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