Why Can’t Jews Handle The Openly Shown Facts About Jews ? This is not that hard.

Why Can’t Jews Handle The Openly Shown Facts About Jews ?

How blind are you ? Do you just refuse to hear ? Wake Up this is not that hard.


TopJewish Religions: Christianity: Penetration of The Christian Organizations
How The Jews Have Corrupted Christianity
“We have long past taken care to discredit the clergy of the Goyim, and thereby to ruin their mission
on earth which in these days might still be a great hinderance to us. Day by day their influence on
the peoples of the world is falling lower. Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere, so
that now only years divide us from the moment of the COMPLETE WRECKING of that Christian
religion! As to other religions, we shall have still less difficulty in dealing with them.
“In the meantime, we shall not overtly lay a finger on existing churches, but we shall fight against
them by criticism. Our contemporary press will continue be every means to lower their prestige in
the manner which can only be practised by the genius of our gifted tribe.” – Protocol 17
The Jews, have become the most ANTI-God people on the face of the earth because they rejected
God and rejected His Son! They’ve gone the opposite way, to where they now fight Jesus more than
any other people. More than any other religion, Jews and Judaism actively FIGHT Christ. They’re
not just neutral, they’re not indifferent, they are actively ANTI-CHRIST! Most of the hate and evil
that can be found in Judiasm, is not from the Bible, it’s from the TALMUD, the writings of their
rabbis and elders supposedly about the Bible; the traditions of men of which Jesus told them, “You
have made the Word of God of none effect through your traditions!” (Mark 7:13) The Jew’s view of
their Talmudic teachings is expressed in “The Jewish Encyclopedia”:
“The Talmud is regarded almost as the supreme authority by the majority of Jews. Even the
Bible is relegated to a secondary place.”
The Talmud itself says:
“The words of the elders are more important than the words of the Prophets.” (Treatise
Berachoth, i.4.)
Regarding Jesus Christ, “The Jewish Encyclopedia” tells us:
“It is the tendency of Jewish legends in the Talmud, the Midrash” (the sermons in the
synagogues) “and in the Life of Jesus Christ (Toledoth Jeshua) that originated in the Middle Ages,
to belittle the person of Jesus by ascribing to Him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death.
He is generally alluded to as ‘that anonymous one’, ‘liar’, ‘impostor’, or ‘bastard’.”
These “sacred” writings of the Jews also refer to Jesus as a “fool”, “sorcerer”, “profane person”,
“idolater”, “dog”, “child of lust”, and much worse. The Jews’ wish to conceal from the outer world
that which they teach led to the censoring of the above- referred-to passages of the Talmud during
the 17th century. Knowledge of the Talmud had become fairly widespread then and the
embarrassment thus caused to the rabbis and elders led to the following edict (translated from the
original Hebrew by P.L.B. Drach, who was brought up in a Talmudic school and later became
converted to Christianity): top of page
“This is why we enjoin you, under pain of excommunication major, to print nothing in future
editions, whether of the Mishna or of the Gemara, which relates whether for good or evil to the acts
of Jesus the Nazarene, and to substitute instead a circle like this: ‘O’, which will warn the rabbis and
schoolmasters to teach the young these passages only ‘viva voce’ (by word of mouth). By means of
this precaution the followers of the Nazarene will have no further pretext to attack us on this
subject.” (Decree of the Judaist Synod which met in Poland in 1631.)
Although the Jews today are as anti-Christ as they’ve ever been, they’ve been so clever in their
propaganda, they have even sold the Christians on the idea that they are God’s special “chosen
people”! The preferred Bible that most fundamental American Christians use today is the “Scofield”
version, which is just full a false doctrines and interpretations trying to prove that the Jews are God’s
people. It’s shocking to realise that actual Christians are now so deceived by the Jews that they’ve
allowed them to kick the Bible and God and prayer out of the publik schools! They don’t even see
what is going on!
Just think! – Millions of Christians are now supporting the people of the Antichrist! In fact, some of
them are the staunchest friends of “ISRAEL”! The cruel, anti-Christ leaders of “Israel” who have
STOLEN an entire country from its rightful owners, are now saying that the Fundamentalist
CHRISTIANS of America are their greatest friends and staunchest supporters! A 1985 “Washington
Post” article cites a good example showing how duped and deceived many of these Christians are:
“Rev. Falwell (popular American preacher and leader of the so-called “Moral Majority”) told the
conservative Rabbinical Assembly at their March 13 Miami session, ‘Twenty-five years ago many of
us were saying this is a Christian republic.’ He added, ‘NOW we say “JUDEO-Christian” republic.
There is a spirit of pluralism that did not exist then. We have had our excesses’, Mr. Falwell said,
‘and we can only say we’re sorry and we’ll try and ‘do better’. He promised to ‘mobilise 70 million
conservative Christians for Israel and against “anti-Semitism”. Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of the
American Jewish Committee commented after the Miami session, in which he participated, ‘It was
thrilling to watch Jerry Falwell become a born-again American.’” top of page
Another “Washington Post” article said,
“Embracing Abraham’s Covenant as fervently as the most impassioned Zionists, the burgeoning
Evangelical Christian movement in the United States is fast becoming one of Israel’s most potent
allies in its conflict with the Arab world. An aide to Mr. Menachem Begin said that the Evangelicals
“are a pillar that Israel has in the United States. They number ten times the Jews in America, and
they are outspoken. Naturally, we look KINDLY on what they are doing.”
Imagine, Menachem BEGIN and his ilk “looking kindly” on the CHRISTIANS of America! Begin,
Yitzak Shamir, Ariel Sharon and the other Jewish TERRORISTS who now rule “Israel” are as
ruthless and anti-Christ as anyone could possibly be! Begin is the former leader of the terrorist
organisation, IRGUN, and he personally claimed responsibility for blowing up the King David
Hotel in Jerusalem, killing over ninety innocent civilians. It was Begin, who in April 1948, ordered
and led the Irgun attack on the unarmed Arab village of Deir Yasin in Palestine, murdering 254
helpless men, women, and children! The incident received scant news coverage in the West,
although “Time” magazine did report:
“Jewish terrorists of the Stern Gang and Irgun Zvai Leumi stormed the village of Deir Yasin
and butchered everyone in sight. The corpses of 250 Arabs, mostly women and small children,
were later found tossed in wells.”
This atrocity so shocked and terrified the surrounding Arab communities, that as news of it spread,
they immediately abandoned their homes, farms and villages, and fled into the desert, warned by the
Israelis that the same fate would befall them. Today 40 YEARS LATER, literally MILLIONS of
homeless Christian and Muslim Palestinians are suffering in squalor, poverty, and deprivation in
“refugee camps” in the Arab nations bordering Israel. Boasting in Tel Aviv during an election
campaign in 1950, Begin claimed credit for the foundation of the Zionist State through his great
“military victory” at DEIR YASIN:
“Irgun’s contribution to Israel was DEIR YASIN, which caused the Arabs to leave the country and
make room for the newcomers. Without Deir Yasin and the subsequent Arab rout, the present
government could not absorb one-tenth of the immigrants.”
It’s hard to believe that CHRISTIANS could actually support and rally around someone like
Menachem Begin! – How easily the Jews have been able to deceive them! They’ve been duped worse
than anybody! Jesus told the Jewish leaders of His day that they were “whited sepulchres full of dead
men’s bones! – Clean on the OUTSIDE of the platter, but WITHIN were full of FILTH and ROT
and ALL uncleanliness!” (Mat 23:25-27) They are IMPOSTORS, Scribes, Pharisees,
HYPOCRITES! Pretending to be so just and righteous, they’ve used their international political and
economic clout to steal an entire COUNTRY away from the poor Palestinians who’d lived there for
almost 2,000 years!
The whole thing is a LIE of the Devil! He’s DECEIVED ALMOST THE WHOLE WORLD into
believing that they’re the “chosen people” returning to their “promised land”. But they are
IMPOSTORS! Jewish source after Jewish source document this. Consider the JEWISH Historian
Nathan M. Pollock who by 1966 had devoted 40 of his 64 years trying to prove at least 6 out of 10
ISRAELIS and 9 out of 10 Jews in the Western Hemisphere HAVE NO SEMITE BLOOD! He and
a host of others have gathered an INCREDIBLE amount of documentation on this FACT! Consider
this when you see the media or someone who is too ignorant to know better labeling someone for
criticizing the Jews as “anti-Semite”. In FACT, the Jews are the most ANTI-SEMITIC PEOPLE the
world has ever known. They are relentless in their persecution, torture, and murder of the Arabs,
TRUE SEMITIC people who are the direct descendants of Abraham. top of page
Also consider what the Jewish historian/writer Arthur Koestler has to say on page 17 of his awesome
and enlightening book, “The Thirteenth Tribe”:
“The large majority of Jews after World War II in the world, were of Eastern origin-and thus
perhaps mainly of Khazar origin. If so, this would mean that their ancestors came not from the
Jordan, but from the Volga; not from the Canaan but from the Caucausus, once believed to be the
cradle of the Aryan race. Genetically, they are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar
tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Should this turn out to be the case, then the
term anti-Semitic would be VOID OF MEANING, based on a MISAPPREHENSION shared by
both killers and victims. The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins
to look like the most cruel HOAX which history has ever perpetrated.” [Indeed, Mr. Koestler went
on to provide intense proof of ALL of this and much more!]
God doesn’t need us to promote Israel. Anyone who believes that the ZIONIST STATE of Israel set
up by this One World Conspiracy is the same as the NATION of ISRAEL referred to in Scriptures,
IS MISERABLY DECEIVED the way Christ warned us in Scriptures that “MANY would be”.
ANY Christian preacher who actively teaches this FALSE DOCTRINE is also either miserably
deceived or he is outright LYING, and may God have mercy on him. The Seed of Abraham IS NOT
THE SAME AS the so-called and self-styled “Jews” of today!! [See Rev 2:9; 3:9 – MANY other
Scripture verses confirm this also.]
Jesus Himself told them, “Ye are of your father the DEVIL, and the lusts of your father ye will do!
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him!”
(Jn 8:44) They have tried to ruthlessly cast out the TRUE children of God in Palestine, the Christian
Palestinians, and to establish their own “Messianic Kingdom” in modern-day so-called “Israel”!
What a travesty of justice and mockery of the Truth!
The Jews have now got most of the Christians so deceived and so blinded and so deafened by their
propaganda, that they follow along, tag along, like they’re on a leash. “Gentile dogs” is exactly what
the Jews call the “Goyim”, and they’re certainly on the leash now, trotting along right behind,
assisting the anti-Semitic Jews promote the Godless STATE of Israel and her MURDERERS . . .
going everywhere the Jews go, “barking and yapping” exactly what they want them to say and doing
exactly as they want them to do!
The Christians of this world are going to wake up one of these days and find out what a big mistake
they made in giving the Mideast to the Jews! – And in giving their OWN countries to the Jews!
When the Jews finally get in FULL control and show their true colors, particularly under the
ANTICHRIST, then some of these Christians are going to wake up to the FACT that they made a
big mistake in backing the Jews who one day soon will openly show themselves to be the very forces
of the Antichrist himself! – But by then, for many, it will be too late! top of page
Christian Left Veers on Israel After Jews Helped in a Crisis
Rev. Campbell
National Council of Churches Sign Onto Campaign Against Jerusalem
It Wasn’t Our Money, Insists AJCommittee
December 27, 1996
WASHINGTON – An advertisement placed by liberal Protestant groups calling for an end to Israel’s sovereignty over
Jerusalem is threatening to erode the interfaith cooperation that led to last summer’s fabled Jewish-Christian joint effort on the
rebuilding of burnt black churches.
The general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, the Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, who
signed the ad, appeared in June with Rabbi David Saperstein at a press conference in New York to announce that the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations would assist in reconstructing the arson-damaged churches. Her organization, a leading voice
for the Christian left, took out joint newspaper advertisements with the American Jewish Committee to draw attention to the
church burnings, and in August she traveled with the AJCommittee’s Rabbi A. James Rudin and other religious leaders to
rebuild a church in Tennessee with President Clinton.
Now those same rabbis are expressing disappointment at the Rev. Campbell, the National Council of Churches and the other
Christian groups that placed a full-page advertisement in the Dec. 21 number of The New York Times. Under the title
“Christians Call for a Shared Jerusalem,” the ad says, “Jerusalem at peace cannot belong exclusively to one people, one
country, or one religion.” Jewish leaders say they were not consulted in advance of the ad. They warned that the statement
might hurt the delicate Middle East peace process as well as relations between Christians and Jews in America.
“It is a major disappointment that erodes the level of confidence necessary to have really close, functioning, coalition
relationships,” Rabbi Saperstein said.
He said the peace process now is at a precarious stage over issues like Hebron and Palestinian Arab autonomy. The parties to
the process agreed to leave discussion of Jerusalem to the end of the talks, he said, and to inject the Holy City into the
discussion now would be counterproductive. “Whatever one thinks of the merits of the message, the choice to put this message
out right now is clearly ill-advised and likely to undermine the peace process,” Rabbi Saperstein said.
Rabbi Rudin also expressed dismay at the timing of the ad. “It’s aimed at the Netanyahu government, it’s aimed at an Israeli
government,” he said. “It’s really a one-sided statement….It’s just very negative.” Rabbi Rudin said the ad’s signers were not
calling for the internationalization of Jerusalem before 1967, when Israel captured the eastern part of the city from Jordan. He
emphasized that the
AJCommittee had donated no money to the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, and he said that, while
cooperating with liberal Protestant groups on domestic issues, AJCommittee often differs with those groups on international
matters. Likewise, the organization may cooperate with evangelical Christian groups on some international matters but differ on
domestic policy.
‘Naive and Ill-informed’
“It certainly does not represent the views of all Christians,” said the secretary-treasurer of the National Christian Leadership
Conference, the Rev. William Harter. The Rev. Harter, pastor of the Presbyterian Church of Falling Spring in Chambersburg,
Pa., called the views expressed in the ad “naive” and “ill-informed.”
The Rev. Harter said that in view of 1,900 years of Christian anti-Semitism and the effects of the Crusades against Jews,
Muslims and Eastern Christians, “It is especially unbecoming for Christian leaders to be dictating to Jews and Muslims what
solutions they should come up with.”
For his part, Rabbi Saperstein rejected the suggestion that UAHC donations to the council of churches’ restricted fund for
rebuilding burnt churches had in any way subsidized the ad.
The ad includes a coupon to return to “Churches for Middle East Peace” and listed an address here for the organization in the
same building occupied by the Washington offices of the National Council of the Churches, the American Baptist Churches,
USA, Church of the Brethren, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Unitarian Universalist
Association, the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church. Those groups signed the ad, as did the American
Friends Service Committee, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers and the Catholic Conference
of Major Superiors of Men’s Institutes. Another signer is James Akins, who is suing the Federal Election Commission with a
group of former American officials to force the FEC to take action against the pro-Israel lobby, Aipac.
The coupon says, “I believe the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee should raise and recommend the concept of a
shared Jerusalem during confirmation of the next U.S. Secretary of State.”
Rabbi Rudin described Churches for Middle East Peace as “uniformly unfriendly to Israel,” and he characterized the signers of
the ad as “a heavily liberal Protestant group” that had little representation of the Catholic or evangelical Christians. “It does not
represent the broad cross-section of all the Christian community,” he said.
The director of Churches for Middle East Peace, Corrine Whitlatch, said the ad was timed to coincide with Christmas, when
people would be interested in a Christian perspective on Jerusalem. She said the ad was not intended to hurt the peace process
or interfaith cooperation. “We hope that our Jewish colleagues can see this ad as a constructive step forward, one that does not
threaten Israel’s interests and claims on Jerusalem,” she said.
Ms. Whitlatch said that the Rev. Campbell had been “personally very supportive” of the ad. She said that while many Jews
might have preferred that her group remain silent on the issue of Jerusalem, such a posture was “just not feasible” because of
pressure from Christians in the Middle East.
The Rev. Campbell did not return a phone call seeking comment.
‘Confusion and Division’
Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, which also participated in the effort to rebuild burnt
black churches, drafted a letter to all of the signers of the advertisement. “We are saddened that religious leaders who are
charged with bringing spiritual understanding and healing to their communities and the world are now spreading confusion and
division regarding this most sensitive issue,” wrote Mr. Foxman, who referred to the ad as an “unhelpful intrusion.”
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations huddled early Monday to craft a response to the ad.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference, called the ad “very disturbing,” noting that several member
organizations have worked with groups that signed the ad.
The Conference plans no ad to respond to the one placed by Churches for Middle East Peace, but it does plan to develop
talking points on the subject and to contact Senator Helms and the Rev. Campbell, said one president who participated in the
call. The response will probably emphasize the ill treatment suffered by Christians when Jerusalem was under Arab control.
by Professor Revilo P. Oliver (August 1991), Liberty Bell Magazine top of page
Christianity is still one of the cardinal factors in any reasonable estimate of our present
plight. It is certainly more important than economics, and it made possible the alien capture
and occupation of the United States.
The Christian churches fall into two categories. The Protestant sects necessarily depend for
their authority on a belief that the Bible was divinely inspired and is therefore literally
accurate. This basis of their religion was gradually eroded over the past century. With few
noteworthy exceptions, (1) the major Protestant churches have slyly but effectively replaced
their Bible with the “social gospel” of the Marxian Reformation, relying on the fecklessness
or gullibility of their congregations to overlook the spiritual swindle. They have thus
become religiously, as well as intellectually, fraudulent.
(1. The principle exceptions are the Missouri Synod of the Lutherans, which is now in the
hands of a bureaucracy that is bent on debasing it to the level of the “main-line” Lutheran
churches (cf. *Liberty Bell*, July 1990, pp. 16-25); the much smaller Wisconsin Synod, which
has troubles of its own; small groups of Presbyterians, headed by Dr. Rousas J. Rushdoony,
and Anglicans, headed by the late Bishop Dees, who try to preserve the essentials of their
religion; and the Mormons, who have supplemental Scriptures of their own, but have serious
internal dissension (cf. *Liberty Bell*, July 1989, pp. 13-37) and are increasingly
vulnerable to attacks on their new gospels (cf. *Liberty Bell(, December 1989, pp. 10-28.)
The Roman Catholic Church was less vulnerable because less dependent on the Bible, which, for
many centuries, it forbade laymen to read. It claims to represent an apostolic succession
from the incarnate god of Christianity, and until quite recently, it, by far the largest of
Christian denominations, exhibited a monolithic solidarity that made it seem impregnable. (2)
Then, only a few years ago, it was suddenly shattered by an internal revolution, as sudden
and drastic as the Jews’ Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and far more suprising to observers
of world affairs.
(2. In *America’s Decline*, pp. 78-79, I described the Church as it appeared in 1955 to
observers who, having no religion, could consider the problem objectively and even had the
benefit of information that had been available only through military intelligence, including
secret communications between the Vatican and its branches in several parts of the world.)
It was a ‘palace revolution.’ What had been the Church’s great strength became its fatal
weakness. When the conspirators captured the Vatican, they became the masters of all their
subordinates in the regular Church and in the monastic orders, from archbishops to parish
priests to yet unordained postulants and students in seminaries. By the power of
excommunication they could deprive any dissident of his livelihood by preventing him from
practicing the only art he knew. It required great faith and great courage even to question
the dictates of the revolutionary r‚gime.
Archbishops, of course, were persons of some consequence, accustomed to luxury suited to
their exalted position, and if any of them was sufficiently interested in the Church’s
doctrine to resent the change, it is likely that he was kept in line by threats sweetened by
generous bribes. Malcontents and soft-spoken dissidents within the Roman Curia were tolerated
until they were eliminated or cowed by terrorism after the murder of John Paul I in 1989. (3)
Conscientious priests, unless able to escape notice, had no alternative but to leave the
Church and seek other means of earning a living. Many of them did, including two with whom I
was aquainted. I have seen an estimate that throughout the world 100,000 priests left the
apostate Church, but I hesitate to accept that figure.
(3. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Pope was murdered, although the motive for the
crime remains obscure. I have referred more than once to David Yallin’s sensational book, *In
God’s Name*, but I have only recently received a copy of a work by Piers Compton, *The Broken
Cross* (Bullsbrook, West Australia; Veritas, 1984). He appears not to have seen Yallin’s
book, but was able to consult letters from twenty-two prelates concerning the death of the
Pope, collected in a volume entitled *Lettres de Rome sur le singulier tr‚pas de Jean-Paul I*
by a Parisian journalist under the pseudonym Jean Jacques Thierry. The volume was suppressed
almost immediately after it was published. The Pope died during the night, his call for help
having been inexplicably ignored. In the morning, his corpse was found at 5:30 and by 9:30
embalmers had completed their work, having removed the vital organs that would be needed for
an autopsy and reportedly destroyed them! This fact was apparently unknown to the persons
who, during the following days, demanded an autopsy that had been made impossible. That
indecent precaution establishes the fact of murder.)
Religiously, the Church committed suicide. Every ‘revealed’ religion must profess to be based
on transcendental truth that is immutable and eternal, revealed, directly or indirectly, by
an eternal, immutable, and infallible god. The Roman Church claimed to have been founded by
an Apostle expressly delegated for that purpose by its incarnate god, and Pius XII, the last
Pontifex Maximus before the new r‚gime, was the two hundred and sixty-second in an apostolic
succession, representing, it was claimed, an unbroken tradition and a doctrine that had been
received from the divinely-appointed Apostle.
As every man capable of logical thought saw at once, the radical changes in doctrine made by
the new r‚gime necessarily implied that either (a) the Church’s god had ignorantly,
irrationally, or maliciously lied to his Vicars on earth for nineteen centuries, or (b) the
two hundred and sixty-two Vicars had misrepresented the wishes and commands of their
celestial principal.
The drastic changes did not make the Church simply explode, because faith commonly precludes
logical thought, and in the Roman Church, the mass of votaries had long been accustomed to
believe whatever they were told by their priest and unquestioningly to follow his directions.
When the Church was “modernized,” as though it were an old house or an obsolete railroad,
many ostentatious changes in practice may have been partly devised to conceal vital changes
in doctrine. Most churches, for example, were stripped of their ornaments and made as bare
and uninteresting as churches of the most Puritanical Protestant sects. The Latin mass, which
was impressive when well performed, was replaced with vernacular gabble that was tediously
flat and boring when it was not ludicrous. Priests were converted into Protestant ministers,
delivering commonplace sermons. Some venerated Saints were unceremoniously tossed out onto
the scrap heap. But all these changes were relatively superficial.
If one considered the new doctrine critically, one immediately saw what had been the cardinal
and most drastic change. The attitude toward the Jews that the Christian god had presumably
ordained for nineteen centuries was reversed. The change was neatly illustrated by the
Cardinal who is believed most likely to become the next Pope. He boasts that he is a faithful
and practicing Jew, and brazenly asserts that Christianity is merely a kind of auxiliary
church by which deserving *goyim* are admitted to some of the privileges God irrevocably
bestowed on his Chosen People. (4)
(4. See *Liberty Bell*, May 1987, pp. 6-14.)
It was obvious, therefore, that the Roman Catholic Church had been captured by the Jews and
would be operated in their interests. Strangely enough, this fact was generally ignored by
even the most vehement adversaries of the “modernization.” (5)
(5. Mr. Compton, in the work cited in Note 3 *supra*, attributes the capture of the Church to
a conspiracy that included Weishaupt’s Illuminati, Aleister Crowley’s Satanism, and other
secret societies, including, of course, Freemasonry, along the lines well known from the
writings of Nesta Webster, Christina Stoddard (“Inquire Within”), Lady Queensboro, and many
others. He carefully disregards the Jews, but a sheet reproduced from typewriting and of
uncertain provenance, enclosed with the copy of his book sent to me, identifies Wojtyia (John
Paul II) as a Jew, son of a Kikess named Wanda Katz.)
Since I am certain that Christianity is a fundamental fact that must be taken into account in
any worthwhile consideration of our present situation or attempt to foresee our probable
future, I have devoted many pages in *Liberty Bell* to that subject, with special attention
to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest and most influential of all Christian
denominations. Most recently, in “The Stolen Church,” December 1990, I recommended the *The
New Montinian Church*, an impressive English translation of an important work by the Reverend
D. Joaquin S enz y Arriaga, and in “The Vacant See,” April-May 1991, I reported what were
evidently the conclusions of a canon lawyer that the Papacy had been vacant since the death
of Pius XII in 1958.
I was pleased when my opinion about the cardinal importance of the Roman Church in our plight
today was corroborated from an unexpected source, Mr. Lawrence Patterson’s *Criminal
Politics* (P.O. Box 37812, Cincinnati, Ohio [45222]; monthly, $187.50 per annum).
*Criminal Politics* is devoted exclusively to finance and to consideration of the ways in
which Americans may conserve what they have saved and still own, in spite of the Federal
government. Since in countries like the United States and Soviet Russian economic laws have
been nullified by a tyrannical government, it is necessary to consider political forces, and
that includes Catholicism. The issue for April contains (pp. 12-17) an article entitled “The
New World Order: Catholicism and the Zionist War Against Our Cultural Standards.”
After noting that the Vatican was once a strenuous opponent of the Communists, and now is
virtually allied with them in promoting the “New World Order,” Mr. Patterson takes his
departure from an astonishingly candid article published in what was then one of the most
widely circulated periodicals, *Look*, (6) 25 January 1966. It was written by the magazine’s
senior editor, Joseph Roddy, and entitled “How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking.”
(6. The paid circulation of *Look* at that time was over 7,500,000 copies of each issue; the
magazine did not suffer from the indiscreet revelation–at least not immediately. In 1968,
its circulation had increased by 200,000, but financial difficulties made it cease
publication in October 1971, although its circulation had increased to almost 8,000,000 in
Mr. Roddy, after noting that the American Jewish Committee and B’nai B’rith put pressure on
the Vatican Council to alter Catholic doctrine in their favor, reported that the real author
of the Council’s surrender to Judaism was a French Jew named Jules Isaac, who co”perated with
a “Fifth Column” (7) of Marrano traitors in the Council, including the slimy Cardinal Bea,
but the success of the work of subversion was to be attributed to a “priest spy,” a Jesuit
who served on the staff of Bea and shuttled back and forth between the Vatican and the
American Jewish Committee in New York.
(7. I do not like to see ‘Fifth Column’ used in this sense, a perversion of its original
meaning. When the Spanish army was delivering Spain from Judaeo-Communist terror in 1936,
General Franco, on whom the command had devolved, remarked that four columns of his troops
were converging on Madrid, in which there was a ‘fifth column’ composed of the decent
Spaniards in that territory, who, while impotent against the power of the Communist
government, necessarily sympathized with the army that was fighting to free them and would
assist its efforts whenever they feasibly could. A ‘fifth column,’ therefore, is not composed
of traitors, but of patriots held in subjection by an alien power.)
According to Mr. Roddy, the decree of the Vatican Council drafted by Jules Isaac “would have
gone down early,” but for the “covert help” of the “priest-spy.”
That seems implausible. It is hard to see how the “priest-spy” could have had the pivotal
r”le attributed to him. When Roncalli, who, under the laws of the Church, was not even a
Catholic, slithered onto the See of Rome as John XXIII, his election must have been procured
by accomplices in the College of Cardinals, (8) and he almost certainly had *in petto* a
scheme for capturing and Judaizing the Church, probably including the Vatican Council that he
convened in 1962 and guided through its intermittent sessions to its consummation of the
revolutionary take-over in 1965. Mr. Patterson notes that after Roncalli was elected Pope in
1958, the larger newspapers in this country dropped their neutral or mildly hostile attitude
toward the Catholic Church and suddenly blossomed with bouquets for “good Pope John.” The
Jewish Lords of the American press must have received from their superiors advice that
“Roncalli is our boy.”
(8. When the Cardinals meet to elect a new pope and are immured, there is always a period of
frantic competition between various aspirants and their supporters, and political trading and
retrading of votes until a compromise is reached or, if there is an unresolvable deadlock, an
interim pontiff is elected to hold office while the factions regroup. A few wily intriguers,
especially if well supplied with cash, can often determine the outcome of an election.)
The capture of the Church had already been planned before the Council got under way, and I
cannot imagine how the “priest-spy” could have done more than arrange matters of detail or
transport cash when he served as liaison between his Jewish employers in New York and
important members of the Council. Only if millions or billions of dollars in real money were
needed to consolidate the position of Roncalli and his accomplices, and were supplied from
New York, could the messenger who delivered the bribes be said to have determined the
decisions of the Council, but Mr. Roddy says nothing about that.
Mr. Roddy did not name the “priest-spy,” who, he said, pretended to be a conservative
Catholic but was really “100%” in the Zionist interest and might himself be a Jew disguised
as a Jesuit. He provided, however, a series of more or less enigmatic clues to the man’s
Mr. Patterson reports that his research has identified the “priest-spy” as Malachi Martin,
alias (by his own admission) Michael Serafian, alias (by implication) F.F. Cartus, and
(therefore) alias Timothy Fitzharris-O’Boyle.
Martin’s career corresponds to the clues given by Roddy. He was a Jesuit, had been a
professor in the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome (reputed to be a scholar of Semitic
languages and an expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls), had migrated to New York, written for the
Jewish periodical, *Commentary*, under an alias, a book, *The Pilgrim*, under another alias,
and under his own name many articles as a “conservative Catholic” for Buckley’s *National
Review*, of which he was, for a time, the Religious Editor. Although neither Roddy nor Mr.
Patterson mentions the even more significant fact, Malachi Martin claims to have been an
intimate friend and advisor of Roncalli.
According to various reports, Martin, after he established himself in this country, left the
priesthood and married. He has certainly produced under his own name an amazing number of
presumably highly profitable books, all aimed at Catholics who have not abandoned the
traditional faith of the Church. Whether he continues to write under pseudonyms, I do not
Now if Martin did indeed play an important r”le in betraying the Church into the hands of its
inveterate enemies, he certainly knew what he was doing. Piers Compton quotes him as having
predicted, at the time the Vatican Council completed its work of subversion in December 1965,
“Well before the year 2000, there will no longer be a religious institute recognizable as the
Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church of today…. There will be no centralized control, no
uniformity in teaching, no universality in practice or worship, prayer, sacrifice, and
He believed that his prophecy was being fulfilled. In his *The Jesuits, the Society of Jesus,
and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church* (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1987), he wrote:
‘The extent of the damage produced in the Church….after 1965 can be gauged a mere twenty
years later. Pope John Paul II now presides over a Church organization that is in shambles, a
rebellious and decadent clergy, an ignorant and recalcitrant body of bishops, and a confused
and divided assembly of believers. The Roman Catholic Church, which used to present itself as
the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, appears now as a pluralistic, permissive,
ecumenical, and evolutionary ecclesial group.’ (9)
(9. In this book, he, a former Jesuit, accuses the Jesuits of having become a gang of
conspiratorial Marxists engaged in promoting, under the guise of religion, a Communist
dictatorship. He even avers that the Jesuits in the United States drew up detailed plans for
the installation of “Maoist Marxism” in this country.)
In all writings published under his own name, so far as I know, Malachi Martin has
consistently taken the position of a Catholic faithful to the Church’s doctrine and
traditions, estimating that about 40% of the present College of Cardinals are Christians,
ridiculing American bishops who jabbered about “ending poverty” and “sharing the wealth” by
pointing out that the Roman Church is the wealthiest body in the world, with assets totaling
hundreds of billions of dollars and possibly amounting to two *trillion* dollars
($2,000,000,000,000), and insisting that “Christ never singled out the proletariat with a
preferential opinion in their favor.” The mission of the Church is exclusively spiritual and
it has no competence or authority to pronounce on matters of economics or politics. (10)
(10. For example, in an article in *National Review*, 5 January 1979, which I have consulted
in my files of that publication, he wrote: “Over the last fifteen years, the Roman Catholic
Church in the United States, under the leadership and authority of its bishops, has become
mainly two things. It is, first and most stridently, a jumbled shop-front jammed with a
motley array of political issues, civil squabbles, sociological experiments, and
psychological theories. _ Second, and more poignantly, it is a gristmill grinding down the
hope and enthusiasm of faithful followers who know that their bishops have neglected the
purity of their faith and the practice of religion in their Church, in favor of such issues
as environmental pollution, ethnic rights, land distribution, the Panama Canal, Rhodesian
chrome, and the evils of U.S. Capitalism.” In the remainder of the article, he does not
explicitly identify all these activities as serving Communist ends, but rather conspicuously
avoids considerations that would *lƒcher le mot*.)
I have not seen his latest book, *Keys of the Blood* (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1990),
which was reviewed by Paul A. Fisher in *Christian News*, 3 June 1991, and criticized by Mr.
Patterson in the article I have cited. In this book, Martin, somewhat at variance with his
earlier pronouncements, tells his readers that the world is now the prize which each of three
reciprocally hostile organizations are tying to gain for itself, viz.:
‘(a) A disintegrating Soviet Empire led by Mikhail Gorbachev; (b) transnationalists and
internationalists (a generic characterization for international bankers and businesses
affiliated with the Council on Foreign Affairs (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TLC), and
(c) a deteriorating Roman Catholic Church, the principal institution of Christendom, led by
Pope Paul II.’ (11)
(11. I quote from Mr. Fisher’s review. Note that there is no mention of Jews, which would not
have been tactful in a book published by Jews; but did the glaring omission have another
motive? I gather from Mr. Fisher that Martin expects a “direct intervention of God” during
the lifetime of the present Pope!)
That statement is the principal basis for Mr. Patterson’s denunciation of Martin as a “fake
conservative” and “double agent” of the Zionists, and he marshals abundant proofs that
Wojtyia (John Paul II) is co”perating so closely with both Soviets, the “Trilateralists” and
the Zionists in foisting the “New World Order” on the civilized nations to reduce them to
barbaric slavery that the Pope must be considered a servant or accomplice of all of the three
aspects of what must be a single force bent on our enslavement and eventual extinction. He
reasons that Martin’s book must be intended to confuse traditional Catholics and other
readers by deceiving them about our enemies and creating the deceptive illusion that three
tentacles of the octopus are fighting each other.
I am not here concerned with establishing Martin’s guilt or innocence, and I certainly shall
not waste time in collecting and analysing the many books and articles published under his
own name or in ascertaining whether or not the continues to publish divergent works under
pseudonyms, but I shall point out that, so far as I can tell from the reviews, he is guilty
of a certain duplicity in concealing in his latest book conclusions that he has stated
In an address reported by the *Rocky Mountain News*, 8 October 1982 (reproduced
photographically in *Christian News* he stated explicitly that “The Christian church is
decaying, has nothing to say, and is on the way out.” He added that the other great religions
of the world, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, “are headed in the same direction as
Christianity and even faster.” He predicted the imposition of “a worldwide religion with one
structure and institutions,” managed by “one great bureaucracy. And out of it will emerge the
ultimate disaster.”
What is crucially significant in that speech is that he explicitly affirmed that the Jews’
religion (the basis of their racial unity) is not in the least subject to change or decay and
will always endure triumphantly. “It is irradicable, (12) indestructible,” he affirmed,
“there is no decay and *nothing can destroy the soul of Judaism.* (My italics.)
(12. He means *uneradicable*.)
There you have it. There, stated with blinding clarity for all who think while reading, is an
indication of who will own and enslave the world of tomorrow. No author, unwilling to bring
upon himself the terrorists of the Jews’ government in Washington, could have stated the fact
more explicitly.
According to Mr. Lawrence, Martin, in his new book, certainly concealing or reversing his
belief in an “ultimate disaster,” not only regards the New World Order as inevitable, but
lauds it a “Grand Design of God.” And he says, “As to the time factor involved, those of us
who are under 70 will see at least the basic structure of the new world government
installed…. Those of us who are under 40 will surely live under its legislative, executive,
and judicial authority and control.”
And he could have added that Americans who are now under five will surely grow up to be
imbecile creatures, so well trained that whenever they see or smell a Sheeny, they will
automatically drop to their knees and knock their foreheads three times on the pavement in
veneration of their living gods.
Jews Gave Jerry Falwell a Lear jet for his services on their behalf
In 1977 the Likud party under Menachem Begin came to power on an expansionist Zionist platform using biblical phraseology to justify the settlement of the West Bank. It was Begin for example who first renamed Israel and the Occupied Territories as Judaea and Samaria. In America the Jewish lobby realised the potential significance of wooing the political endorsement of the powerful 50-60 million Evangelical block vote through their fundamentalist leadership. With this in mind, in 1979, the Israeli government honoured Jerry Falwell with the Jabotinsky Award in appreciation of his support of Israel. They also provided him with a Lear jet to assist in his work on their behalf.

Archived for Educational Purposes only Under U.S.C. Title 17 Section 107
by Jew Watch Library at www.jewwatch.com

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in the Jew Watch Library is archived here under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in reviewing the included information for personal use, non-profit research and educational purposes only.
Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you have additions or suggestions


MUST WATCH!!! Trump and the Greater Israel (WARNING! DISTURBING CONTENT!)

When a people allow human rights violations to go unpunished, they are no better then the criminals themselves.

via Daily Prompt: Exposed

“I join millions urging FIFA to demand Israel exclude settlement football teams or face suspension. #RedCardIsrael

#RedCardIsrael @ FIFA Congress

by Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel category: Cause

“I join millions urging FIFA to demand Israel exclude settlement football teams or face suspension. #RedCardIsrael


profile image
Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
Ends May 08, 12:00 PM CEST
Support Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel in sharing this message.

We will post this one-time message to your account on
May 08 at 12:00PM CEST. About Support & Privacy

#RedCardIsrael @ FIFA CongressFIFA, the world football governing body, will make a decision on Israeli football teams based in illegal settlements at their upcoming congress on May 10, 2017. This is our chance to ensure that Palestinian human rights are front and centre on their agenda!

More than one hundred sports and human rights associations representing millions of people across the globe have called on FIFA to demand the Israeli Football Association end its affiliation with settlement clubs, or face suspension from FIFA if it fails to do so.

As the pressure mounts on FIFA to respect its statutes, the Israeli government is enlisting its embassies to drop the issue of settlement clubs from the Congress’ agenda altogether. We can’t let that happen. Settlement clubs and human rights violations have no place in the beautiful game.


Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) was initiated in 2004 to contribute to the struggle for Palestinian freedom, justice and equality. PACBI advocates for the boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, given their deep and persistent complicity in Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights as stipulated in international law.


profile pic

Palestine Today
218,209 Connections

profile pic

BDS Movement
67,949 Connections

profile pic

MintPress News
32,369 Connections

profile pic

End the Occupation
32,214 Connections


Israel and ISIS Are Allies. There. We Said It.

Richard Silverstein
Fri, Apr 28, 2017

When you bomb an ally, you apologize. When you bomb an enemy, you don’t. What does that make ISIS to Israel?

'tacit' or not, it's still an alliance
‘tacit’ or not, it’s still an alliance

In the midst of complaining about the Islamist threat to Israel and the world, Bibi Netanyahu conveniently forgets that his own country enjoys a tacit alliance with the Islamic State (IS) in Syria.

It is an alliance of convenience to be sure and one that’s not boasted about by either party. But is not terribly different from one that Israel enjoys with its other Muslim allies like EgyptSaudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

“Bogie” Moshe Yaalon served as defence minister in the current Israeli government until he had a falling out with Netanyahu in May 2016. Now Yaalon plans to form his own party and run against his former boss. Unfortunately for him, he’s not polling well and doesn’t appear to be much of a political threat.

So Yaalon enjoys the position of having little to lose. He can speak more candidly than the average politician. In this context, he spoke at length on security matters at a public event in the northern Israeli city of Afula this past Saturday.

Yaalon’s confirmationThere is always much that I disagree with whenever I read Yaalon’s views. For example, while warning in this video about the danger of favouring too heavily one side over the other in Syria, he essentially justifies Israel’s interventionist approach. It has largely favoured Assad’s Islamist opponents. Nor do I much like, in another context, Yaalon’s choice of political allies – from Islamophobe blogger Pam Geller to Meir Kahane’s grandson.

But he did reveal Israel’s ties to IS in Syria. I’ve documented, along with other journalists, Israeli collaboration with al-Nusra, an affiliate of al-Qaeda. But no Israeli until now has admitted it has collaborated with IS as well.

Yaalon implicitly confirmed this in his statement:

“Within Syria there are many factions: the regime, Iran, the Russians, and even al-Qaeda and ISIS. In such circumstances, one must develop a responsible, carefully balanced policy by which you protect your own interests on the one hand, and on the other hand you don’t intervene. Because if Israel does intervene on behalf of one side, it will serve the interests of the other; which is why we’ve established red lines. Anyone who violates our sovereignty will immediately feel the full weight of our power. On most occasions, firing comes from regions under the control of the regime. But once the firing came from ISIS positions – and it immediately apologised.”

The attack he refers to was never reported in Israeli media. Either the information was placed under gag order or under military censorship. It was suppressed most certainly because both the firing by an Israeli Islamist ally on Israeli territory and IS’s apology would embarrass both Israel and the Islamists.What defines an ally?

Some critics claim that an IS apology doesn’t signify an alliance or serious collaboration between the Islamist group and Israel. To which I reply – when you bomb an ally you apologise. When you bomb an enemy – you don’t. What does that make IS to Israel?

Keep in mind, this is the same IS which beheaded a Jewish-American who had lived in Israel: Steven Sotloff. The same IS which raped Yazidi women and threw gay men off buildings. The same IS which has rampaged through the Middle East sowing havoc and rivers of blood wherever it goes. The same IS which Netanyahu routinely excoriates as being the root of all evil in the world. Like here, for example:

“Iran and the Islamic State want to destroy us, and a hatred for Jews is being directed towards the Jewish state today,” said Netanyahu, adding, “those who threaten to destroy us risk being destroyed themselves.”

It’s common knowledge that Israeli foreign policy going back to the days of Ben Gurion has been exceedingly opportunistic and amoral as exemplified in this infamous statement:”Were I to know that all German Jewish children could be rescued by transferring them to England and only half by transfer to Palestine, I would opt for the latter, because our concern is not only the personal interest of these children, but the historic interest of the Jewish people.”

So I suppose one shouldn’t be surprised at this new development. But still it does momentarily take one’s breath away to contemplate just how brutally cynical Israel’s motives and choices can often be.

Source: Middle East Eye

All 100 senators sign letter against U.N. actions to bring Israel to account

All 100 senators sign letter against U.N. actions to bring Israel to account

Anne Gearan reports in the Washington Post:

All 100 U.S. senators signed a letter Thursday asking U.N. Secretary General António Guterres to address what the lawmakers call entrenched bias against Israel at the world body.

Read Letter Here: https://www.docdroid.net/cJEsb3R/letter-from-all-100-us-senators-urging-un-to-end-anti-israel-agenda.pdf.html

The unanimous message notes that the United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations but does not threaten the withholding of U.S. dues. Still, it uses strong language to insist that the United Nations rectify what the senators said is unequal treatment of Israel on human rights and other grounds.

“Through words and actions, we urge you to ensure that Israel is treated neither better nor worse than any other U.N. member in good standing,” the letter said.

The letter, which will be released publicly Friday, was obtained by The Washington Post.

“As both the U.N.’s principal founding member and its largest contributor, the United States should insist on reform,” the letter read. “We are deeply committed to international leadership and to advancing respect for human rights. But continued targeting of Israel by the U.N. Human Rights Council and other U.N. entities is unacceptable.”

The senators asked Guterres, who assumed leadership of the world body in January, to seek such institutional changes as the removal of a standing agenda item for U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees sessions that has been used as a forum to denounce Israel. The senators also want a change to the rules for membership on the human rights panel to broaden participation beyond what U.S. officials have said is often a narrow and self-interested group of countries.

The unusual unanimity expands on the fierce denunciation of U.N. treatment of Israel mounted by Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, this year. The letter praises Haley for that effort, which she has said is intended to show that the United States will not “put up with” the bashing of its close ally.

The United States has long been Israel’s chief defender at the United Nations, including regularly vetoing measures at the Security Council that were critical of Israel.

In December, the lame duck Obama administration chose to abstain on such a resolution, allowing it to pass. The measure addressed Jewish home building in the occupied West Bank, and the U.S. action was a sign of President Barack Obama’s deep frustration with what he saw as Israeli action that threatened an eventual peace deal.

The Trump administration opposes the measure and has been highly critical of the previous administration’s action. It cannot be quickly reversed, however.

The Senate letter reflects what the letter’s authors, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), said are encouraging signs that Guterres may be willing to change some U.N. procedures that Israel and the United States say amount to discrimination.

Guterres yanked and disavowed a U.N. report last month likening Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to apartheid. His spokesman said the report had been published without Guterres’s permission.

“If you continue to build on your recent action, we stand ready to work with you to eliminate the organization’s anti-Israel bias, and to fight anti-Semitism in all its forms,” the senators wrote.

On Sunday, Guterres told a pro-Israel audience that he cannot police all anti-Israel bias at the United Nations, but he said Israel should not be singled out for special scrutiny.

“A modern form of anti-Semitism is the denial of the right of the state of Israel to exist,” the news service JTA quoted Guterres as saying at a meeting of the World Jewish Congress. “As secretary general of the United Nations, I can say that the state of Israel needs to be treated as any other state, with exactly the same rules.”

“We’re glad every single senator decided to sign onto this letter,” Rubio spokesman Matt Wolking said. “That doesn’t happen often.”

The letter comes ahead of the first meeting between President Trump and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who will visit the White House next week.

“Since it is rare for all 100 senators to agree on an issue, this letter sends a powerful bipartisan message to the U.N. that its anti-Israel bias must end,” said Marshall Wittmann, spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.



Thousands Of Israelis Take To The Streets Calling For Palestinian Genocide:”Ignore Courts, Just Kill Palestinians all!


Massive rallies and Facebook campaigns calling for Palestinian genocide are ignored by Western mainstream media and Facebook despite concerns and collaborations aimed at stopping “calls to violence”.Since last October, the Israeli government has accused Palestinians and their allies of “inciting violence” against Israelis, despite the fact that only 34 Israelis have died in that time frame compared to 230 Palestinians. The uptick in violence has been attributed to an internationally condemned Israeli encroachment of Palestinian lands in the contested West Bank.

Israeli government concern over recent violence has led them to arrest Palestinians for social media content that could potentially lead to crimes. So far, 145 Palestinians have been arrested this year for “pre-crime” via social media “incitement.” This practice eventually led to a collaboration between Facebook and the Israeli government, whose joint effort to curb social media “incitement” has led to the banning of several Facebook accounts of Palestinian journalists and news agencies.

However, social media, as well as mainstream Western media, have failed to condemn Israeli “incitement” against Palestinians, a practice that is surprisingly common considering the little to no attention it receives. Often these anti-Palestinian posts, pictures, and rallies are rife with calls for genocide, with cries of “Death to the whole Arab nation” and “Kill them all” surprisingly common.


Even the Times of Israel ran an op-ed article about “When Genocide is Permissible” in reference to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Though the post was eventually taken down, it points to an all-too-common and dangerous mentality that social media, the Israeli government, and Western media “conveniently” ignore.

An Israeli news agency even put the then-suspected preferential treatment to the test and found that Facebook and the Israeli authorities treated calls for revenge from Palestinians and Israelis very differently.

Even massive rallies calling for Palestinian genocide have been ignored entirely by social media and the corporate press. Earlier this year in April, a massive anti-Palestinian rally took place in Tel Aviv where thousands called for the death of all Arabs. The rally was organized to support an Israeli soldier who killed an already-wounded Palestinian by shooting him execution-style in the head.

The soldier, Elor Azaria, was charged with manslaughter for the killing, which occurred deep within Palestinian sovereign territory in the city of Hebron. Hebron contains an illegal Jewish settlement, but despite its illegality is protected by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) all the same. This has led to frequent clashes between Israelis and Palestinians in the area.

The Tel-Aviv rally was attended by an estimated 2,000 people and several Israeli pop icons entertained attendees including singer Maor Edri, Moshik Afia, and Amos Elgali, along with rapper Subliminal. Chants of “Elor [the soldier] is a hero” and calls to release the soldier were common. One woman was photographed holding a sign reading “Kill them all.”

A Jewish reporter at the scene remarked that it seemed “more like a celebration of murder than anything.” Despite the obvious animosity and incitement made evident at the rally, it isn’t difficult to imagine what the response would have been if this has been a pro-Palestinian rally calling for the deaths of Jews. The stark divide between what is permissible for Palestinians and what is permissible for Israelis should concern us all as the widespread bias of social media, the press, and many governments threaten to blind us from the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel

Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel

Falk & Tilley: Open Letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Our Report on Apartheid in Israel

[PHOTO: Ambassador Nikki Haley speaking at AIPAC convention, March 27, 2017. When she was Governor of South Carolina, Haley had been the first to sign into law anti-BDS legislation. See excerpts from her AIPAC speech below*]

By Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley, The Nation:

 Dear Madam Ambassador:

 We were deeply disappointed by your response to our report, Israeli Practices Toward the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid, and particularly your dismissal of it as “anti-Israeli propaganda” within hours of its release. The UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA) invited us to undertake a fully researched scholarly study. Its principal purpose was to ascertain whether Israeli policies and practices imposed on the Palestinian people fall within the scope of the international-law definition of apartheid. We did our best to conduct the study with the care and rigor that is morally incumbent in such an important undertaking, and of course we welcome constructive criticism of the report’s method or analysis (which we also sought from several eminent scholars before its release). So far we have not received any information identifying the flaws you have found in the report or how it may have failed to comply with scholarly standards of rigor.

Instead, you have felt free to castigate the UN for commissioning the report and us for authoring it. You have launched defamatory attacks on all involved, designed to discredit and malign the messengers rather than clarify your criticisms of the message. Ad hominem attacks are usually the tactics of those so seized with political fervor as to abhor rational discussion. We suppose that you would not normally wish to give this impression of yourself and your staff, or to represent US diplomacy in such a light to the world. Yet your statements about our study, as reported in the media, certainly give this impression.

[The report is available here.]

We were especially troubled by the extraordinary pressure your office exerted on the UN secretary general, António Guterres, apparently inducing him first to order the report’s removal from the ESCWA website and then to accept the resignation of ESCWA’s distinguished and highly respected executive secretary, Rima Khalaf, which she submitted on principle rather than repudiate a report that she believed fulfilled scholarly standards, upheld the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law, and produced findings and recommendations vital for UN proceedings.

Instead of using this global forum to call for the critical debate about the report, you used the weight of your office to quash it. These strident denunciations convey a strong appearance of upholding an uncritical posture by the US government toward Israel, automatically and unconditionally sheltering Israel’s government from any criticism at the UN, whether deserved or not, from the perspective of international law. Such a posture diminishes the US’s reputation as a nation that upholds the values of truth, freedom, law, and justice, and that serves the world community as a regional and global leader. It also shifts the conversation away from crucial substantive concerns.

You fail to consider that Israeli leaders have themselves warned of the apartheid features of their policies. It may have been that the word “apartheid” alone was enough to trigger your response, a reaction undoubtedly abetted by Israel’s instantaneous denunciation of our report. In following Israel’s public lead, however, you fail to consider that Israeli leaders have themselves grasped and warned of the apartheid features of their policies for decades. The widely admired Yitzhak Rabin, twice Israel’s prime minister, once confided to a TV journalist, “I don’t think it’s possible to contain over a long term, if we don’t want to get to apartheid, a million and a half [more] Arabs inside a Jewish state.” Prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak both warned publicly that Israel was at risk of becoming an apartheid state and cautioned their constituencies about what would happen to Israel if the Palestinians realized this and launched an anti-apartheid struggle. Former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair has stated flatly, “we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories.” These prominent Israelis were clear-headed observers of their own country’s policies as well as patriots, and it was their cautions, as much as any other source, that inspired ESCWA member states to consider that the possibility of an apartheid regime existing in this setting must be taken seriously and so commissioned the report now under attack.

It is therefore wholly inappropriate and wrong for you to charge that, simply by accepting this commission, we as authors were motivated by anti-Semitism. The reverse is true. To clarify this claim, we call your attention to two features of the report that we hope will lead you to reconsider your response.

It is wrong for you to charge that, simply by accepting this commission, we were motivated by anti-Semitism.

Firstly, the report carefully confines its working definition of apartheid to those provided in the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the International Crime of Apartheid and the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It does not rely on definitions developed in polemics about the conflict or taken casually from online sources. As the 1973 Convention and the Rome Statute are part of the same body of law that protects Jews, as well as all people in the world, from discrimination, this authoritative definition should not be set aside. Any responsible critique must therefore engage with these legal definitions, and the larger body of international human-rights jurisprudence in which they are situated, so as to address the report for what it actually says rather than concocting a straw man that can be easily dismissed. We hope you will reconsider the report in this light.

Secondly, the member states of ESCWA requested that a study be commissioned to examine whether Israel’s apartheid policies encompassed the Palestinian people as a whole. This meant that, as authors, we were asked to consider Palestinians living in four geographic regions within four legal categories or “domains”: those living in the occupied territories, those resident in Jerusalem, those living as citizens within Israel, and those living in refugee camps or involuntary exile. For each domain, we found that Israeli policies and practices are, by law, internally discriminatory. But more importantly, we found that all four operate as one comprehensive system that is designed to dominate and oppress Palestinians in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. It is this whole system of domination, too long misinterpreted by treating Palestinians as situated in unrelated categories, that generates the regime of domination that conforms to the definition of apartheid in international law. Moreover, it is this system that has undermined, and will continue to undermine, the two-state solution to which the United States has committed its diplomatic prestige over the course of several prior presidencies. Appraising the viability of this diplomatic posture in light of findings in this report would, we propose, be crucial for the credibility of US foreign policy and should not be blocked by political considerations.

We hoped our report would give rise to discussion of all these issues. Especially, we hope that its findings will inspire a review of this question by authoritative legal bodies such as the International Court of Justice. We did not seek a shouting match. We therefore now respectfully ask, against this background, that our report be read in the spirit in which it was written, aiming for the safety, security, and peace of everyone who lives in territory currently under Israel’s control. As the report’s authors, this was our moral framework all along, and we still retain the hope that the serious questions at stake will not be buried beneath an avalanche of diversionary abuse of our motives and character. Charges of crimes against humanity should not be swept to one side out of deference to political bonds that tie the United States and Israel closely together, or for reasons of political expediency. Such machinations can only weaken international law and endanger us all.


Richard Falk,
Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University

Virginia Tilley,
Professor of Political Science, Southern Illinois University

*Excerpts from Haley’s speech March 27, 2017 at the AIPAC convention, as reported by the Times of Israel

“And this ridiculous report, the Falk report, came out. I don’t know who the guy is, or what he’s about, but he’s got serious problems,” said Haley, lightly horrified. “Goes and compares Israel to an apartheid state?”

“So for anyone that says you can’t get anything done at the UN, they need to know there’s a new sheriff in town.”

“The first thing we do is we call the secretary general, and say, ‘This [report] is absolutely ridiculous. You have to pull it.’ The secretary general immediately pulled the report, and then the director has now resigned.”

All of Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank and Syria’s Golan Heights are illegal under international law.

New US bill would punish settlement boycotters

New bill in Congress backed by AIPAC aims to thwart international measures to hold Israel accountable for settlements built on occupied Palestinian land.

Wisam HashlamounAPA images

US Senator Ben Cardin is once again trying to pass legislation designed to suppress the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights.

During the last Congressional session, the Maryland Democrat succeeded in sneaking language into a must-pass trade bill making it a “principal negotiating objective” of the United States “to discourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from or sanction Israel” while negotiating trade deals.

This discouragement of BDS extended to boycotts of products originating from settlements in what the bill euphemistically referred to as “Israeli-controlled territories.” All of Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank and Syria’s Golan Heights are illegal under international law.

But with the Trump administration’s skepticism toward free trade deals and its withdrawal of the United States from the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, it seems unlikely that the United States in the near term will be leveraging anti-BDS pressure through trade negotiations as Cardin envisioned.

With BDS continuing to gain momentum, Cardin went back to the drawing board and introduced the Israel Anti-Boycott Act on 23 March, designed to coincide with the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The powerful Israel lobby group duly made the bill one of its top legislative priorities.

The Senate version of the bill – S.720 – currently has 18 cosponsors – 14 Republicans and four Democrats.

Its counterpart in the House – H.R.1697 – introduced by Illinois Republican Peter Roskam, has 91 co-sponsors at present, about two-thirds of them Republicans.

The bill opposes the creation of a database of Israeli settlement companies by the UN Human Rights Council and any efforts to boycott those companies’ products.

According to Cardin and the other original sponsors of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, the bill also seeks to “prevent the implementation of similar ‘blacklists’ or boycotts in the future.”

It aims to do so in a heavy-handed manner: by imposing governmental sanctions – denial of loans, fines and even potentially jail time – on companies complying with calls from the UN Human Rights Council to boycott Israeli settlement products.

Shrewdly shrouded

If it becomes law, the bill could also sweep up in its broad ambit companies refusing to do business with Israeli settlements whatever their source of inspiration for doing so may be. These sanctions would also apply to potential future international governmental calls for a broader boycott of Israel.

The draconian nature of the bill is shrewdly shrouded. None of the above-mentioned sanctions are specified in the actual text of the bill.

Only by closely examining the underlying laws which would be amended by this bill does its intent become evident: to harshly punish those companies which exercise their First Amendment-protected right to engage in boycotts of Israeli settlement products.

The bill seeks to amend two laws – the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 – to accomplish its aim.

The Export Administration Act is the primary law which makes it illegal for US corporations to comply with the Arab League boycott of Israel. The Department of Commerce maintains an Office of Anti-Boycott Compliance to ensure US corporations do not participate in the Arab League boycott and to fine those that do.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would amend this law to encompass “restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel or requests to impose restrictive trade practices or boycotts by any international governmental organization against Israel.”

Even if a corporation was not responding directly to a call from an international governmental organization to boycott Israel or even settlement products, it could still run afoul of this bill if its actions are perceived to “have the effect of furthering or supporting” this boycott.

The potential penalties for violating this bill are steep: a minimum $250,000 civil penalty and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years imprisonment, as stipulated in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The bill specifies that international governmental organizations include the United Nations and European Union, a clear indication the legislation is intended to counteract the limited steps the UN Human Rights Council has taken to catalog Israeli settlement products and the EU’s labeling – but not prohibition – of those products.

Protecting settlements

The bill also amends the Export-Import Bank Act to make it possible for the bank to “deny applications for credit” to corporations whose policies and actions “are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with citizens or residents of Israel, entities organized under the laws of Israel, or the Government of Israel.”

The legislation refers back to the definition of BDS enshrined in law in the last congressional session to include “Israeli-controlled territories,” thereby making the harsh sanctions applicable to actions solely targeting Israeli settlements.

The bill concludes with a dubious stipulation that nothing in it “shall be construed to alter the established policy of the United States or to establish new United States policy concerning final status issues associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict, including border delineation, that can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties.”

However, by establishing such stringent penalties for corporations that respond to nascent international governmental organizations’ efforts to end trade in Israeli settlement products, the bill does in fact attempt to dramatically alter US policy.

Growing consensus

For the past 50 years, official US policy has held that Israel’s settlements are violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and illegal under international law. The bill seeks to undermine this determination by penalizing companies refusing to do business with Israeli settlements and conversely attempts to legitimize their status.

Under existing law, corporations can only be penalized for adhering to the Arab League boycott of Israel. Cardin’s bill would vastly widen this net by also ensnaring corporations that support international governmental organizations’ boycotts of Israeli settlement products or even those which are perceived as furthering those boycotts.

Last year, Human Rights Watch urged that all corporations had to end all business in or with settlements in order to comply with their human rights obligations, and that governments are responsible for taking steps to discourage settlements.

“Settlement businesses unavoidably contribute to Israeli policies that dispossess and harshly discriminate against Palestinians, while profiting from Israel’s theft of Palestinian land and other resources,” Arvind Ganesan, director of the group’s business and human rights division, said.

There is also a growing consensus among international legal scholars that trade in settlement goods violates international law.

Activists are organizing against this bill because they believe that if passed, it could stymie campaigns by the Palestine solidarity movement to pressure corporations to cut ties to Israel or even with Israeli settlements.