish bankers to lend money to Germany as they are now doing. It is in part their money that is being used by the Hitler regime in its reckless, wicked campaign of propaganda to make the world anti-Semitic; with that money they have invaded Great Britain, the United States and other countries where they have established newspapers, subsidized agents and otherwise are spending untold millions in spreading their infamous creed. The suggestion that they use that money toward paying the honest debts they have repudiated is answered only by contemptuous sneers and silence. Meantime the infamous campaign goes on unabated with ever increasing intensity to the everlasting disgrace of the Jewish bankers who are helping to finance it and of the weaklings who are doing nothing effective to check it."—Samuel Untermeyer, as quoted in: "Text of Untermyer's Address", The New York Times, (7 August 1933), p. 4.
"'Hitler will be forgotten in a few years, but he will have a beautiful monument in Palestine. You know', and here the biographer-historian seemed to assume the role of a patriarchal Jew—'the coming of the Nazis was rather a welcome thing. So many of our German Jews were hovering between two coasts; so many of them were riding the treacherous current between the Scylla of assimilation and the Charybdis of a nodding acquaintance with Jewish things. Thousands who seemed to be completely lost to Judaism were brought back to the fold by Hitler, and for that I am personally very grateful to him.'"—Meyer Steinglass quoting Emil Ludwig, "Emil Ludwig before the Judge", American Jewish Times, (April, 1936), p. 35; as quoted in: L. Brenner, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, Lawrence Hill Books, Chicago, (1983), p. 59.
"19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."—The Jewish book of Exodus 19:5-6.
"32:1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. 32:2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. 32:3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 32:5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD. 32:6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. 32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the Testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. 32:16 And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables. 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. 32:18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear. 32:19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. 32:20 And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it. 32:21 And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? 32:22 And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief. 32:23 For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. 32:24 And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf. 32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:) 32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. 32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. 32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. 32:29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day. 32:30 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. 32:31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32:32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. 32:34 Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. 32:35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made."—The Jewish book of Exodus 32.
"I see the entire leadership of Hamas and Jihad walking around freely, and it's continuing to incite[. . . .] They ... have to disappear, to go to paradise, all of them, and there can't be any compromise."—Avigdor Lieberman as quoted by KARIN LAUB Associated Press Writer, "Take Back Gaza, Israeli Official Says", (18 November 2006), http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=979447
"The massacre of Armenian and Assyrian Christians in the Turkish Empire is a crime which in scale and horror has probably no parallel in the history of the world, and the sufferings baffle description which are now being endured by the rapidly dwindling number of hunted and persecuted survivors."—Archbishop of Canterbury quoted in: "Armenians and Serbians", The London Times, (15 December 1915), p. 7.
"8 Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau? 9 And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter. 10 For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever."—The Jewish book of Obadiah.
"11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. 12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: 13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: 14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: 15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods , and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; 16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. 17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods."—The Jewish book of Exodus 34:11-17.
"Two other interrelated factors have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and regional upheaval: the condoning of illegal Israeli actions from a submissive White House and U.S. Congress during recent years, and the deference with which other international leaders permit this unofficial U.S. policy in the Middle East to prevail. There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories. At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7,500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan."—Jimmy Carter, Thirty-Ninth President of the United States of America, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, Simon & Schuster, New York, (2006), p. 209.
"Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg had offered biblical justification for the view that the spilling of non-Jewish blood was a lesser offense than the spilling of Jewish blood. 'Any trial based on the assumption that Jews and goyim are equal is a total travesty of justice,' he said."—"An Israeli Mayor Is Under Scrutiny", The New York Times, (6 June 1989), p. 5.
"For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and buildeth temples; and Judah hath multiplied fenced cities: but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour the palaces thereof."—The Jewish book of Hosea 8:14.
"We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad day-light, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief."—Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, "Open Letter to the American People", (29 November 2006)
"Instead, the governments of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert have built the fence and wall entirely within Palestinian territory, intruding deeply into the West Bank to encompass Israeli settlement blocs and large areas of other Palestinian land. It is projected to be at least three and a half times as long as Israel's internationally recognized border and already cuts directly through Palestinian villages, divides families from their gardens and farmland, and includes 375,000 Palestinians on the 'Israeli' side of the wall, 175,000 of whom are outside Jerusalem. One example is that the wandering wall almost completely surrounds the Palestinian city of Qalqiliya with its 45,000 inhabitants, with most of the citizens' land and about one-third of their water supply confiscated by the Israelis. Almost the same encirclement has occurred around 170,000 citizens of Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus."—Jimmy Carter, Thirty-Ninth President of the United States of America, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, Simon & Schuster, New York, (2006), pp. 190, 192.
"XXVIII. The next thing is that charge about the Jewish gold. And this, forsooth, is the reason why this cause is pleaded near the steps of Aurelius. It is on account of this charge, O Laelius, that this place and that mob has been selected by you. You know how numerous that crowd is, how great is its unanimity, and of what weight it is in the popular assemblies. I will speak in a low voice, just so as to let the judges hear me. For men are not wanting who would be glad to excite that people against me and against every eminent man; and I will not assist them and enable them to do so more easily. As gold, under pretence of being given to the Jews, was accustomed every year to be exported out of Italy and all the provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus issued an edict establishing a law that it should not be lawful for gold to be exported out of Asia. And who is there, O judges, who cannot honestly praise this measure? The senate had often decided, and when I was consul it came to a most solemn resolution that gold ought not to be exported. But to resist this barbarous superstition were an act of dignity, to despise the multitude of Jews, which at times was most unruly in the assemblies in defence of the interests of the republic, was an act of the greatest wisdom. 'But Cnaeus Pompeius, after he had taken Jerusalem, though he was a conqueror, touched nothing which was in that temple.' In the first place, he acted wisely, as he did in many other instances, in leaving no room for his detractors to say anything against him, in a city so prone to suspicion and to evil speaking. For I do not suppose that the religion of the Jews, our enemies, was any obstacle to that most illustrious general, but that he was hindered by his own modesty. Where then is the guilt? Since you nowhere impute any theft to us, since you approve of the edict, and confess that it was passed in due form, and do not deny that the gold was openly sought for and produced, the facts of the case themselves show that the business was executed by the instrumentality of men of the highest character. There was a hundredweight of gold, more or less, openly seized at Apamea, and weighed out in the forum at the feet of the praetor, by Sextus Caesius, a Roman knight, a most excellent and upright man; twenty pounds weight or a little more were seized at Laodicea, by Lucius Peducaeus, who is here in court, one of our judges; some was seized also at Adramyttium, by Cnaeus Domitius, the lieutenant, and a small quantity at Pergamus. The amount of the gold is known; the gold is in the treasury; no theft is imputed to him; but it is attempted to render him unpopular. The speaker turns away from the judges, and addresses himself to the surrounding multitude. Each city, O Laelius, has its own peculiar religion; we have ours. While Jerusalem was flourishing, and while the Jews were in a peaceful state, still the religious ceremonies and observances of that people were very much at variance with the splendour of this empire, and the dignity of our name, and the institutions of our ancestors. And they are the more odious to us now, because that nation has shown by arms what were its feelings towards our supremacy. How dear it was to the immortal gods is proved by its having been defeated, by its revenues having been farmed out to our contractors, by its being reduced to a state of subjection."—M. T. Cicero, Pro Flaccus, Chapter 28; translated by C. D. Yonge, The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, Volume 2, George Bell & Sons, London, (1880), pp. 454-455.
"R. Joseph further had in mind to say, in regard to what has been taught that in the case of idolaters and shepherds of small cattle one is not obliged to bring them up [from a pit] though one must not cast them in it2 — that for payment one is obliged to bring them up on account of ill feeling. Abaye, however, said to him: He could offer such excuses as, 'I have to run to my boy who is standing on the roof', or, 'I have to keep an appointment at the court.'
R. Abbahu recited to R. Johanan: 'Idolaters and [Jewish] shepherds of small cattle need not be brought up though they must not be cast in, but minim,3 informers, and apostates may be cast in, and need not be brought up.' Whereupon R. Johanan remarked: I have been learning that the words, And so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother's [thou mayest not hide thyself],4 are also applicable to an apostate, and you say he may be thrown down; leave out apostates! Could he not have answered that the one might apply to the kind of apostate who eats carrion meat to satisfy his appetite,5 and the other to an apostate who eats carrion meat to provoke? — In his opinion, an apostate eating carrion meat to provoke is the same as a min.6
It has been stated: [In regard to the term] apostate there is a divergence of opinion between R. Aha and Rabina; one says that [he who eats forbidden food] to satisfy his appetite, is an apostate, but [he who does it] to provoke is a 'min'; while the other says that even [one who does it] to provoke is merely an apostate. — And who is a 'min'? — One who actually worships idols.1
An objection was raised: If one eats a flea or a gnat he is an apostate. Now such a thing could only be done to provoke, and yet we are taught that he is merely an apostate! — Even in that case he may just be trying to see what a forbidden thing tastes like.
The Master said: 'They may be cast in and need not be brought up' — if they may be cast in need it be said that they need not be brought up? — Said R. Joseph b. Hama in the name of R. Shesheth: What is meant to convey is that if there was a step in the pit-wall, one may scrape it away, giving as a reason for doing so, the prevention of cattle being lured by the step to get unto the pit. Raba and R. Joseph both of them said: It means to convey that if there is a stone lying by the pit opening, one may cover the pit with it, saying that he does it for [the safety] of passing animals. Rabina said: It is meant to convey that if there is a ladder there, he may remove it, saying, I want it for getting my son down from a roof."—I. Epstein, Editor, "Abodah Zarah 26a-26b", The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 29, The Soncino Press, London, (1935), pp. 131-132.
"Let it, however, be kept in mind, that the restoration will be at first limited and partial; the government which they may form will be transitory and contingent; the great war prophesied in Ezekiel against Gog, prince of Rush, Meshech, and Tubal, the power which now controls Archenaz, Refath, and Togarmah of the Scriptures, that is to say, the Germans, Sclavonians, Sarmatians, and Turks of our day, is Russia; the descendants of the joint colony of Meshech and Tubal, and the little horn of Daniel. Russia, in its attempt to wrest India from England and Turkey from the Ottomites, will make the Holy Land the theatre of a terrible conflict. Tarshish, 'with the young lions thereof'—evidently Great Britain, with her allies—will come to the rescue. Then will ensue the battle so sublimely described by the prophet: the fire and hailstones; the purification and victory; the advent of the Messiah, and the thousand years of happiness and peace which are to ensue."—Mordecai Manuel Noah, Discourse on the Restoration of the Jews: Delivered at the Tabernacle, Oct. 28 and Dec. 2, 1844, Harper & Brothers, New-York, (1845), pp. 52-53.
"It was I. M. Wise, typically, who broke the silence of the established Jews as they saw what was happening to the good name of their faith. From the fresh air of Cincinnati, Wise observed the noisy, smelly scenes in the eastern seaports and was revolted. 'It is next to an impossibility to associate or identify ourselves with that half-civilized orthodoxy which constitutes the bulk of the [Jewish] population in those cities,' he stormed. 'We are Americans and they are not. We are Israelites of the nineteenth century and a free country, and they gnaw the dead bones of past centuries.' Wise was never a man to mince words. 'The good reputation of Judaism must naturally suffer materially, which must without fail lower our social status.' The prosperous 'Uptown' Jew of New York found identification with the unsavory 'Downtown' Jew dangerous in the extreme. It was in the Uptown salons of the German-Jewish aristocracy that the word 'kike' first appeared, to deride the uncultured and unclean immigrants. Yet the emotional dilemma was acute, for the Uptown Jew was not without a sense of obligation and guilt."—Peter Grose, Israel in the Mind of America, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, (1983), pp. 31-32.
"The American Jewish community was divided into a three-stage action team. First were the individual sayanim (if the situation had been reversed and the United States had convinced Americans working in Israel to work secretly on behalf of the United States, they would be treated as spies by the Israeli government). Then there was the large pro-Israeli lobby. It would mobilize the Jewish community in a forceful effort in whatever direction the Mossad pointed them. And last was B'nai Brith. Members of that organization could be relied on to make friends among non-Jews and tarnish as anti-Semitic whomever they couldn't sway to the Israeli cause. With that sort of one-two-three tactic, there was no way we could strike out."— Victor Ostrovsky, The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda, Harper Collins, New York, (1994), p. 32.
"Journalist Harold R. Piety observes that 'the ugly cry of anti-Semitism is the bludgeon used by the Zionists to bully non-Jews into accepting the Zionist view of world events, or to keep silent.' In late 1978 Piety, withholding his identity in order not to irritate his employer, wrote an article on 'Zionism and the American Press' for Middle East International in which he decried 'the inaccuracies, distortions and— perhaps worst—inexcusable omission of significant news and background material by the American media in its treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict.'
Piety traces the deficiency of U.S. media in reporting on the Middle East to largely successful efforts by the pro-Israel lobby to 'overwhelm the American media with a highly professional public relations campaign, to intimidate the media through various means and, finally, to impose censorship when the media are compliant and craven.' He lists threats to editors and advertising departments, orchestrated boycotts, slanders, campaigns of character assassination, and personal vendettas among the weapons employed against balanced journalism."—Congressman Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, Lawrence Hill & Company, Westport, Connecticut, (1985), p. 296.
"7 Turn you, and take your journey, and go to the mount of the Amorites, and unto all the places nigh thereunto, in the plain, in the hills, and in the vale, and in the south, and by the sea side, to the land of the Canaanites, and unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the river Euphrates. 8 Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them."—The Jewish book of Deuteronomy 1:7-8.
"42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. [***] 60:11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. 60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. [***] 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. 60:17 For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness. [***] 61:5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. 6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves."—The Jewish book of Isaiah 42:1; 60:11-12, 16-17; 61:5-6.
"Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. 'That's why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.' As neither Jack nor I was an antisemite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics."—Gore Vidal in his Forward to Israel Shahak's book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Pluto Press, London, (2002), pp. vi-vii, at vi.
"THE LATEST PRODUCTION of Israel's apologists is the 'new anti-Semitism.' [***] The main purpose behind these periodic, meticulously orchestrated media extravaganzas is not to fight anti-Semitism but rather to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism. [***] Finally, whereas in the original New Anti-Semitism marginal left-wing organizations like the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party were cast as the heart of the anti-Semitic darkness, in the current revival Israel's apologists, having lurched to the right end of the political spectrum, cast mainstream organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in this role. [***] WHAT'S CURRENTLY CALLED the new anti-Semitism actually incorporates three main components: (1) exaggeration and fabrication, (2) mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, and (3) the unjustified yet predictable spillover from criticism of Israel to Jews generally. EXAGGERATION AND FABRICATION The evidence of a new anti-Semitism comes mostly from organizations directly or indirectly linked to Israel or having a material stake in inflating the findings of anti-Semitism."—Norman G. Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, University of California Press, Berkeley, (2005), pp. 21-22, 32, and 66. See also: N. G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Second Edition, Verso, London, New York, (2003).
"The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.
This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel.
Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the 'Israel Lobby.' Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.1"—J. J. Mearsheimer and S. M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U. S. Foreign Policy, Faculty Research Working Papers Series, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, (March, 2006), p. 1.
Contrary to the view of most American progressives that oil, and specifically the interests of Big Oil, is the primary mover, there is no evidence that the major US oil corporations pressured Congress or promoted the war in Iraq or the current confrontation with Iran. To the contrary: there is plenty of evidence that they are very uneasy about the losses that may result from an Israeli attack on Iran. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to suppose that Big Oil is far from happy about taking the rap for all that is happening in the Middle East, particularly when it combines with public anger at high gas prices, and leads to Senate inquiries.
"The Jewish Lobby, Not Big Oil
There is an abundance of evidence for the past 15 years that:
1. The oil companies did not promote a war policy.2. The wars have prejudiced their interests, operations and agreements with prominent Arab and Islamic regimes in the region.3. The interests of the oil companies have been sacrificed to the state interests of Israel.4. The power of the pro-Israel lobbies exceeds that of the oil companies in shaping US Middle East policy."—James Petras, The Power of Israel in the United States, Clarity Press Inc., Atlanta, (2006), pp. 21-22.
"24 Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be. 25 There shall no man be able to stand before you: for the LORD your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread upon, as he hath said unto you. 26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; 27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: 28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known."—The Jewish book of Deuteronomy 11:24-28.
"15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: [***] 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."—The Jewish book of Genesis 15:18; 17:8.
"A number of discrepant versions of Biblical borders of the Land of Israel, which rabbinical authorities interpret as ideally belonging to the Jewish state, are in circulation. The most far-reaching among them include the following areas within these borders: in the south, all of Sinai and a part of northern Egypt up to the environs of Cairo; in the east, all of Jordan and a large chunk of Saudi Arabia, all of Kuwait and a part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; in the north, all of Lebanon and all of Syria together with a huge part of Turkey (up to lake Van); and in the west, Cyprus."—Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Pluto Press, London, (2002), p. 9.
"Much is heard of the [Balfour] Declaration as an instrument conferring upon the Jewish race unwarrantable privileges in a land from which that race had been effectively dispersed. There has been remarkably little said as to the reasons of high policy which impelled the Allies to adopt the purpose of the Declaration as one of their war aims.
To some extent altruistic motives influenced certain Gentile protagonists of the Zionism expressed in the Declaration. At a time when justice for oppressed races and small peoples had become an Allied slogan it was at least consistent to include the Jews among those whose wrongs might be righted as an outcome of the War. But we well may doubt how far such considerations, standing alone, would have carried the Allied Governments towards accepting the restoration of the Jewish people to Palestine as a war aim. The truth is, of course, that for Great Britain and her Allies the policy indicated in the Declaration was most definitely a war measure, well calculated to yield results of immense importance to the Allied cause. And, further, that for Great Britain special reasons existed why she should adopt and support the policy of the Declaration.
These may be found in the obvious advantages of covering the Suez Canal by an outpost territory, in which important elements of the population would not only be bound to her by every interest, but would command the support of world Jewry. That was the long view of British Imperial interests, taken in 1916 and 1917; it counted for much then, but for even more after the war.
But apart from exclusive British interests, the Declaration may be described as essentially a war measure adopted by the Powers of the Entente in the furtherance of their own vital interests. Defined in greater detail, it was a bold, imaginative, and statesmanlike effort to prevent the incalculable and universal influence of Jewry being exerted on the side of the Central Powers—as, indeed, it was, to a serious extent, then being exerted—and to transfer this highly important influence to the cause of the Entente. Nor was it a project of sudden origin, or hastily embraced. The advantages to be gained if the policy of the Declaration were adopted had long been urged; opposition to that policy had long been active. Before the British Government gave the Declaration to the world it had been closely examined in all its bearings and implications, weighed word by word, and subjected to repeated change and amendment. Unless full weight be given to these antecedent facts, no correct judgment upon the Declaration and its policy in operation can be formed.
2. The Zionists and the Declaration. Zionism had been a living and ambitious force in the Jewish world long before 1914. While awaiting its real opportunity it had, in 1905, rejected the tempting offer of territory for the creation of a Zionist State in Uganda, under the British flag. It had steadily looked to Palestine as the one land which could provide the historical connexion essential to Zionist aims. The entry of Turkey into the war brought the hitherto impracticable dreams of Zionism within the bounds of possible attainment. If the goodwill of the Allies, particularly of Great Britain, could be secured, and provided that ultimate success should attend the Allied arms, much might be done to realize the dearest ambitions of Zionism. It lay with Zionist leaders to bring their ideal before the British Government as a scheme likely to be of advantage to the Entente.
Suffice to say that at this crisis of its fortunes Zionism was fortunate, that in Dr. C. Weizmann and Mr. N. Sokolov it found two leaders equal to the great occasion, that British Statesmen, including Mr. (now Lord) Balfour, Lord Milner, Mr. Lloyd George, Lord Robert Cecil, immediately recognized the political importance and value of the Zionist suggestions, and that in the subsequent long negotiations and discussions by which the aims of Zionism were harmonized with the political realities of the situation, the British negotiators were Mr. Balfour and the late Sir Mark Sykes, both of them convinced and ardent supporters of Zionist aspirations. These British representatives and the Zionist leaders just named must be credited with the chief part in framing the policy of the Declaration.
Support of Zionist ambitions, indeed, promised much for the cause of the Entente. Quite naturally Jewish sympathies were to a great extent anti-Russian, and therefore in favour of the Central Powers. No ally of Russia, in fact, could escape sharing that immediate and inevitable penalty for long and savage Russian persecution of the Jewish race. But the German General Staff desired to attach Jewish support yet more closely to the German side. With their wide outlook on possibilities they seem to have urged, early in 1916, the advantages of promising Jewish restoration to Palestine under an arrangement to be made between Zionists and Turkey, backed by a German guarantee. The practical difficulties were considerable; the subject perhaps dangerous to German relations with Turkey; and the German Government acted cautiously. But the scheme was by no means rejected or even shelved, and at any moment the Allies might have been forestalled in offering this supreme bid. In fact in September 1917 the German Government were making the most serious efforts to capture the Zionist movement.
Another most cogent reason why the policy of the Declaration should be adopted by the Allies lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda; by 1917 they had done much in preparation for that general disintegration of Russian national life, later recognized as the revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.
It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry in the same way, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. It was believed, further, that it would greatly influence American opinion in favour of the Allies. Such were the chief considerations which, during the later part of 1916 and the next ten months of 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.
But when the matter came before the Cabinet for decision delays occurred. Amongst influential English Jews Zionism had few supporters, at all events for a Zion in Palestine. It had still fewer in France. Jewish influence both within and without the Cabinet is understood to have exerted itself strenuously and pertinaciously against the policy of the proposed Declaration.
Under the pressure of Allied needs the objections of the anti-Zionists were either over-ruled or the causes of objection removed, and the Balfour Declaration, as we have seen, was published to the world on 2nd November 1917. That it is in purpose a definite contract with Jewry is beyond question. Subsequently the Declaration was accepted and endorsed by the Governments of France, Italy, and Japan.
That it is in purpose a definite contract between the British Government and Jewry represented by the Zionists is beyond question. In spirit it is a pledge that in return for services to be rendered by Jewry the British Government would ‘use their best endeavours’ to secure the execution of a certain definite policy in Palestine. No time limit is set for performance; completion alone appears to have been intended as the conclusion of the contract. It would thus seem to be an agreement incapable of being greatly varied except by consent.
How far the implied services of Jewry have been or may yet be rendered cannot be estimated, and must always remain a matter of opinion. The Declaration certainly rallied world Jewry, as a whole, to the side of the Entente. The war was won by the Entente; and to the Declaration as a measure to that end may be attributed a share in achieving the great result. And it is possible to understand from many sources that directly, and indirectly, the services expected of Jewry were not expected in vain, and were, from the point of view of British interests alone, well worth the price which had to be paid. Nor is it to be supposed that the services already rendered are the last—it well may be that in time to come Jewish support will much exceed in importance any thought possible in the past. That, however, is a possibility for Palestine of the future to demonstrate."—W. J. M. Childs, in H. W. V. Temperley, Editor, A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, Volume 6, Published under the auspices of the British Institute of International Affairs, Henry Frowde and Hodder & Stoughton, London, (1924), pp. 171-174.
"'Mr. Malcolm, President of the Armenian National Committee in London, advised Sir Mark Sykes to influence Wilson through Brandeis, and to guarantee Palestine forthwith to the Jews, in order to gain their support. After discussion with Lord Milner, Sykes begged Mr. Malcolm to put him into touch with the Zionist leaders, because Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Balfour were convinced of the justice of the Zionist demand for Palestine. Through Greenburg, Malcolm made contact with Weizmann.' [***] [T]he Foreign Office had sent word to Brandeis and through him had worked on Wilson, in Washington."—Malcolm Thomson's English translation of Adolf Boehm, Die Zionistische Bewegung, Volume 1, Juedischer Verlag, Berlin, Hozaah Ivrith Co., Ltd., Tel Aviv, (1935), p. 656; and part of Thomson's commentary in: "Origin of the Balfour Declaration", The [London] Times Literary Supplement, (22 July 1949), p. 473.
"Mr. Malcolm, Praesident des Armenischen National-Komitees in London, riet Sir Mark Sykes, Wilson durch Brandeis zu beeinflussen und den Juden, um sie guenstig zu stimmen, gleichzeitig Palaestina zu sichern. Nach Ruecksprache mit Lord Milner bat Sykes Mr. Malcolm, ihn mit den zionistischen Fuehrern in Verbindung zu setzen, da Sir Edward Grey und Mr. Balfourvon der Gerechtigkeit der zionistischen Forderung auf Palaestina ueberzeugt seien. Durch Greenberg trat Malcolm auch mit Weizmann in Verbindung. [Footnote: Ueber die hier dargestellten Vorgaenge siehe den Bericht ueber die ,,Balfour-Declaration'' von S. Landmann, der von 1917-1922 Sekretaer der zionistischen Exekutive war, in ,,World Jewry'', London, 1935, Nr. 42 und 43.]"— Adolf Boehm, Die Zionistische Bewegung, Volume 1, Juedischer Verlag, Berlin, Hozaah Ivrith Co., Ltd., Tel Aviv, (1935), p. 656.
"During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the War on the side of the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German pre-war efforts to secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and of the abortive Anglo-French demarches at Washington and New York; and knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the US Supreme Court); and was in close touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle (London); and knew that several important Zionist Jewish leaders had already gravitated to London from the Continent on the qui vive awaiting events; and appreciated and realised the depth and strength of Jewish national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet, and afterwards Monsieur Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and Monsieur Gout of the Quai d'Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret 'gentleman's' agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill-will would represent or misrepresent.
Sir Mark Sykes was Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet specially concerned with Near Eastern affairs, and, although at the time scarcely acquainted with the Zionist movement, and unaware of the existence of its leaders, he had the flair to respond to the arguments advanced by Mr. Malcolm as to the strength and importance of this movement in Jewry, in spite of the fact that many wealthy and prominent international or semi-assimilated Jews in Europe and America were openly or tacitly opposed to it (Zionist movement), or timidly indifferent. MM. Picot and Gout were likewise receptive.
An interesting account of the negotiations carried on in London and Paris, and subsequent developments, has already appeared in the Jewish press and need not be repeated here in detail, except to recall that immediately after the 'gentleman's' agreement between Sir Mark Sykes, authorized by the War Cabinet, and the Zionist leaders, cable facilities through the War Office, the Foreign Office and British Embassies, Legations, etc., were given to the latter to communicate the glad tidings to their friends and organizations in America and elsewhere, and the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favour of joining the Allies in the War, was as gratifying as it was surprisingly rapid. [***] In Germany, the value of the bargain to the Allies, apparently, was duly and carefully noted. In his 'Through Thirty Years' Mr. Wickham Steed, in a chapter appreciative of the value of Zionist support in America and elsewhere to the Allied cause, says General Ludendorff is alleged to have said after the War, that: 'The Balfour Declaration was the cleverest thing done by the Allies in the way of propaganda, and that he wished Germany had thought of it first.' [Footnote: Volume 2, page 392.] As a matter of fact, this was said by Ludendorff to Sir Alfred Mond (afterwards Lord Melchett), soon after the War. The fact that it was Jewish help that brought U.S.A. into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German—especially Nazi—minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme."—Samuel Landman, Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine, New Zionist Press (New Zionist Publication Number 1), London, (1936), pp. 4-6.
"The obligations of the Mandate are specific and definite. They are to encourage the establishment of a national home for the Jews without detriment to any of the rights of the Arab population. I agree that it is a dual undertaking, and we must see that both parts of the Mandate are thoroughly enforced. But look at the conditions under which we entered into it. It was one of the darkest periods of the War when Mr. Balfour prepared his Declaration. Let me recall the circumstances to the House. At the time the French army had mutinied, the Italian army was on the eve