    Is there a connection between Judaism, Zionist crimes in Palestine and
    American war crimes in Iraq? We offer you unique double bill: David
    Klinghoffer, of 'Jew and proud of it' school, and Michael Hoffman, a known
    anti-Judaic polemist. Careful reader will notice that their assessments
    practically coincide - as opposed to values they attach to their
    observations. Both the Judaist and the anti-Judaist agree about this
    connection. Probably liberal defenders of Judaism will have to eat their
    hats... We discussed this subject more than few times, and I can advice my
    readers to check three important sources on this connection: Israel Shahak's
    book, and two internet resources:
    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/gentiles.cfm
    and former Jewish Tribal Review.org (alas, defunct, but there is a mirror).

    1) For those who insist on making sharp distinctions between Zionism and
    Judaism, (as well as for everyone else) this should make disturbing
    reading. Jeff Blankfort

    http://forward.com/main/article.php?ref=klinghoffer200404211155

    THE DISPUTATION: Kristol Clear About War
    By David Klinghoffer
    April 23, 2004

    Patrick Buchanan and other likeminded commentators have repeatedly tried to
    direct the public's attention to the fact that, in the Iraq conflict, some
    of the leading pro-war advocates in the conservative movement have Jewish
    surnames. There's Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith, not to mention Kristol, Frum
    and Weinstein. The presumption is that President Bush was led to invade Iraq
    by "neo-conservative" advisers with an interest mainly in seeing America
    defeat one of Israel's enemies.
    Once you consider that the actual decision makers and other key war planners
    aren't Jewish at all - Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney and the president himself -
    the Buchananite conspiracy theory is easily revealed as the canard that it
    is. And yet the Jewishness of the aforementioned pro-war intellectuals isn't
    entirely without interest.
    These Jewish conservatives support the war for their own reasons, and not
    simply because they are Jewish. Likely without realizing it in most cases,
    though, they are being true to the spiritual heritage of their ancestors in
    rejecting the squeamishness of the anti-war crowd.
    If the word "Judaism" means anything definite - as opposed to anything you
    want it to mean - then the content of the word needs to be sought in the
    textual tradition from which our heritage arises. To know what's
    authentically Jewish, you have to open the classical works of Jewish faith,
    starting with the Bible.
    When it comes to military conflict, the Hebrew Scriptures couldn't be less
    squeamish. Begin with the way the Bible defines the role of government -
    basically, to make war and execute justice.
    As told in the books of 1 & 2 Samuel, after centuries of being governed by
    judges, the Jewish people demand a sovereign ruler, and God gives them one
    in the person of Saul, anointed by the prophet Samuel.
    The people cry, "Our king will judge us, and go forth before us, and fight
    our wars!" (1 Sam. 8:19). To be sure, God is displeased with their further
    demand that, in being ruled by a king, the Children of Israel should then be
    "like all the other nations." Jews are not supposed to be like other peoples
    in every way. But the nature of kingship, and the centrality of war-making
    to it, is taken for granted by Samuel, Saul and the Lord Himself.
    Later, Jewish law would make this even clearer. Maimonides concludes his
    greatest work, the "Mishneh Torah," with a section called "Laws of Kings and
    their Wars." The Jewish leader he anticipates isn't the prime minister of
    Israel, but the Messiah, so not everything the sage says can be applied
    practically to the actions of our present-day rulers, whether Jewish or
    non-Jewish. But the values implicit in the laws are what matters, and they
    are straight out of the Bible.
    "The purpose of appointing a king," writes Maimonides, "is only to execute
    justice and wage wars." Some of the laws of war, Jewish-style, may alarm
    modern readers.
    In fighting a defensive war, the king is granted enormous leniency. He must
    first offer peace to the enemy, defined as total surrender. But once this
    has been rejected, the king needs nobody's permission, not even the United
    Nations', to enter into ferocious combat.
    When the war is not, strictly speaking, defensive, he consults the
    legislative branch of government, the Sanhedrin. With their agreement,
    however, he is again free to act with few restraints, provided that all his
    deeds are for the sake of Heaven. Basing himself on Deuteronomy (20:13),
    Maimonides has no patience for quibbles about the distinction between
    combatants and non-combatants. In the Jewish understanding, enemy males may
    be in or out of uniform: "All males past the age of majority should be
    killed."
    Offense is understood as smart defense. As Maimonides writes, the king may
    even wage war "to expand the borders of Israel or magnify [his] greatness
    and reputation." What's the defensive value of that?
    Protecting your own people may require striking awe into the hearts of those
    who threaten you. President Bush understands this. It explains a lot about
    why we made war on Iraq, when that country was not directly responsible for
    the atrocity that started it all, that of September 11.
    Sometimes, a campaign to intimidate enemies - that is, defense achieved
    through offense - may work by terrifying dangerous bad guys on whom you
    aren't even making war. That is, attack Saddam Hussein and you thereby throw
    a scare into Osama bin Laden.
    When, under Samuel's leadership, the Jews waged a successful campaign
    against the Philistines, the Bible immediately notes: "and there was peace
    between Israel and the Amorites" (1 Sam. 7:14) - a totally different foreign
    aggressor nation, whom the text hasn't even seen fit to mention till this
    point. The Amorites saw what Israel did to the Philistines, and decided to
    make themselves inconspicuous.
    Does this mean the Jewish neoconservatives are right to advocate the
    continuing pursuit of warfare in Iraq, till that nation is rebuilt as a
    democracy? Not necessarily. I could be reading these Biblical and other
    sources all wrong, but I doubt it. Or the Bible, which Christians like the
    president - no less than Jews - have found to be a repository of ancient and
    tested wisdom, could be wrong. But I doubt that too.
    David Klinghoffer is the author of "Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth
    of Monotheism" and the forthcoming "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus"
    (Doubleday).
    ---------------------------------------------
    2.
    It's a War on Amalek, Not a War on Terror

    by Michael A. Hoffman II

    Copyright (c) 2004 by revisionisthistory.org

    All Rights Reserved

    The pundits are at their grist-mills grinding out dozens of different angles
    on the story of US abuse, torture and now we learn, even murder, of Iraqi
    POWs, all the while skirting the core reality behind these crimes.

    To my knowledge, not one of the columnists and commentators has hit on what
    makes these horrors possible and why no captive Israeli or Judaic could be
    treated this way by any army of the West.

    It's more than just American contempt for the Third World or dark-skinned
    people. We're dealing with what the US considers the dregs of that world and
    what no one will mention is that there is a religious dogma behind it.

    Condoleeza Rice chose the convention of the Anti Defamation League (ADL) of
    B'nai B'rith to vent her contrived outrage at the crimes against the Iraqi
    prisoners, but that's a mockery. The ADL knows more than it is saying about
    what is really behind the dehumanization of these Arabs.

    As a student of the religion of Orthodox Judaism this writer has long known
    what many Israeli and American Zionists have known. It is an in-your-face
    reality if you live in an ultra-Orthodox Judaic neighborhood or read the
    ultra-Orthodox press, either in Yiddish or English. I have even seen it in
    advertisements in these newspapers for  furniture stores in New York! One ad
    carried a blurb for "new Italian arrivals" and displayed pictures of
    dinettes and china cabinets accompanied by the following statement: "Let's
    not be complacent. Let's not wait until scuds, with chemical warheads on
    them start falling...don't be silent while your enemies all gather
    together...Fill their faces with shame, wipe them out...Let this be Hashem's
    final revenge against Amalek." (Hamodia newspaper, Feb. 14, 2003, p. 84).

    But few are going to touch this theocratic call to genocide anywhere on the
    anti-Zionist Left or the paleo-Right because, being so powerful a truth and
    given that truth seems to hurt rabbis a great deal more than anyone else (or
    perhaps they holler louder), no one goes near it.

    What am I talking about and what is it "they" won't go near? I am the author
    of a book, Judaism's Strange Gods which argues that the source of Israeli
    mass murder and racism is found in Orthodox Judaism.

    Before me, as far as I know, only Israel Shahak had dedicated a full-length
    book to this subject ("Jewish History, Jewish Religion") and Shahak's only
    failing was that he did not specifically quote or name tractates and verses
    from the Mishnah, Gemara, Midrash, Mishneh Torah, Shulchan Aruch, Zohar and
    Tanya in support of the charges he made. My book does so, and though it has
    been tightly suppressed even by the anti-Zionist Left and the paleo-Right it
    is an underground classic, making deep inroads among radicals and
    researchers who dedicate themselves to considering fringe works. The ADL has
    been compelled to publish a pamphlet seeking to refute it and several
    Zionist websites have arisen dedicated to overturning it; quite an
    accomplishment for a book that has sold only 20,000 copies thus far.

    How is it that American officers (it is folly to put the main onus on the US
    prison guards, enlisted men and women, only recently toiling as Wal-Mart
    checkers and assistant managers at pizzerias) would allow ritual sexual
    humiliation of Iraqis, including having them disrobe and forcing them to
    simulate sex acts, including sodomy, and then photographing these despicable
    scenes?

    For that matter, how could Falluja, a city of some 300,000, be subjected to
    a US bombardment of civilian neighborhoods last April that killed hundreds
    of Iraqi women and children? Even American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council
    members such as Adnan Pachachi noted that the attacks on the city appeared
    to be "collective punishment" for the actions of a minority who attacked
    four US "contractors."

    Can anyone imagine four L.A.P.D. officers being killed by a Black mob in Los
    Angeles and the retaliation consisting of the bombardment of the mostly
    Black city of Compton by F-16 jets and A-130 gunships?

    What if a Jewish mob had hanged four American agents and then fled into a
    Jewish ghetto? No Jewish city anywhere on earth could be bombarded for a
    moment, whether or not some of the residents therein had been responsible
    for the death of four "contractors" --or forty.

    But crowded Arab cities, from Beirut to Baghdad, are fair game for Israeli
    and American bombardment. The solution to the riddle may be found in one six
    letter word, A-m-a-l-e-k. Much like Muslim clerics issuing a fatwa (
    religious edict), the rabbis of New York and the Israeli state have formally
    ruled that today's Arabs are "Amalek," a fact that neither the Establishment
    media or your favorite Christian Conservative or radical Left columnist is
    willing to confront, and yet until they boldly do so, Arab civilians will
    continue to lose their lives, or at the very least their souls and dignity,
    and hatred for America will increase exponentially.

    The neo-conservative movement is rife with the sentiment that Arabs are
    little more than "barbarians." Dr. Stephen Rittenberg, writing in the Wall
    Street Journal, declared that Palestinians are a "barbaric occupied
    people..." (Jan. 27, 2003, p. A17). Michael B. Oren in the Wall Street
    Journal went even further: "The Palestinians are different...there is
    something else at work in the... Palestinians...something sick and perhaps
    even evil." (Aug. 6, 2002, p. A20).

    Israeli professor Benny Morris, a supposed liberal Zionist, states, "A
    Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000
    Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice
    but to expel that population....Palestinian society...is a very sick
    society. It should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial
    killers...The Arab world as it is today is barbarian...("Survival of the
    fittest: An Interview with Benny Morris" by Ari Shavit, Jan. 8, 2004). Prof.
    Morris told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, "he now believed that 'without
    the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen
    here.' He also said, stunningly, that 'there are circumstances in history
    that justify ethnic cleansing." (NY Times, Feb. 20, 2004).

    The entire Palestinian nation is so debased that among them President Bush
    has declared he can find no "partner for peace." In a similar vein, US
    officials in Iraq have declared that the Iraqi people as a whole are not
    ready for sovereignty.

    Rabbi Dov Begon is chief rabbi of the yeshiva (Talmud school) at Machon Meir
    in Jerusalem. In his column for The Jewish Press,  a major Zionist newspaper
    published in Brooklyn, Rabbi Begon teaches:

    "Rashi explains that the Canaanites who lived in the Negev were not real
    Canaanites. Rather, they were Amalekites ... and the reason they waged war
    against Israel was not land, but Jew hatred ... Today the Arab-Israeli
    conflict is presented by the Arabs as if they are fighting over control of
    land, a 'territorial conflict,' so to speak. They present us as a nation of
    conquerors who are taking their land by force, and with that they justify
    their warfare. They look like Canaanites, but truthfully, the reason they
    are fighting and attacking us with intent on exterminating us is Jew
    hatred." ("Canaanites and Amalekites: As Then, So Today," Jewish Press, June
    21, 2002, p. 47).

    Actually this rabbinic ruling goes back to at least March of 1986 when the
    head chaplain for all Israeli armed forces in the West Bank and Gaza, Rabbi
    Shmuel Derlich, issued a 1,000 word edict to the Israeli army on the West
    bank, commanding them to exterminate the "Amalekites" to the last man, woman
    and child.

    The injunction to exterminate the Arab people as a whole, thinly veiled
    under the code words Amalek and Amalekite, is not merely the province of
    wild-eyed religious fanatics. It has been outlined and acknowledged by
    academic stars in the Zionist intellectual firmament. Hannah Kasher is
    Professor of Philosophy at the Israeli Bar-Ilan University. She writes:
    "...the commandment to blot out Amalek has not essentially been
    nullified...any person descended of Amalek has a death sentence over his
    head from the moment of birth, even if he himself has committed no sin. His
    culpability is innate...It should also be noted that...Amalek also includes
    those 'who act as Amalek'...(this is) a war of annihilation against a
    contemporary foe, in which one does not refrain from killing women and
    children." (Hannah Kasher, "Rationales Justifying Collective Punishment of
    Amalek," Parashat Hashavua Study Center, Sept. 2000).

    It seems that sadistic abuse and wanton destruction of Arabs  by Israeli and
    American forces is less a case of unintentional or "collateral damage" and
    more a matter of conscious direction, so long as a cover story about
    "targeting terrorists" is fronted to the public.

    After massacring Arab children in Gaza, Israeli Air Force Major General Dan
    Halutz told Haaretz newspaper that he "sleeps soundly at night' after the
    Gaza bombing. 'Is there a situation in which it is legitimate to hit a
    terrorist when you know it will carry the price of harming civilians?' he
    asked. 'The answer is affirmative." ("Deaths of Arab Civilians Prompt
    Israeli Inquiry, NY Times, Sept. 2, 2002).

    Many Europeans, some Americans and almost all Arabs and Muslims regard Ariel
    Sharon as a merciless killer and state terrorist. Based on General Halutz's
    reasoning, it would be morally permissible for Arabs to bomb a facility
    where Sharon was staying, even if it meant harming Israeli civilians.

    Of course that's not true. The Western world would be horrified. Why, what
    is the fundamental difference between General Halutz's example and the one I
    have given concerning Sharon? There is only one difference between the two:
    in the case of the scenario posited by Halutz, the civilians being harmed
    would be Arabs, i.e. Amalek, a nation slated for extermination anyway, a
    nation defined by rabbis as culpable just by being born Arab and having
    personally "committed no sin."

    Here is the key to the business-as-usual, ho-hum massacres of Arab civilians
    and here too is the reason why, when Israeli civilians are harmed, it is a
    cause for outrage and alarm all over the Western world. Israeli civilians
    are of the blood royal. No matter how many state terrorists may be
    sheltering among Israeli civilians, if one were to harm those civilians in
    order to liquidate Sharon or Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, the
    butcher of Jenin, such an act would be widely recognized as an unpardonable
    crime, on the basis of the racial and religious superiority of Israeli
    civilians. Human morality applies to Israelis, not to the Amalekite children
    of the Arabs. Prof. Kasher:

    "...a religious command should not be challenged in terms of human
    morality...a moral explanation of collective punishment, justifying it on
    the grounds that the great benefit resulting from such punishment outweighs
    the suffering it causes...the death penalty applies by law to each and every
    descendant of Amalek...The argument that one should take care and not harm
    descendants of Amalek has on occasion been taken as perverting justice..."

    We will now quote from the supreme rabbinic authority, Rabbi Moses
    Maimonides. Let us see if the policy that he advocates toward Amalek is not
    the same one implemented by the Israelis against the Palestinians and the
    Lebanese, and by American neo-con hawks against Iraqis:

    "To wipe out the 'seed of Amalek' -- for just as the individual would be
    punished, so one ought to punish the entire tribe or nation, in order to
    deter all tribes from being party to evil." (Maimonides, Guide of the
    Perplexed, 1:54).

    Rabbi Abraham Boorstein casts some additional light on who Amalek is in his
    treatise, "Avnei Nezer," which decrees that Amalek may be identified as
    those who are "in no way willing to subjugate themselves to Israel."

    This failure to be willing to be subjugated by "Israel" is considered a
    symptom of anti-Semitism. Rabbi Zalman Melamed in "Wipe Out Amalek," states:
    "The mitzvah, then of wiping out Amalek...is an ongoing one, and valid even
    today...Today there are those driven by a deep-seeded anti-Semitism...These
    are the people whom the Torah commanded us to obliterate..."

    All the chatter about the "unAmerican abuse of Iraqi prisoners," "collateral
    damage" and "pinpoint, precision bombings" of Arab cities are smokescreens
    for the implementation of the rabbinic injunction to exterminate the Arab
    Amalek (and all those "who act like Amalek").

    Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the Zionist crew in the Pentagon and the
    White House are steeped in this doctrine, not simply through a nodding
    acquaintance with the religious commands of the rabbis (among whom the
    Chabad Lubavitch are particularly virulent and politically active in the US,
    claiming former press secretary Ari Fleischer as their acolyte), but with a
    Zionist culture that views "the Arab" as a collective "cancer."

    The ignorance of this subject in the West is mostly due to massive
    suppression of analysis and discussion of the defects of the religion of
    Judaism itself. In America we are free to promote and read the DaVinci Code
    with its preposterous pseudo-history of Christianity and its scurrilous
    argument that Jesus married the reformed harlot Mary Magdalene. We are free
    to produce, broadcast and watch ABC News/Peter Jennings specials that attack
    the orthodox Christian Scriptures as riddled with errors, fantasies and
    hatred, but for some reason not even the dissidents on the Right or the Left
    who are supposedly opposed to the suffocating conformity of the
    Establishment media, can bring themselves to consistently expose the racism,
    hatred and advocacy of extermination in Judaism, or to review or in anyway
    take notice of my book, Judaism's Strange Gods.

    Until this situation is altered, tens of thousands of Arab civilians will
    continue to die due to "unavoidable mistakes" that happen "in battle" and
    for which American commanders will proffer their sorrow and apologies.

    The United States government is the hammer of Amalek. This is the true
    meaning of the phrase "clash of civilizations" and the Arabs had better
    prepare themselves for months or years of slow-motion genocide until such
    time as Al Qaeda or some other shadowy "Muslim" group can take credit for
    another spectacular act of terrorism on U.S. shores, after which the gloves
    will come off and the U.S.  together with its Israeli mentor, can destroy
    Amalek at will, according to Talmudic principles, without needing to scruple
    about apologies or making cynical reference to unintentional "collateral
    damage."

    The war on terror is just another name for a race war, since the
    arch-terrorist Israeli state, founded in terror by terrorists, is not the
    subject of the war. Instead,  the American people perceive the enemy to be a
    barbarian nation, not fully human, led by interchangeable Amalekite monsters
    named Saddam or Osama.

    The junk food kids in US army uniforms shown gleefully posing for X-rated
    porn pics atop piles of naked Arab men at Abu Ghraib prison camp, are not
    the anomalies that Bush pretends they are. They have in fact been quite
    astute in picking up the clear signals transmitted by American culture and
    media -- that the Arabs are not human beings like Israelis and Americans,
    and that atrocities inflicted on them will never be the subject of
    international war crimes trials.

    In that sense, the teenage troops recently arrived in Iraq from the
    corridors of KFC, Wal-Mart and your local Pizza Hut, are far more with it
    than the Bush buffoons trying to explain to the Arab world how the horrors
    at Abu Ghraib could have happened.

    Bush would never have bothered to seek to explain or offer "regrets" were it
    not for the worldwide circulation of the photos of the Iraqi prisoners.
    Since the U.S. media were never forced by similar circumstances to circulate
    atrocity photos of what the Marines did to the city of Falluja, there have
    been no apologies for the loss of civilian life in that city of Amalek.

    What Bush is offering regarding the ritual degradation of Iraqis---a rite of
    degradation similar to ones undertaken at "The Tomb" in New Haven,
    Connecticut in which Mr. Bush participated as part of his Skull and Bones
    initiation -- are not sincere regrets, but rather public relations stunts in
    an on-going propaganda war, nothing more.

    Iraqis may be under US occupation troops, but those troops are being
    directed not by the principles of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, but by
    the psychotic haters who comprise the religion of Orthodox Judaism, the only
    major religion on earth decreeing the merciless extermination of an entire
    race of people.

    That the Zionist objective of race war with the Arabs is disguised as
    America's "war on terrorism" has ominous consequences for the world.

    Hoffman's books are available through Amazon.com or directly from his
    website at http://www.revisionisthistory.org/bookstore.html