ZIONISM

Palestine was partially gifted by Freemason “British Israelites” to Freemason pseudo-Jews.

Zionism is a bizarre, racist, colonial 19th Century ideology largely formulated by a strange man called Theodore Herzl.

Herzl believed that the Holy Land belonged to the Jewish race by Divine right, even though he didn’t think much of God.

He envisioned a world guided by Jews, from the land of “Israel”, where grateful, inferior Arabs would thank the Jews for enlightening them.

His Jerusalem would have a Palace of Peace, which would arbitrate all international disputes.

The Temple of Solomon would be rebuilt, but on modern, “enlightened”, secular principles.

In Herzl’s propagandistic novel, Altneuland, set in his Jewish utopia, one of the main characters, Reshid Bey, one of the leaders of the “New Society”, is very grateful to his Jewish neighbors for improving the economic condition of Palestine and sees no cause for conflict. In this cloud-cuckoo land all non-Jews would have “equal rights”, but only Jews could immigrate, of course. In other documents, Herzl outlined his real plan: to “transfer” the Arab population out of their homeland.

Herzl envisioned the future Jewish state guided by a Freemasonic Fabian-style “Third Way” between capitalism and socialism, with a developed welfare program and public ownership of the main natural resources and industry, agriculture and even trade organized on a cooperative basis. Fascists call this Corporatism. We now call it Obamism, Convergence, Perestroika, Blairism, Nu Labour, Clintonism, Compassionate Consevatism, neo-Conservatism, New World Order, and so on. Herzl called it “Mutualism”, a term derived from French utopian socialist thinking.

When Herzl was still thinking of Argentina as a possible venue for massive Jewish immigration, he wrote in his diary that land was to be gently expropriated from the local population and they were to be worked across the border “unbemerkt” (surreptitiously), e.g. by refusing them employment.

Another candidate for the “Jewish” “homeland” was Uganda. But such a venture  lacked the romance of remaking The Holy Land. (Besides, this would fail to fulfill the Luciferian Freemasonic schemes of the Anglo-Israelite Rothschildian cult who later took possession of the Zionist racket.)

Herzl’s draft of a charter for a Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC) gave the JOLC the right to expropriate land in Palestine by giving its owners comparable land elsewhere in the Ottoman empire, which was mighty white of him. “We’re taking your land. Here, you go live over there. What are complaining about? Count yourself lucky!”

In June 1896, Herzl met with the Sultan of Turkey, but the Sultan refused to cede Palestine to the Zionists, saying, according to Herzl, “If one day the Islamic State falls apart then you can have Palestine for free, but as long as I am alive I would rather have my flesh be cut up than cut out Palestine from the Muslim land.” (Well, the Muslims of course first got the land by military conquest, anyway.) So it fell to the British to invade, conquer (with help from the Freemasonic Young “Turks” like Parvus), Ben-Gurion, Jabotinsky…), and then “gift” the land to  … to whom? … To the Rothschilds. Why then wasn’t the eventual state called the Kingdom of Red Shieldia or some such thing?

The Rothschilds are a family of arrogant, imperious bankers, who at that time were one of Europe’s major powers. Papa Rothschild sent his five sons out to conquer the wide world. They maintained a vast espionage and financial empire. They mostly married their own cousins, but then started mating with the blue-bloods of Europe, as befits a royal (so to speak…) family. In Britain they had their greatest success, since Britain’s high and mighty liked to think of themselves as the True Israel, due to their Teutonic adoption of the Celtic hinheritance.

The Red Shields had as much in common with the benighted shtetl or ghetto-dweller as Prince Charles has in common with a homeless Manilla orphan. And yet, even mild criticism or curiosity about this devious infiltrating manipulative scheming usurious clan will earn you a one-way ticket to the “Antisemite!” Hell. (Just remember, hatred of the rich is all good fun and games, unless you have a go at a rich Jew. You’d think the richest family in the world would come under a bit more scrutiny…)

Anyway, the Rothschilds set about establishing the modern Satanic usury system, financing Empire, buying politicians, toppling dynasties, running their spy network, trying to monopolize resources, tentatively setting up a Jewish homeland in Galvestan — you know, everyday business stuff — and buying up land in Palestine. They worked over the Brit “nobles”, and the “Jewish” Zionists got the British Zionists to give them to a certain extent a land that was not theirs to give (with the understanding that “Perfidious Albion” would be calling the shots). This was assisted by the fact that British elites considered themselves to be Israelites, and the United Kingdom was ruled by Freemasonns, with their garbled Hebraisms and syncretic Cabalistic cult.

Then the Zionists went to war with their British benefactors and drove them out with a campaign of terror, murder, and general mayhem. Now they can only survive under American “protection”, which is why the USA is now effectively a Zionist-Occupied Government.

Over half of the US Congress has to troll over to AIPEC’s annual humiliation fest, and pledge fealty to the Zionist state, and grovel before their money masters, and humiliate themselves and their nation, out of fear that they’ll be struck off the list of “Righteous Gentiles.”

And every four years, American presidential candidates are required to present themselves for inspection by the grandees of Jewry, and their every word and gesture is analyzed for signs of any possible disloyalty to Israel.

Even the White House Chief-of-Staff is a Zionist agent and an IDF officer, and no MSM media outlet even mentions it! How many senior government officials, bureaucrats, senators, ambassadors and so on hold Israeli passports? Don’t dare ask. Such a question will mark you as “A Hitler!”

And so America’s administrative and chattering classes are compelled, under the watchful eyes of the ACLU, and the Freemasons of the ADL, and the New York Times and so on, to dismantle Christian civilization, and open the borders, and preach multikulti madness, and loudly condemn any vestiges of traditional culture or morality, while at the same time expressing their ardent commitment to a state that is defined by race, ethnicity, exclusivity, and cult. Because any failure to express sufficient dedication will be met with fiscal boycott and media condemnations, since Israel is permanently on the verge of “another Holocaust”.

And anybody who remarks upon this bizarre state of affairs must be immediately and loudly condemned as worse than Hitler.

Besides all that, in order to keep Israel alive, the US “has to” provide military support to Egypt, and prop up it’s vile regal dictator, and promote this mythical “Tolerant Islam”, because it’s important for our overlords to kowtow to this fictitious “Religion of Peace” that will then magically accept Israel.

If you just quote from the Koran, or from Hadith, proving that Islam is hateful and intolerant and inherently supremacist, or that Mohammad was a pedophile, you’ll be labeled an “Islamophobe!”. Likewise if you just quote from the Talmud regarding the Jewish belief that they are like God and non-Jews are like Satanic beasts, or if quote some Israeli ranting about nuking Rome or calling for genocide, or if you state some fact that puts Jews in a bad light, you’ll be called an “Antisemite!”, and slandered, and compelled to shut up, or even to apologize!

Could it be that the spread of Islam is facilitated by the tyrannical Politically Correct speech codes that have been promoted by many Jews for all these years?

In fact, it could also be the case that the intolerant laws and attitudes of Islam, were adopted by Mohammad when he invented his cult in imitation of the Jews.

And ignorant American pseudo-Christians spout off anti-Christian (and anti-Jewish nonsense, for that matter) nonsense about this State of Israel, and bizarrely find proofs for it in their Bibles.

Holocaustism has become a religion that together with the weapon of the “You’re an Antisemite” curse is the basis for almost all the Satanic politically correct nonsense we have shoved down our throats each and every day. Christians are forbidden to state basic Christian or historical truths, and any dissident is immediately labelled “A Hitler!” “a Nazi!”.

Thanks Herzl, Balfour, Churchill (who argued that Zionism was a scheme to save the Jewish soul from Communism), Stalin (the USSR was the first state to recognize Israel), Truman. … You evil bastards!

Hannah Arendt:

“Only folly could dictate a policy which trusts a distant imperial power for protection, while alienating the goodwill of neighbours.”

…

‘If the Jewish commonwealth is obtained in the near future…it will be due to the political assistance of American Jews. But if the Jewish commonwealth is proclaimed against the will of the Arabs and without the support of the Mediterranean peoples, not only financial help but political support will be necessary for a long time to come. And that may turn out to be very troublesome indeed for Jews in this country, who after all have no power to direct the political destinies of the Near East.”

…

“Even if the Jews were to win the war [of independence], its end would find the…achievements of Zionism in Palestine destroyed. … The “victorious” Jews would live surrounded by an entirely hostile Arab population, secluded inside ever threatened borders, absorbed with physical self-defence to a degree that would submerge all other interests and activities. … A federated state would have the advantage of preventing the establishment of sovereignty whose only sovereign right would be to commit suicide.”

Letter to Journal des Débats, November 18, 1825, from the Chief Rabbi of Cologne

To the Editor:

Dear Sir:

The wisdom and love of truth that characterizes your Record, and the reputation that it enjoys in France and abroad give me hope that you would be kind enough to provide space in your next issue for my comments offered to the public in the interest of accuracy and truth.

The French and English newspapers have covered in detail the unique project of one Mr. Noah, who claims to be the founder of the city of Ararat in the northern part of United States of America. Of course, if Mr. Noah is supposedly the owner or lessor of a great amount of uncultivated land to enable people lacking wealth to find their fortune in a colony, offering them mountains of gold, no one would ever think of disputing his position that is currently very popular, and prevent him from undertaking his projects.

However, Mr. Noah intends to play a much more important role because he is dreaming about a celestial home, he pronounces prophecies, and considers himself a Jewish judge. He gives orders to all the Jews in the world, and is trying to impose a head tax on all Jews. In all of his excitement, Noah goes so far as to try to create a central Jewish council in France. His chief administrator would have the honor of the noble role of “minister of emigration.” This tremendous effort considers its deficiencies of little importance: 1) the well-established “proof” of Mr. Noah’s authority; 2) the text of his prophecy demonstrating North America as the location where the Jewish Diaspora is supposed to gather together.

In all seriousness, though, it is proper to inform Mr. Noah that the esteemed Mr. Hierschel and Mr. Meldola, chief rabbi of London, and I thank him by completing rejecting the appointments that Mr. Noah wishes to offer us. We state that according to our religious teachings, only G-d Himself knows when the redemption of the Jewish People is to occur, and it is only G-d who will make His will known to the entire universe with unmistakable signs. Any attempt to gather together the Jewish People with political and nationalist goals is forbidden to us as a crime of the highest divine authority. Mr. Noah has surely forgotten that Jews are loyal to the principles of their faith, that they are too attached to the native countries where they reside and too devoted to their governments providing them with liberty and protection to pay attention to a fairy tale and fantasies of a false redeemer.

Therefore, since fairness demands discretion on behalf of those absent today, we would feel bad to deny him the title of Visionary of Good Faith.

Please accept my wishes,

Your very humble servant, The Chief Rabbi of Cologne.

When the Zionists killed Yaakov Yisrael Dehan, July 1, 1924

From the newsletter of Neturei Karta in Jerusalem, Hachoma, July 2002:

The young martyr, Dr. Yaakov Yisrael Dehan was murdered on July 1, 1924. He was a man who devoted all his energies and the best years of his life to saving the remnant of loyal Jews, and to promote peace with the veteran Arab residents of the Holy Land. Through his knowledge of politics and diplomacy, Dehan contributed much to crystallizing an independent position for Orthodox Jewry unaffiliated with the Zionist leadership.At a time when the first followers of the Zionist movement began streaming into the Holy Land in large numbers, defiling the holiness of the land, and by virtue of their idiotic ideas began to work to expel the Arabs who had been living there for centuries in order to establish a Zionist state.

The Zionists first approached the British authorities by pretending to present themselves as the representatives of the Jewish nation, who desired to establish a “national home” without any regard whatsoever of the fact that the vast majority of the Jewish People opposed Zionism in those days. However, through their various contacts, the Zionists managed to bring about the Balfour Declaration (known among our rabbis of the time as the Baal Peor Declaration – a pun referring to the idolatry mentioned in the Bible), based on the “right” of the Jews to establish a state in Palestine, and ultimately the state itself to our great misfortune.

Good relations existed between the Jewish and Arab communities, and the leadership of the Orthodox Jewish community conducted themselves according to the principles of Judaism, never provoking their non-Jewish neighbors. The Arabs were very friendly and neighborly, and a spirit of mutual respect was typical.

When the winds of Zionism began to blow through Palestine, the Arabs began to change their attitude because of the fact that they heard that the “Jews” wanted to grab the Land from them and expel them. Of course, they did not distinguish between the Zionist troublemakers and the members of the loyal authentic Jewish community that advocated tolerance and peace. There were outbreaks of violence here and there, until bloodshed began and many people died.

However, instead of learning from this experience that brought suffering upon the Jewish People in the Holy Land, and ceasing their dangerous lawless behavior, the Zionists used these events as “additional proof” for the need for a state and an army to protect the Jews from violence. Jewish blood was of no importance to the Zionists in comparison to their “lofty” nationalist goals.

It was clear to the leaders of the Orthodox community that there was an immediate need for an organization to confront the Zionist organization, and demand that the British desist from endorsing the idea of a Zionist state, and resolve Arab-Jewish tensions peacefully.

A great and unexpected opportunity presented itself in the form of Dr. Yaakov Yisrael Dehan, who had embraced Judaism from a life of secularism, and had made his way to the Orthodox community of Jerusalem during those difficult days. He sensed the truth, and from then on never ceased to march with the great rabbi of Jerusalem, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, who wisely advised Dehan.

Dehan established extensive contacts with many governmental authorities in Europe, including the English, and proceeded to carry out his work immediately. In no time at all he transformed the loyal Jewish community from a tiny one without any international recognition to a community standing up against the Zionist heretics. He and other members of the community represented the Orthodox Jews under the name of “Eida Haredis” (G-d-Fearing Community), and represented the position of the loyal Jewish community.

It goes without saying that the Eida Haredis was accepted warmly among non-Jews, much moreso than was the case with the Zionists – both because of the fact that the Eida Haredis represented traditional, authentic Judaism against Zionism that openly rejected Judaism in its entirety, and because of the fact that the Orthodox position made more sense in order to prevent bloodshed and promote harmony in Palestine.

Dr. Dehan then organized a delegation of Orthodox leaders to meet with Arab leaders headed by King Abdullah. The Jewish delegation was headed by Rabbi Zonnenfeld, and was welcomed by the Arabs like royalty. The king even gave them expensive gifts as a sign of his affection. Of course the Zionists were gritting their teeth when they learned of this event, and saw the possibility that all of their projects may end up collapsing in front of their very eyes. The Zionists began their attacks against the loyal Jewish community in general, and against Dr. Dehan in particular. They slandered him with increasing brutality until they went so far as to call for his murder.

In those days the G-d-fearing Jews were persecuted greatly by the Zionists, and whenever they ran into Dehan in the street they would insult him. However, Dehan never ceased his holy work on behalf of our rabbis. When the Zionists realized that their persecution of Dehan had no effect, they decided to kill him.

In a plan approved by the leading Haganah Zionists a number of young Zionists encountered Dr. Dehan as he left the Shaarei Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem. The Zionist Avraham Tahomi, may his name be obliterated, shot Dehan three times in the chest, and shortly thereafter Dehan expired, returning his soul to heaven. This murder was carried out with the approval of the Zionist leadership.

On that fateful day of July 1, 1924, when the Zionists committed their crime, for which we suffer to this very day and still do not see the end in sight, they shot him in his pure heart. But they did not only shoot him and kill him, but they shot and killed the entire People, thereby preventing any plan that did not comply with their wicked intentions.

Nevertheless, some seventy-eight years after that horrible day, there is still a community of Jews following in the authentic path, and refusing to bow to the Zionist idol. It is in large measure due to the selfless holy efforts of Yaakov Dehan, a martyr of his people who paved the way with self-sacrifice that there are still Jews who refuse to succumb to the Zionist regime of heretics despite the fact that the Zionists overpower the authentic Jews with their laws and power, It is in the merit of Yaakov Dahan that there are still Jews today throughout the world who stand and announce unflinchingly their unswerving loyalty to the countries in which they live, and that there are still Jews in this world who declare to the nations of world that the Zionists and their state has no link with Judaism or the Jewish People.

His murder proved to every loyal Jew that the Zionists appearing on the scene were no friends of the Jewish People, but were murderers who hated Judaism, something that was the beginning of the opportunity of recognizing the enemy. On the most recent anniversary of Dehan’s murder we remembered the good work of Dr. Yaakov Yisrael Dehan on behalf of authentic Judaism in his war against Zionism and its wicked plans. Let us learn from his work to strengthen our resolve and dedication in refusing to bow to the Zionist idol, and to pray for divine providence to redeem the world.

WARNING

We the undersigned have met on the date indicated below, and wish to announce publicly that after a careful examination of the issues we have arrived at the following determination that:

Zionism is absolutely and totally forbidden by our Torah

Zionism has proved itself to be a false ideology that is very far from the faith of our Torah. Zionism is extremely dangerous and destructive to our religion.

Therefore, we request and admonish every person who still retains a spark of Judaism within his heart:

DO NOT GO IN THE WAYS OF THE ZIONISTS, KEEP AWAY FROM THEM BECAUSE THEIR ENTIRE WAY IS EVIL.

It is forbidden to associate with this sect, to support them in any way whatsoever!

As far as we are concerned this issue is of extreme important and affects the spiritual and physical existence of our People, and shall be presented to the national assembly of the Orthodox Bureau, who will analyze this matter.

Therefore, every intelligent person must realize that it is forbidden to attend any of the assemblies held by the Zionists whatsoever!

May those who listen to us be blessed.

City of Desh, Hungary – Wednesday, June 2, 1920

Rabbi David Greenwald

Rabbi of Ober-Vishewe

Rabbi Yehezkel Panet

Rabbi of Desh

Rabbi Chaim Zvi Teitelbaum

Rabbi of Siget

Rabbi Avraham Y. Freund

Rabbi of Nassed – Enterdam

Rabbi Shaul Brach

Rabbi of Krule

Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ollman

Rabbi of Bistritz

Rabbi Yaakov E. Panet

Rabbi of Marosh-Ivar

Rabbi Yisrael Freund

Rabbi of Sasregen

Rabbi Moshe D. Teitelbaum

Rabbi of Laposh

Rabbi Menachem Sofer

Rabbi of Aroshwoshorhel

Rabbi Avraham S. Katz

Rabbi of Nimize

Rabbi Avraham S. Eliash

Rabbi of Samash-ivar

Please post in all synagogues!:

RABBINICAL COURT OF THE ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF EDAS YESHURUN, City of Kaszica, Hungary

URGENT NOTICE

It is our obligation to make a public announcement because we know the extent to which the issues are important. Despite all its propaganda, the Zionist movement stands in total opposition to the foundations of the Jewish faith transmitted to us throughout the generations. Zionism itself rejects the Jewish religion. This is the position of our great and pious rabbis in the past and the present, in the Holy Land and abroad, without exception.

In the early years of Zionism, when it pretended to express love for the Holy Land and the holiness of the opportunity to live there, a few rabbis were caught in its snare.  Today, however, when Zionism shows its true face as a false messianic movement, our rabbis stand at war against it just as rabbis of former generations had opposed the false messiahs of their times, including during the time of the false messiah Shabtai Zevi, may his name be obliterated, and the later movement of the Frankists.

Association with the Zionists is forbidden according to the Torah and our tradition. Zionism is a disgusting abomination.

This announcement is based on all aspects of Jewish law. Every Jew who fears G-d will certainly accept our statement under the Code of Jewish Law and shall not stray from it to the left or the right.

May those who follow it be blessed.

December 14, 1925, Kaszica, Hungary

Rabbi Shaul Brach

Rabbi Hanoch H. Pack

Rabbi Shmuel Jungreis

INTERVIEW WITH RABBI BARUCH KAPLAN

This is a free translation of a Yiddish transcript of a taped interview made some twenty years ago with the late Rabbi Baruch Kaplan, who was a principal of the Beis Yaakov Girls School in Brooklyn, and who was a student in the Hebron yeshiva (religious school) in 1929 at the time of the killing of a number of Jews by some Arabs. Rabbi Kaplan explains how events unfolded, and how it was the arrogant and cowardly Zionist maniacs who perpetrated the events by provoking the Arabs.

“When I was in Hebron in 1929, there occurred the tragic massacre of over twenty yeshiva students, great scholars, plus another forty members of the Jewish community. I would like to describe the error that has circulated in Jewish communities – a horrible error, that accuses the Arabs in Hebron of being murderers who attacked the Jews simply because the Arabs were “bad people.” In order to correct the record, this error must be corrected. The Arabs were very friendly people, and the Jewish People in Hebron lived together with them and had very friendly relations with them. They worked for Jews, and everybody got along just fine. To take just one example, I used to have the habit of walking a mile or two out of town all by myself to visit a tree that was believed to be the tree where our patriarch Abraham met the three angels, as described in Genesis. I especially enjoyed visiting the tree in the summertime. Along the way I would talk to the Arabs, though it was mostly using our hands because I didn’t speak any Arabic. Interestingly enough, no one in the yeshiva ever told me it was dangerous to go by myself among the Arabs. We just lived with them, and got along very well.

I have also seen a letter from the Grand Rabbi of the Gerrer Hassidim of those days, Rabbi Avraham Mordechai Alter of Poland, regarding his trip to the Holy Land during the days when people were talking about emigrating to Palestine. He wanted to find out what kind of people the Palestinians were, in order to be able to advise people whether to move there or not. He wrote in his letter that the Arabs were a very friendly and fine people.

Therefore it’s necessary to set the record straight about the accusations that the Palestinians were terrible killers who liked attacking Jews. This was never the situation at all!

Today’s wicked Zionists are just like their predecessors, who were responsible for causing terrible suffering in Palestine with their wars with the Arabs, may G-d have mercy. At that time in 1929, the Zionists had a slogan arguing that the Western Wall in Jerusalem was a Jewish “national symbol.” Of course, the Arabs disagreed with this idea, considering that they had control of the location for over 1,100 years. However, the Zionist mobs were yelling that “The Wall is ours!” It’s hard to understand why they felt that way considering they have no connection to the Jewish holy places whatsoever. An argument erupted in the Jewish newspapers about establishing a permanent prayer area for Jews at the Wall. This provoked the Arabs, and the rabbi of Jerusalem at the time, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld begged them to stop and to be appreciative to the Arabs for allowing Jews to pray at the Wall for so many centuries undisturbed. However, the Zionists wanted a permanent setup under their control.

The Zionists refused to heed the calls of Rabbi Zonnenfeld, and they called a large meeting of Jews in Jerusalem – supposedly some 10,000 people showed up. One of the speakers was their “chief Rabbi” (Avraham Isaac Kook), who proclaimed, “Hear O Israel, the Wall is our Wall, the Wall is One” (which is a ridiculous pun on the blessing, “Hear O Israel, the Lord your G-d, the Lord is One”). This began the conflict at the time between the Zionists and the Arabs.

Afterwards, we were studying at the yeshiva in Hebron, and saw a bunch of boys in short pants carrying weapons on bicycles and motorcycles, running around the streets of Hebron. We were very worried about this. What were they up to?

In brief, our rabbi, the supervisor of our religious academy, Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Epstein, called them for a meeting, but they refused. He was forced to go over to them, and asked them what they were up to. He accused them of wanting to provoke the Arabs. They responded that they were coming to protect us!! We cried out, “Woe is us! G-d have mercy!” They didn’t want to leave town until it was too late!

These arrogant cowards only ran away when the local leaders of the Arabs called for a mass meeting of the people of the surrounding Arab villages. But it was too late; the Arabs got organized, and the Mufti called on his people to be ready Friday night when the yeshiva would be attending prayers. At this point, the yeshiva was alone against the Zionists, but the Arabs didn’t know to distinguish between us and the Zionists. Sadly they attacked and killed some of our people, including the great scholar, Rabbi Shmuel Rosenhaltz.

The next morning we heard about the excitement in town, and even worse, we heard the crying and shouting. I and a friend, Avraham Ushpener, lived in an apartment that was part of a three-story building leased by a Jew from an Arab. We could hear all the noise from our apartment on the third floor. We were terrified to let the Arabs in because we knew how angry they had become, but a while later things calmed down. In total, some 65 people were killed. On the other side of town, however, the Jews were spared.

Why am I telling this story? It is because I wanted to describe how the wicked Zionists, both today and in those days, were the cause of our suffering! They cooperated with the Nazis, and our religion teaches that a person who causes someone to sin is worse than someone who kills him.

It reminds me of an event recounted by Rabbi Moshe Schonfeld, who once visited Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz [Chazon Ish] when the Zionist state was established, and when there was fighting between the Zionists and the Arabs. Rabbi Schonfeld told Rabbi Karelitz about what was happening. Rabbi Karelitz told him that the crimes of the Zionists were much worse, because they were wicked heretics who were uprooting hundreds of thousands of Jews from their faith and that is much greater pain since our Sages stated that a person who causes another person to sin is much worse than if he kills him.

In our own days there is a Zionist leader [Begin], whose arrogance and selfishness is more important than anything else to him, and for which he is prepared to sacrifice hundreds and thousands of Jews. These heretics and evildoers, this Zionist leader of a state that killed the Judaism of the Yemenite and Moroccan Jews, and of many other Sephardic Jews! This is the work of these thugs and gangsters. And there are religious Jewish parties who dare to state that they love this man?! Everyone must know that the anger of the Arabs against us is only caused by the Zionists!

The Arabs were a friendly people to us, and I am a witness to it. We lived very well with them in Hebron. Rabbi Alter attested to this as well, and it is the accursed Zionists who caused them to hate us. The Zionists dare to use their power to expel the Arabs, and even today in Lebanon, they kill and butcher the Arabs; they wipe out whole villages with the airplanes they get from the United States.

Everyone should know who the murderers are – the Zionists are the biggest murderers in the world, who refuse to let the Jewish People live in peace either physically or spiritually!”

WORDS OF RABBI SHAUL BRACH

The following was written by the eminent late Rabbi Shaul Brach, one of the great anti-Zionist rabbis in Hungary before World War II, in the introduction to a religious text called Avos Al Banim. His words, just like The words of Rabbi Teitelbaum ring clearer than ever today.

“Since the dawn of the Zionist movement, suffering has not ceased to exist in the world. All the warnings of the Torah have been fulfilled in their details among our People all over the world. For a believer it is no surprise that the Zionists are the same as the heretics at the time of the Destruction of the Temple. Thus, divine judgment has been unleashed on the entire world.

It is, however, surprising how they can continue in their ways unless they have rejected the entire Torah and the Prophets, inasmuch as they support Zionism, they must surely hope they are successful. But the Torah states, “…lest the Land vomit you out because of how you defiled it.”

It is amazing that the leaders of the Agudah movement want many Jews to live in the Holy Land. Don’t they fear for the lives of their children given the fact that there is nowhere else on earth where there is so much heresy and sectarianism as in the Holy Land today?

As far as our brethren in America who support the Zionist heresy in the Holy Land are concerned, if they don’t face up to the truth, in liberal AMERICA they will quickly feel the effects of the verse, “With anger poured out will I rule over you.” May G-d have mercy.

The following is a translation of an article written by Rabbi Amram Blau, of blessed memory in the newsletter of Neturei Karta, HACHOIMO, from April 1968. An appeal to resist the addiction and intoxication of Zionism.

To our Jewish brethren the world over! Know that the heretic Zionists with the state they created called “Israel” have declared rebellion against G-d and his holy Torah in the name of “Israel”.

They set up the state for heresy and licentiousness as a concentration camp to destroy the Jewish People with “gas chambers” to wipe out the souls of the Jewish People under their control within the borders of their state to lead the Jewish People to heresy, sectarianism and abandon, may G-d have mercy.

These destroyers have already managed to destroy and burn Jewish souls in their concentration camp and gas chambers. TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JEWS AND THEIR CHILDREN HAVE BEEN VIRTUALLY WIPED OUT. MOST OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE HAVE FALLEN INTO THEIR HANDS, JEWISH COMMUNITIES ALL OVER THE WORLD WERE DRAWN INTO THEIR STATE AS IS WELL KNOWN.

Everyone is aware of what they did with the Jews of Yemen who were pious G-d fearing people. In the Zionist state they were almost all turned into heretics, they, their wives and children, turned against Judaism!

The program of the destroyers of the Jewish People is the following:

To penetrate every country where there are Jews, to hunt down these souls and to deceive them and remove them from Judaism, the Torah and G-d and to bring them into the concentration camp: to become Zionists, “Israelis”, nationalists, a fighting nation. And these people have become like the agents, to assist them in their work. The Zionists work relentlessly to undertake all actions to provoke the nations where these Jews live, and then turn around and advertise themselves as the saviors and benefactors of the Jews.

The “benefactors” direct the Jews to the Zionist state, whether in one stage or in two stages, like they have been doing to the Jews of Morocco – by bringing them first to France and then to the Zionist state. All Jews must know the following:

The Zionist heretics who run the State are collaborators and agents of Satan himself. Don’t think that the these destroyers who started with the Jews of Iran and Yemen end with the Jews of Morocco and North Africa, may G-d have mercy. They also plan to do it to Jews in America and Switzerland if there is even a single Jew outside of “Israel.”

These people who run the State, these destroyers of the Jewish People, they are from the side of Evil itself – the evil inclination, Satan, the Angel of Death, may G-d have mercy.

These heretics who run the State are endangering the Jewish communities worldwide, and then present themselves as benefactors and saviors. They direct the Jews to the Zionist State, to the concentration camp and gas chambers which they have prepared in advance for their souls, their wives and children. They seek only to transform the Jewish People into a rootless people of heresy, rebels against G-d and our Torah. They have entrapped the children of Israel in the State of “Israel” to rebel against G-d, Heaven have mercy.

The end result is that it is not just the souls but the bodies of Jews which are endangered within their State – placing them before the enemies of the State, the surrounding nations, almost 100 million people!! And the end result of this State…. may G-d have mercy.

Therefore brethren, if you care about your souls, resist before it is too late. Do not consider this a light matter. Every Jew the world over must resist to protect himself from these cruel persecutors. Every Jewish community must seek to expel from their countries the agents and representatives of the heretic Zionist rulers of the State, without regard for whether they are explicit heretics or even religious hypocrite Zionists masquerading with a beard and sidelocks, and anyone affiliated with them!

You must struggle to resist their influence, and to recognize that they are persecutors seeking to ensnare every single Jew and the Jewish People as a whole – to destroy the integrity of the Jewish People, may G-d have mercy.

If we do what we can to save ourselves, G-d will certainly will aid us to resist their influence, and may we merit to see the true Redemption speedily in our days.

The words of the saintly Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, author of the VAYOEL MOSHE (in Hebrew, written in 1958) ring clearly when we view events in the Middle East:

“…if we place all the immodesty and promiscuity of the generation and the many sins of the world on one side of the scale, and the Zionist state on the other side of the scale by itself, it would outweigh them all. Zionism is the greatest form of spiritual impurity in the entire world. They are polluting the entire world. They have polluted the Jewish people with their heresy, Heaven help us. It is no surprise why G-d’s anger comes down from heaven. It is necessary to repent and escape from them more than from a lion who is chasing a person to kill him.”

“It has been explained that before the coming of the Messiah this regime will come to an end, as Messiah cannot come any other way, since the Zionist state holds up the redemption of the world. We need G-d’s mercies that divine intervention should bring about the end of the state. May G-d have mercy on us all.”

RABBI TEITELBAUM ALSO WROTE:

“It is clear that anyone who believes in G-d has no doubt that they are from the source of the accursed impurity of heresy, Heaven help us. It is horrible that such a thing arose in our day, and how can we be silent when we see such violations of our faith and the principles of our entire Torah? Especially since so many of our religious brethren fail to speak out about the truth! In such circumstances, the entire truth could be forgotten, G-d forbid.”

“Everything our blessed rabbis cried out about earlier in the century about the dangers of Zionism has almost been forgotten! Even my own writings go ignored. THEREFORE, SHOULD THE TRUTH AND FOUNDATIONS OF OUR RELIGION BE FORGOTTEN? It is impossible to describe to what extent the world has become sunken in such a falsehood which is destroying the entire Torah. Therefore we are obliged to cry out before anyone against the deep impurity which has spread out in our generation. Let us hope there are increasing numbers who open up their eyes and the teachings of our forefathers should reach their ears to seek truth and faith. Without this, there is no hope….”

TORAH OPINION OF THE SAGES OF THE SEPHARDIM IN JERUSALEM

“Regarding the elections to the government in the Land of Israel, we have determined in accordance with Judaism to publicly declare and to publicize Torah opinion, that according to Law, it is FORBIDDEN FOR ANY JEW WHOSE FOREFATHERS STOOD AT MT. SINAI TO G-D FORBID PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTIONS TO THE KNESSET OF THE HERETICS, AND NO POWER IN THE WORLD SHALL PERMIT THIS IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

Anyone taking part in these elections violates this prohibition, and it is as if he agrees with the laws of the state WHICH ARE AGAINST the laws of the TORAH. He thereby gives power to the forces of evil and those desecrating G-d’s name. We must remain apart from the sectarians and heretics and not to join with those who are rebelling against G-d.

WHOEVER FEARS G=D SHALL TAKE CARE NOT TO BE SEDUCED BY ANYONE, AND SHOULD WARN HIS HOUSEHOLD NOT TO BE CAUGHT INTO VIOLATING THIS PROHIBITION.

July 1951

TZADKAH HUTZIN YAAKOV MUTZAFI YOSEF COHEN

+ + +

QUOTES

Ze’ev Jabotinsky

“…. Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ….a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogan ‘No, never’ lose their influence, and only then their influence be transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against PUSHING THEM OUT, and equality of civil, and national rights.” (1923)

“The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ….. There was no misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. …. No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an ‘iron wall,’ when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement.” (1923)

“This matter is not an issue between the Jewish people and the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, but between the Jewish people and the Arab people. The latter, numbering 35 million, has [territory equal to] half of Europe, while the Jewish people, numbering ten million and wandering the earth, hasn’t got a stone. . . Will the Arab people stand opposed? Will it resist? [Will it insist] that . . . they. . . shall have it [all] for ever and ever, while he who has nothing shall share forever have nothing.” (1918)

“They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true favor the Aztecs looked upon Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. Palestine will remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence.” (1923)

“The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ….. There was not misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. …. No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an ‘iron wall,’ when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement.” (1923)

“…. Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ….a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogan No, never lose their influence, and only then their influence be transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against push them out, and equality of civil, and national rights.” (1923)

“Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native [Palestinian] population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop under the protection of a force independent of the local population –an iron wall which the native [Palestinian] population cannot break through. This is, in to, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.” (1925)

“In this sense, there is no meaningful difference between our militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers an Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an Iron Wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets-a strange and somewhat risky taste–but we all applaud, day and night, the Iron Wall.” (1925)

“If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will maintain the garrison on your behalf. … Zionism is a colonizing adventure and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed forces.”

“The tragedy lies in the fact that there is a collision here between two truths ….. But our justice is greater. The Arabs is culturally backward , but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and noble as our own; it can not be bought, it can only be curbed … force majeure.” (1926)

“There is no justice, no law, and no God in heaven, only a single law which decides and supercedes all—- [Jewish] settlement [of the land].”

“We Jews have nothing in common with what is called the ‘Orient,’ thank God. To the extent that our uneducated masses have ancient spiritual traditions and laws that call the Orient, they must be weaned away from them, and this is in fact what we are doing in every decent school, what life itself is doing with great success. We are going in Palestine, first for our national convenience, [second] to sweep out thoroughly all traces of the ‘Oriental soul.’ As for the [Palestinians] Arabs in Palestine, what they do is their business; but if we can do them a favor, it is to help them liberate themselves from the Orient.’”

“I devote my life to the rebirth of the Jewish State, with a Jewish majority, on both sides of the Jordan.” (1934)

“For a long time, many Jews, including Zionists, were unwilling to understand the simple truth. They maintained that the creation of important positions in Palestine (settlements, cities, schools, etc.) is enough. According to them a national life could be freely developed even though the majority of the population were to be Arab. This is a great mistake. History proves that any national position, however strong and important cannot be safeguarded as long as the nation which built it does not constitute a majority. A minority can safeguard its cultural position only as long as it can control the local majority. Sooner or later, every country in the world is to become the national state of the predominant nation there. Thus if we desire that Eretz Yisrael should become and remain a Jewish State, we must first of all create a Jewish majority.” (1934)

“There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs.” (1939)

“We Jews, thank God, have nothing to do with the East. . . . The Islamic soul must be broomed out of Eretz-Yisrael. . . . [Muslims are] yelling rabble dressed up in gaudy, savage rags.” (1939)

“The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has become fond of them. … Hitler— as odious as he is to us—has given this idea a good name in the world.” (1940)

Chaim Weizmann

“In its initial stage, Zionism was conceived by its pioneers as a movement wholly depending on mechanical factors: there is a country which happens to be called Palestine, a country without people, and, on the other hand, there exists the Jewish people, and it has no country. What else is necessary, then, than to fit the gem into the ring, to unite this people with this country? The owners of the country [the Ottoman Turks] must, therefore, be persuaded and conceived that this marriage is advantageous, not only for the [Jewish] people and for the country, but also for themselves.” (1914)

Note how Weizmann didn’t claim that the country was empty (see the quote below), but he denied that there was a people which deserved the right of self-determination. The selective definition of “who are a people, and who are not” was crafted to serve Zionists’ agenda for the following reasons:

[Palestinian Arabs are] “the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path.”

“… should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain encourage a Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in 20 to 30 years a million Jews out there – perhaps more; they would … form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal. [A Rothschild investment]” (1914)

“The British Cabinet is not only sympathetic toward the Palestinian aspirations of the Jews, but would like to see these aspirations realized … England…would have in the Jews the best possible friends, who would be the best national interpreters of ideas in the eastern countries and would serve as a bridge between the two civilizations. That again is not a material argument, but certainly it ought to carry great weight with any politician who likes to look 50 years ahead.” (1916)

[To his wife:] “There’s nothing more humiliating than ‘our’ Jerusalem. Anything that could be done to desecrate and defile the sacred has been done. It is impossible to imagine so much falsehood, blasphemy, greed, so many lies. It’s such an accursed city, there’s nothing there, no creature comforts. . . [It] hasn’t a single clean and comfortable apartment.” (1918)

“The poor ignorant fellah [Arabic for peasant] does not worry about politics, but when he is told repeatedly by people in whom he has confidence that his livelihood is in danger of being taken away from him by us, he becomes our mortal enemy. . . The Arab is primitive and believes what he is told.” (1918)

[Re the "national home" referred to in Lord Balfour's declaration to Lord Rothschild:] “the country [Palestine] should be Jewish in the same way that France is French and Britain is British.” (1919)

[Address to the English Zionist Federation 1919.09.19:] “By a Jewish National Home I mean the creation of such conditions that as the country is developed we can pour in a considerable number of immigrants, and finally establish such a society in Palestine that Palestine shall be as Jewish as England is English or America American.”

“The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was built on air … every day and every hour of these last 10 years, when opening the newspapers, I thought: Whence will the next blow come? I trembled lest the British Government would call me and ask: ‘Tell us, what is this Zionist Organization? Where are they, your Zionists?’ … The Jews, they knew, were against us [the Zionists]; we stood alone on a little island, a tiny group of Jews with a foreign past.”

“while they [European Jews] are seeking an outlet, every door of those countries into which the Jews emigrated in the past is gradually being closed before them: America, South Africa, Canada, Mexico, each used to be a country of immigration; they are closed now.” (1930) [Ernest Montagu's prediction?]

[To Anglo-American Palestine Committee, 1942.05.25:] “Palestine alone could absorb and provide for the homeless and the stateless Jews uprooted by the war. It has canalized all the sympathy of the world for the martyrdom of the Jews that the Zionists reject all schemes to resettle these victims elsewhere — in Germany, or Poland, or in sparsely populated regions such as Madagascar.” [Hitler, in 1940, suggested Madagascar as a place where all the Jews of Europe might be sent.]

[In 1934 Weizmann tried to interest the French Mandate authorities in his settlement plans in Syria and Lebanon.

[To the Palestine-British high Commissioner, while the Peel Commission was convening, 1937:] “We shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ….. this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years.”

[To Solomon Goldman, 1939.04.28, about the possibility of acquisition of a large tract of land belonging to the Palestinian Arab Druze in the Galilee and eastern Carmel:] “The realization of this project would mean the emigration of 10,000 Arabs [to Jabal al-Druze in Syria], the acquisition of 300,000 dunums. … It would also create a significant precedent if 10,000 Arabs were to emigrate peacefully of their own volition, which no doubt would be followed by others.”

“Why not Kamchatka, Alaska, Mexico, or Texas? There are great many empty countries. Why should the Jews choose a country which has a population that does not want to receive them in a particular friendly way; a small country; a country which has been neglected and derelict for centuries? It seems unusual on the part of a practical and shrewd people like the Jews to sink their effort, their sweat, and blood, their substance, into the sands, rocks, and marches of Palestine.

“Well, I could, if I wished to be facetious, say it was not our responsibility — not the responsibility of the Jews who sit here — it was the responsibility of Moses, who acted from divine inspiration. He might have brought us to the United States, and instead of the Jordan might have had the Mississippi. It would have been an easier task. But he chose to stop here. We are an ancient people with old history, and you cannot deny your history and begin fresh.” (1947) [Apparently the Irish and Scots and Flemings and Amish and Dukhobours and Hakka can all begin afresh in "The New World" but Jews have to "go back" to the land that Weizmann thinks it would be facetious to identify with Moses (an Egyptian...)] (1947)

“Palestinians are almost out of “Eretz Yisrael” … A miraculous CLEARING of the land: the miraculous simplification of Israel’s task.” (1949)

Israel Zangwill:

“Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ….. [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us.” (1905)

“If the Lord Shaftesbury was literally inexact in describing Palestine as a country without a people, he was essentially correct, for there is no Arab people living in intimate fusion with the country, utilizing its resources and stamping it with a characteristic impress: there is at best an Arab encampment.” (1920)

“We cannot allow the Arabs to block so valuable a piece of historic reconstruction ….. And therefore we must generally persuade them to ‘trek.’ After all, they have all Arabia with its million square miles …. There is no particular reason for the Arabs to cling to these few kilometers. ‘To fold their tents and silently steal away’ is their proverbial habit: let them exemplify it now.” (1920)

“Many [Arabs] are semi-nomad, they have given nothing to Palestine and are not entitled to the rules of democracy.” (1919)

Moshe Dayan:

“Using the moral yardstick mentioned by [Moshe Sharett], I must ask: Are [we justified] in opening fire on the [Palestinian] Arabs who cross [the border] to reap the crops they planted in our territory; they, their women, and their children? Will this stand up to moral scrutiny . . .? We shoot at those from among the 200,000 hungry [Palestinian] Arabs who cross the line [to graze their flocks]—- will this stand up to moral review? Arabs cross to collect the grain that they left in the abandoned [term often used by Israelis to describe the ethnically cleansed] villages and we set mines for them and they go back without an arm or a leg. . . . [It may be that this] cannot pass review, but I know no other method of guarding the borders. then tomorrow the State of Israel will have no borders.”

“The only method that proved effective, not justified or moral but effective, when Arabs plant mines on our side [in retaliation]. If we try to search for the [particular] Arab [who planted mines], it has not value. But if we HARASS the nearby village . . . then the population there comes out against the [infiltrators] . . . and the Egyptian Government and the Transjordan Government are [driven] to prevent such incidents because their prestige is [assailed], as the Jews have opened fire, and they are unready to begin a war . . . the method of collective punishment so far has proved effective.” (1955)

[At a funeral:] “Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived. We should demand his blood not from the [Palestinian] Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves. . . . Let us make our reckoning today. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house.” (1956)

“All that is required is to find an officer, even a captain [later to be Sa'ed Haddad] would do, to win his heart or buy him with money to get him to agreed to declare himself the savior of the Maronite population. Then the Israeli army will enter Lebanon, occupy the necessary territory, create a Christian regime that will ally itself with Israel. The territory from Litani southward will be totally annexed to Israel, and everything will fall into place.” (1956)

“We want [Palestinian] emigration, we want a normal standard of living, we want to encourage emigration according to a selective program.” (1967)

“The proposed policy [of raising the level of public service in the occupied territories] may clash with our intention to encourage emigration from both [Gaza] Strip and Judea and Samaria. Anyone who has practical ideas or proposal to encourage emigration—-let him speak up. No idea or proposal is to be dismissed out of hand.” (1968)

“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu’a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.” (1969)

“Never mind that [when asked that Syrians initiated the war from the Golan Heights]. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let’s talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn’t possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn’t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that’s how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Zvi Tsur, Rabin's predecessor as chief of staff] did that, Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elzar, OC Northern Command, 1964-69].” (1976)

“Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.”

“There is no more Palestine. Finished . . .” (1973)

[His Masada vision:] “A new State of Israel with broad frontiers, strong and solid, with the authority of the Israel Government extending from the Jordan [river] to the Suez Canal.” (1973)

Moshe Sharett (Shertok):

“[The Arabs have] extremely subtle understanding and delicate senses. There is a wall between us and them and there is tragic development in that this wall is getting taller. But, nevertheless, if this wall can be prevented from getting taller, it is sacred duty to do so, if at all possible.”

“We have not come to an empty country. We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ….. Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about “the mutual misunderstanding” between us and the Arabs, about “common interests” [and] about “the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples.” ….. [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ….. for if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise.” (1914)

“The proposed Jewish state [referring to the proposed 1937 Peel Commission partition plan] territory would not be continuous; its borders would be twisted and broken; the question of defending the frontier line would pose enormous difficulties …. the frontier line would separate villages from their fields …. Moreover the [Palestinian] Arab reaction would be negative because they would lose everything and gain almost nothing ….. in contrast to us they would lose totally that part of Palestine which they consider to be an Arab country and are fighting to keep it such … They would lose the richest part of Palestine; they would lose major Arab assets, the orange plantations, the commercial and industrial centers and the most important sources of revenue for their government which would become impoverished; they would lose most of the coastal area, which would also be a loss to the hinterland Arab states….. It would mean that they would be driven back to the desert (’Zorkim Otam’) …. A Jewish territory [state] with fewer Arab subjects would make it easy for us but it would also mean a procrustean bed for us while a plan based on expansion into larger territory would mean more [Palestinian] Arab subjects in the Jewish territory.

“For the next 10 years the possibility of transferring the Arab population would not be ‘practical’. As for the long-term future: I am prepared to see in this a vision, not a mystical way but in a realistic way, of a population exchange on a much more important scale and including larger territories. As for now, we must not forget who would have to exchange the land? those villages which live more than others on irrigation, on orange and fruit plantations, in houses built near water wells and pumping stations, on livestock and property and easy access to markets. Where would they go? What would they receive in return? … This would be such an uprooting, such a shock, the likes of which had never occurred and could drown the whole thing in rivers of blood. At this stage let us not entertain ourselves with the analogy of population transfer between Turkey and Greece; there were different conditions there. Those Arabs who would remain would revolt; would the Jewish state be able to suppress the revolt without assistance from the British Army?” (1937)

“Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews’ entry into Palestine.” (1936)

“First of all, almost 300,000 [Palestinian] Arabs will exist under Jewish rule. It is not so easy to carry out [population] exchange . . . . And even if they [the British] indeed would want to uproot the [Palestinian] Arab population by force, this would result in such bloodshed that the current rebellion in the country would be almost nothing in comparison. Such a thing could not be done without British forces, at least in the transition period. . . . It is a big question whether [Britain] would have the courage to carry this out.” (1937)

“We talked about the question of partition in connection with Transjordan. Wadsworth said that it was known to him that the [British] Government was very impressed by the proposal contained in the memorandum that we had submitted to the [Peel] “Royal Commission” concerning the transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the Western Eretz Yisrael [i.e. "Palestine"] to Transjordan in order to evacuate the place for new Jewish settlers. They saw this proposal as a constructive plan indeed.” (1937)

“The critical problem is a parliamentarism in the Jewish state and in the transition period to it …. it is necessary that an institution of government should be set up, and one of its functions will be to prepare the parliamentary regime. In this transition period also we will know who are the [Palestinian] Arabs who would agree to remain as citizens of the Jewish state and their number would certainly be much smaller than we think today. By the reduction of the [Palestinian] Arabs on the one hand and Jewish immigration in the transition period on the other, we will ensure an absolute Hebrew majority in a parliamentary regime.” (1938)

“The [Transfer] Committee must work quietly and without publicity but it could not work in complete mystery and without assistance from the public authorities, especially now, during the [second war] war. Therefore, contact ought to be made with the [British military] authorities in Egypt .” (1941)

“Transfer could be the crowning achievement, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance.” (1947)

“When the Jewish state is established–it is very possible that the result will be transfer of [the Palestinian] Arabs.” (1947)

[To Chaim Weizmann:] “With regard to the refugees, we are determined to be adamant while the war lasts. Once the return tide starts, it will be impossible to stem it, and it will prove our undoing. As for the future, we are equally determined to explore all possibilities of getting rid, once and for all, of the huge [Palestinian] Arab minority [referring to the Palestinian Israeli citizens of Israel ] which originally threatened us. What can be achieved in this period of storm and stress [referring to the 1948 war] will be quite unattainable once conditions get stabilized. A group of people [headed by Yosef Weitz] has already started working on the study of resettlement possibilities [for the Palestinian refugees] in other lands . . . What such permanent resettlement of ‘Israeli’ Arabs in the neighboring territories will mean in terms of making land available in Israel for settlement of our own people requires no emphasis.” (1948)

[To Nahum Goldmann:] “The opportunities which the present position open up for a lasting and radical solution of the most vexing problem of the Jewish state [i.e. Palestinian Arab minority problem] are so far-reaching as to take one’s breath away. Even of if a certain backlash is unavoidable, we must make the most of the momentous chance with which history has presented us so swiftly and so unexpectedly.” (1948)

“The interests of security demand that we get rid of them. [the Arabs of Wadi'Ara" (1949)

[King Abdullah's father (al-Shareif al-Hussein) had a dream to control the "Great Syria". When this "dream" was not within reach of either him or his son, King Abdullah sought alliance with the Zionist movement to achieve his father's "dream". According to several historians, such as Avi Shlaim and Simha Flapan, the "dream" for a Hashmite controlled "Great Syria" was an obsession for both father and son. This "dream" was exploited by the Zionist leadership to drive a wedge between the neighboring Arab states. Ironically, the Arab countries whose armies entered Palestine on May 15th, 1948 did so to keep H.M. King Abdullah from controlling the Palestinian portion of Palestine, which was allotted to Palestinian Arabs based on UN GA resolution 181. During a meeting with H.M. King Abdullah at Shunah-Jordan, which took place soon after Husni al-Zaim's coup in Syria, Moshe Sharett wrote in the spring of 1949:] ”I explained [to King Abdullah] that we would like to adjust our position on the Syrian question to theirs [to establish a Hashemite Greater Syria], as, in our view, they are the decisive factor in our relations with our neighbors, and Syria is unimportant. Abdullah’s face did not conceal his satisfaction as he turned his head to his prime minister. Tawfiq Pasha said they were waiting to see how things would develop in Syria. . . . ‘The man who took power has to pass the test of the people’s trust. . . . ‘ I said: ‘Your position is cautioned your biding your time?’ and they said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘What is your view about Syria as a state, should she remain in the present frontiers?’ The king rose and said with great solemnity: ‘You mean the idea of Greater Syria? This one of the principles of the Arab Revolt that I have been serving all my life.” (1949) [Yigal Yadin: "Abdullah is more interested in Greater Syria than in Palestine. This is in his blood, this is his political and military outlook and he is ready to sell out all the Palestinians in this aim. We have to know how to play this card to achieve our aim. . . . We should not support the plan of Greater Syria but we should divert Abdullah toward this plan." (1949)]

[To Dr. Nahum Goldmann:] “the most spectacular event in the contemporary history of Palestine, in a way more spectacular than the creation of the Jewish state, is the wholesale evacuation of its [Palestinian] Arab population. . . . The opportunities opened up by the present reality for a lasting and radical solution of the most vexing problem of the Jewish state are so far-reaching as to take one’s breath away. The reversion of the status quo ante is unthinkable.” (1949)

[To Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Vishinsky:] “There are countries—and I was referring to North Africa— from which not all Jews need to emigrate. It is not so much of quantity as of quality. Our role in Israel is a pioneering one, and we need people with certain strength of fiber. We are very anxious to bring the Jews of Morocco over and we are doing all we can to achieve this. But we cannot count on the Jews of Morocco alone to build the country, because they have not been educated for this. We don’t know what may yet happen to us, what military and political defeats we may yet have to face. So we need people who will remain steadfast in any hardship and who have a high degree of resistance. For the purpose of building up our country, I would say that the Jews of Eastern Europe are the salt of the earth. . . . ” (1950)

[Re Qibya Massacre:] “A reprisal of this magnitude . . . . has never been carried out before. I paced back and forth in my room perplexed and completely depressed, feeling helpless.” (1953)

[After Israel hijacked a civilian Syrian airliner and took the pasengers hostage: Israel must choose between] “a state of law and a state of piracy.” (1955)

[Re Moshe Dayan and Ben-Gurion:] “I saw clearly how those who saved the state so heroically and courageously in the War of Independence would be capable of bringing a catastrophe upon it if they are given the chance in normal times.” … “The lack of seriousness exhibited by the [military brass, including Ben-Gurion] . . . in its approach to the affairs of the neighboring countries and especially toward the most complicated problem of Lebanon’s internal and external situation was simply horrifying.” (1955)

“What is our vision on this earth—war to the end of all generations and life by the sword?” (1955)

“I am against preventive war because it can turn into general war, to a ring of fire all around us, rather than be restricted to war with Egypt. I am against preventive war because that which did not occur in the War of Independence may occur, namely intervention by foreign power against us. . . . I am against intervention by a foreign power against us. . . . I am against preventive war because it means measures by the UN against us. I am against preventive war because it means injury and damage at home, the destruction of settlements, and the spilling of much blood.” (1955)

“Moshe Dayan unfolded one plan after another for direct action. The first—what should be done to force open blockade of the Gulf of Eilat . A ship flying the Israeli flag should be sent, and if the Egyptians bomb it, we should bomb the Egyptian base from the air, or conquer Ras al-Naqb, or open our way south of Gaza Strip to the coast. There was a general uproar. I asked Moshe: Do you realize that this would mean war with Egypt?, he said: Of course.” (1955)

“In the thirties [during the 1st Palestinian Intifada] we restrained the emotions of revenge and we educated the public to consider revenge as an absolutely negative impulse. Now, on the contrary, we justify the system of reprisals out of pragmatic considerations . . . we eliminated the mental and moral brakes on this instinct and made it possible . . . to uphold revenge as a moral value.” (1955)

“Curious people who have become accustomed to think that one cannot sustain the morale of the army without giving it the freedom to shed blood from time to time.” (1955)

“The activists believe that the Arabs understand only the language of force. . . . The state of Israel must, from time to time, prove clearly that it is strong, and able and willing to use force, in a devastating and highly effective way. If it does not prove this, it will be swallowed up, and perhaps wiped off the face of the earth. As to peace—-this approach states— it is in any case doubtful; in any case, very remote. If peace comes, it will come only if [the Arabs] are convinced that this country cannot be beaten. . . . If [retaliatory] operations . . . . rekindle the fires of hatred, that is no cause for fear for fires will be fuelled in any event. . . .

“The other approach [is that] not even for one moment must the matter of peace vanish from our calculation. This is not only a political calculation; in the long run, this is a decisive security consideration [as well] . . . . We must restrain our responses [to Arab attacks] An there is always the question: is it really proven that retaliatory actions solve the security problem?.” (1957)

“I have learned that the state of Israel cannot be ruled in our generation without deceit and adventurism. These are historical facts that cannot be altered. . . In the end, history will justify both the stratagems and deceit and the acts of adventurism. All I know is that I, Moshe Sharett, am not capable of them, and I am therefore unsuited to lead this country.” (1957)

David Gruen (Ben-Gurion)

[Shabtai Teveth on Ben-Gurion:] “1906… Ben-Gurion remarked only on the buildings, ruins, and scenery. He gave no thought to the Arabs, their problems, their social conditions, or their cultural life. Nor had he yet acquainted himself with the Jewish community in Palestine [which was mostly non-Zionist Orthodox Jews]. In all of Palestine there were [in 1906] 700,000 inhabitants, only 55,000 of whom were Jews, and only 550 of these were [Zionists] pioneers.”

“This [Arab] hatred [of Jewish settlers] originates with the Arab workers in Jewish settlements. Like any worker, the Arab worker detests his taskmaster and exploiter. But because this class conflict overlaps a national difference between farmers and workers, this hatred takes a national form. Indeed, the national overwhelms the class aspect of the conflict in the minds of the Arab working masses, and inflames an intense hatred toward the Jews.” (1914)

[A Jewish laborer should earn a higher salary than an Arab because he is] “more intelligent and diligent”

[Re the future Jewish state's frontiers:] “To the north, the Litani river [S. Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi ‘Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-’Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan” (1918) [Click here to view the "Greater Israel" map that was submitted by the Zionists to the peace conference after WWI.]

“Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants.” (1918)

“We do not recognize the right of the Arabs to rule the country, since Palestine is still undeveloped and awaits its builders.” (1924)

“The Arabs have no right to close the country to us. What right do they have to the Negev desert, which is uninhabited?” (1928)

“The Arabs have no right to the Jordan river, and no right to prevent the construction of a power plant. They have a right only to that which they have created and to their homes.” (1930; when Arabs constituted 85% of Palestine’s population, and owned and operated over 97% of the land)

“Everybody sees the problem in the relations between the Jews and the Arabs. But not everybody sees that there’s no solution to it. There is no solution! . . . The conflict between the interests of the Jews and the interests of the Arabs in Palestine cannot be resolved by sophisms. I don’t know any Arabs who would agree to Palestine being ours—even if we learn Arabic . . .and I have no need to learn Arabic. On the other hand, I don’t see why ‘Mustafa’ should learn Hebrew. . . . There’s a national question here. We want the country to be ours. The Arabs want the country to be theirs.” (Versailles, 1919)

“Within then the next twenty years, we must have a Jewish majority in Palestine.” (1917)

“I am unwilling to forego even one percent of Zionism for ‘peace’—yet I do not want Zionism to infringe upon even one percent of legitimate Arab rights” (1925)

“The success of the Arabs in organizing the closure of shops shows that we are dealing here with a national movement. For the Arabs, this is an important education step.” (1922)

“It’s true that the Arab national movement has no positive content. The leaders of the movement are unconcerned with betterment of the people and provision of their essential needs. They do not aid the fellah; to the contrary, the leaders suck his blood, and exploit the popular awakening for private gain. But we err if we measure the Arabs and their movement by our standards. Every people is worthy of its national movement. The obvious characteristic of a political movement is that it knows how to mobilize the masses. From this prospective there is no doubt that we are facing a political movement, and we should not underestimate it.” (1929)

“Our sense of morality forbids us to deny the right of a single [Palestinian] Arab child, even though by such denial we might attain all that we seek.” (1929)

“A Jewish majority is not Zionism’s last station, but it is a very important station on the route to Zionism’s political triumph. It will give our security and presence a sound foundation, and allow us to concentrate masses of Jews in this country and the region.” (1929)

“The debate as to whether or not an Arab national movement exists is a pointless verbal exercise; the main thing for us is that the movement attracts the masses. We do not regard it as a resurgence movement and its moral worth is dubious. But politically speaking it is a national movement . . . . The Arab must not and cannot be a Zionist. He could never wish the Jews to become a majority. This is the true antagonism between us and the Arabs. We both want to be the majority.” (1929)

“They [Palestinians] showed new power and remarkable discipline. Many of them were killed . . . this time not murderers and rioters, but political demonstrators. Despite the tremendous unrest, the order not to harm Jews was obeyed. This shows exceptional political discipline. There is no doubt that these events will leave a profound imprint on the Arab movement. This time we have seen a political movement which must evoke the respect of the world. (1930)

“England is a great power, the greatest empire. But to shatter even the largest stones on earth, it takes only a small quantity of explosive powder. Such powder packs tremendous force. If the creative force within us is capable of stopping this EVIL EMPIRE, then the explosive force will ignite, and we will topple this blood-stained imperium. . . . We will be those who take this war upon ourselves and beware thee, British Empire!” … “Prepare for a long and difficult road, if we are left with no alternatives, a road of alliance with the Arabs against these despicable powers.” (1931)

“We do not recognize any form of absolute ownership over any country. Any group of diligent persons, every industrious people, is entitled to enjoy the fruits of labor, and do with its talents as it pleases. it has no right to prevent others from doing the same, or to close the doors leading to nature’s gifts in the faces of others. The five million inhabitants of Australia have no right to close the gates of their continent–which they alone cannot fully exploit– and so exclude the masses of desperate people seeking a new place to work. This is the principle behind the right of free migration, championed by international socialism.” (1931)

“The Arab community in Palestine is an organic, inseparable part of the landscape. It is embedded in the country. The Arabs work the land, and will remain.” … “The only right by which a people can claim to possess a land indefinitely is the right conferred by willingness to work.” (1931)

“Almost every Arab [opposes Zionism] because he is an Arab, because he is a Muslim, because he dislikes foreigners, and because we are hateful to him in every way.” [The conflict had lasted thirty years, and was liable] “to continue for perhaps hundreds more.” [It was a] “real war, a war of life or death.” (1938)

“I never felt hatred of the Arabs and none of their actions ever awakened vengeful emotions in me.” … “The destruction of Jaffa, the city and the port, will happen and it will be for the best. This city, which grew fat on Jewish immigration and settlement, is asking for destruction when it swings a hatchet over the heads of its builders and benefactors. When Jaffa falls into hell I will not be among the mourners.” (1936)

“These days it is not right but might which prevails.  It is more important to have force than justice on one’s side.” (1933)

“Arab leaders see no value in the economic dimension of the country’s development, and while they will concede that our immigration has brought material blessings to Palestine, they nevertheless contend — and from the Arab point of view, they are right — that they want neither the honey nor the bee sting.”

“I see why the government feels the need to show leniency towards the Arabs . . . it is not easy to suppress a popular movement strictly by the use of force.” (1936)

[To Moshe Sharett:] “Were I an Arab, and Arab with nationalist political consciousness . . . I would rise up against an immigration liable in the future to hand the country and all of its Arab inhabitants over to Jewish rule. What Arab cannot do his math and understand what immigration at the rate of 60,000 a year means a Jewish state in all of Palestine.” (1937)

“When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves —- that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves.” (1938)

“The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn’t matter whether or not their view is correct…. They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale …. they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing into our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ….. [Arabs are] fighting dispossession … The fear is not of losing land, but of losing the homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ….. By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement.” (1937)

“There is no conflict between Jewish and Arab nationalism because the Jewish nation is not in Palestine and the Palestinians are not a nation.” (1937)

[To the World Convention of Ihud Po'alei Tzion in Zurich, 1937:] “Having Lebanon as a neighbor ensures the Jewish state of a faithful ally from the first day of its establishment. It is not, also, unavoidable that across the northern side of the Jewish state border in southern Lebanon the first possibility of our expansion will come up through agreement, in good will, with our neighbors who need us.”

“The right which the Arabs in Palestine have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Palestine should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews.” (1937)

“It is very possible that the Arabs of the neighboring countries will come to their aid against us. But our strength will exceed theirs. Not only because we will be better organized and equipped , but because behind us there stands a still larger force, superior in quality and quantity …. the whole younger generation”. (1937)

“We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places …. and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places — then we have force at our disposal.” (1937)

“The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty—-this is national consolidation in a free homeland.” (1937)

“In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the [British Peel] Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale. You must remember, that this system embodies an important humane and Zionist idea, to transfer parts of a people to their country and to settle empty lands. We believe that this action will also bring us closer to an agreement with the Arabs.” (1937)

“With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] …. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.” (1937)

“With compulsory transfer we [would] have vast areas …. I support compulsory [population] transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England …. Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. …. But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them.” (1938)

“I don’t regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim.” (1938)

“The borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity.”  (1937)

“It is very possible that in exchange for our financial, military, organizational and scientific assistance, the Arabs will agree that we develop and build the Negev. It is also possible that they won’t agree. No people always behaves according to logic, common sense, and best interests.” … “Because we cannot stand to see large areas of unsettled land capable of absorbing thousands of Jews remain empty, or to see Jews not return to their country because the Arabs say that there is not enough room for them and us.” (1937)

The “historic aim of the Jewish state” is the “gathering of the exiles in all of Palestine.” And so “from the moment the state is established, it must calculate its actions with an eye toward this distant goal.” (1938)

“Just as I do not see the proposed Jewish state as a final solution to the problems of the Jewish people, so I do now see partition as the final solution of the Palestine question. Those who reject partition are right in their claim that this country cannot be partitioned because it constitute one unit, not only from a historical point of view but also from that of nature and economy” (1938)

“After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine”  (1938)

“The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today–but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.”  (1938)

“In my opinion we must insist on the Peel Commission proposal, which sees in the transfer the only solution to this problem. And I have now to say that it is worthwhile that the Jewish people should bear GREATEST material sacrifices in order to ensure the success of transfer.” (1937)

“The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish state . . . . we have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed at the Zionism itself.” (1937)

“We will not be able to countenance large uninhabited areas absorb tens of thousands of Jews remaining empty …. And if we have to use force we shall use it without hesitation — but only if we have no choice. We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places. Our whole desire is based on the assumption — which has been corroborated in the course of all our activity in the country — that there is enough room for us and the Arabs in the country and that if we have to use force – not in order to dispossess the Arabs from the Negev or Transjordan but in order to assure ourselves of the right, which is our due to settle there- then we have the force.” (1937)

“[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.” (1938)

“This is only a stage in the realization of Zionism and it should prepare the ground for our expansion throughout the whole country through Jewish-Arab agreement …. the state, however, must enforce order and security and it will do this not by mobilizing and preaching ’sermons on the mount’ but by the machine-guns, which we will need.” (1938)

“No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ….. Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state …. will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country.” (1937)

“Jewish suffering is also a political factor, and whoever says that Hitler diminished our strength, is not telling the truth.” (1937)

“Had partition been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed—most of them would be in Israel” (1948)

“If I knew it was possible to save all [Jewish] children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz-Yisrael, I would choose the latter—-because we are faced not only with the accounting of these [Jewish] children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People.” (1938)

“The catastrophe of European Jewry is not, in a direct manner, my business. . . . The destruction of the European Jewry is the death-knell of Zionism.” (1942)

[To Auni Abdul Hadi:] “Our ultimate goal is the independence of the Jewish people in Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan, not as a minority but as a community of several million. In my opinion, it is possible to create over a period of forty years, if Transjordan was included, a community of four million Jews in addition to an Arab community of two million.” (1948)

[Ben Gurion believed that the Zionist interests would be best served if the Palestinian Arabs were represented by al-Hajj Amin's men:] “It will be much easier for us to counter their claim. We can say that they stand for terrorism and represent only small part of the Arab population. A broad delegation [to London] including ‘moderates’ [such Nashashibi's Istiqlal party] will display the Arab public’s general resistance to the Jews.” (1939)

“…our demand [is] not as a Jewish state in Palestine but Palestine as a Jewish state” (1942)

“Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the Arabs are removed [to these states] this will improve their condition and not the contrary.” (1944)

“We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion, There are of course sections of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel which will not resist transfer under adequate conditions to certain neighboring countries, such as the Druze, a number of Bedouin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the south, the Circassians and perhaps even the Metwalis [the Sh'ite of the Galilee]. But it would be very difficult to bring about resettlement of other sections of the [Palestinian] Arab populations such as the fellahin and the urban populations in neighboring Arab countries by transferring them voluntarily, whatever economic inducements are offered to them.”

“The possibility of large-scale transfer of a population by force was demonstrated, when the Greeks and the Turks were transferred [after WW I]. In the present war [referring to WW II] the idea of transferring a population is gaining more sympathy as a practical and the most secure means of solving the dangerous and painful problem of national minorities. The war has already brought the resettlement of many people eastern and southern Europe, and in the plans for the postwar settlements the idea of a large-scale population transfer in central, eastern, and southern Europe increasingly occupies a respectable place.”

“The aim of the Arab attacks on Zionism is not robbery, terror, or stopping the growth of the Zionist enterprise, but the total destruction of the Yishuv [Palestinian Jewish community prior to May 1948]. It is not political adversaries who will stand before us, but the pupils and teachers of Hitler, who claim there is only one way to solve the Jewish question, one way only — total annihilation.” (1947)

“Arabs are fleeing from Jaffa and Haifa. Bedouin are fleeing from the Sharon. Most are seeking [to join up] with members of their family. Villagers are returning to their villages. Leaders are also in flight, most of them are taking their families to Nablus, Nazareth. The Bedouins are moving to Arab areas. According to our ‘friends’ [advisors], every response to our dealing a hard blow at the [Palestinian] Arabs with many casualties is a blessing. This will increase the Arabs’ fear and external help for the Arabs will be ineffective. To what extent will stopping transportation cramp the Arabs? The fellahin [peasants] won’t suffer, but city dwellers will. The country dwellers don’t want to join the disturbances, unless dragged in by force. A vigorous response will strengthen the refusal of the peasants to participate in the battle. Josh Palmon [an advisor to Ben-Gurion on Arab affairs] thinks that Haifa and Jaffa will be evacuated [by the Palestinians] because of hunger. There was almost famine in Jaffa during the disturbances of 1936-1939.” (1947)

“the important difference with [1st Intifada of] 1937 is the increased vulnerability of the [Palestinian] urban economy. Haifa and Jaffa are at our mercy. We can starve them out. Motorized transport, which has also become an important factor in their life, is to a large extent at our mercy.”  (1947)

“The strategic objective [of the Jewish forces] was to destroy the urban communities, which were the most organized and politically conscious sections of the Palestinian people. This was not done by house-to-house fighting inside the cities and towns, but by the conquest and destruction of the rural areas surrounding most of the towns. This technique led to the collapse and surrender of Haifa, Jaffa, Tiberias, Safed, Acre, Beit-Shan, Lydda, Ramleh, Majdal, and Beersheba. Deprived of transportation, food, and raw materials, the urban communities underwent a process of disintegration, chaos, and hunger, which forced them to surrender.” (1947)

“we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place.” (1947)

“In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority …. There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%.“ (1947)

“The wisdom of Israel is now the wisdom of war, nothing else.” (1948)

“The war will GIVE us the land. The concept of ‘ours’ and ‘not ours’ are ONLY CONCEPTS for peacetime, and during war they lose all their meaning.” (1948)

[Ben-Gurion asked Yosef Weitz in early February 1948 whether the Jewish National Fund (JNF) was ready to buy "from him" land at 25 Palestinian Pounds per dunam. Weitz replied: "if the land is Arab [owned] and we will receive the deed of property and possession – then we will buy. Then he [ i.e., Ben-Gurion] laughed and said: DEED of property – no possession-yes.” The next day, Weitz and Granovsky lunched with Ben-Gurion. who restated his: “plan . . . Our army will conquer the Negev, will take the land into its hands and will sell it to the JNF at 20-25 Palestinian pounds per dunam. And there is a source . . . of millions [of pounds]. Granovsky responded jokingly that we are NOT LIVING in the Middle Ages and the army does not steal land. After the war the bedouins [of the Negev] will return to their place—if they leave at all– and will get [back] their land.” A week later, Ben-Gurion suggested to Weitz that he divest himself of: “conventional notions . . . In the Negev we will not buy land. We will conquer it. You are forgetting that we are at war.” (Benny Morris, p. 170) Not only did Ben-Gurion envision war as an instrument to change the demographics picture in favor of the Jewish minority, he also envisioned war as a tool to dispossess Palestinians and raise “millions” of pounds in capital.]

“From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arab. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country.” (1948)

“They, the decisive majority of them [Palestinians], do not want to fight us.” (1948)

“We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of Arab population.” (1948)

[Micheal Bar-Zohar: "The appeals to the Arabs [of Haifa] to stay, Golda’s mission, and other similar gestures were the result of political considerations, but they did not reflect [Ben-Gurion's] basic stand. In internal discussions, in instructions to his people, the ‘old man’ demonstrated a clear stand: it was better that the smallest possible number of Arabs remain with in the [Jewish] state.” (1948)]

“Haifa [is like] a dead city, a corpse city … a horrifying and fantastic sight. … What happened in Haifa can happen in other part of the country if we will hold out … it may be that in the next six or eight months of the campaign, there will be great changes in the country, and not all to our detriment. Certainly, there will be great changes in the composition of the population of the country.” (1948)

[Yitzhak Rabin, 1948: "After attacking Lydda [later called Lod] and then Ramla, …. What would they do with the 50,000 civilians living in the two cities ….. Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution …. and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he [Ben-Gurion] remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endangered the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward.
Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: What is to be done with the population?, waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! [garesh otem in Hebrew]. ‘Driving out’ is a term with a harsh ring, …. Psychologically, this was on of the most difficult actions we undertook.”]

“Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action.” (1979)

“I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish.” If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, ” and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return,” he said, and, leaving no doubt in the ministers’ minds about his views on the ultimate fate of the [Palestinian] refugees, he added: “I will be for them not returning after the war.” (1948)

“The Arabs of the land of Israel have only one function left to them — to run away.” (1948)

“Bethlehem, and Hebron, where there are about a hundred thousand Arabs. I assume that most of the Arabs of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron would flee, like the Arabs of Lydda, Jaffa, Tiberias, and Safad, and we will control the whole breadth of the country up to the Jordan.” (1948)

“It is not impossible . . . that we will be able to conquer the way to the Negev, Eilat, and the Dead Sea, and to secure the Negev for ourselves; also to broaden the corridor to Jerusalem, from north to south; to liberate the rest of Jerusalem and to take the Old City; to seize all of central and western Galilee and to expand the borders of the state in all directions.” (1948)

“The Arab people have been beaten by us. Will they forget it quickly? Seven hundred thousand people beat 30 million. Will they forget this offense? It can be assumed that they have a sense of honor. We will make peace efforts, but two sides are necessary for peace. Is there any security that they will not want to take revenge? Let us recognize the truth: we won not because we performed wonders, but because the Arab army is rotten. Must this rottenness persist forever? The situation in the world beckons towards revenge: there are two blocs; there is fear of world war. This tempts anyone with grievance. We will always require a superior defensive capability.” (1948)

“Egypt is the only state among the Arab countries that constitutes a real state and is forging a people inside it. It is a big state. If we could arrive at the conclusion of peace with—it would be a tremendous conquest for us. . . . But in general we need not regret too much that the Arabs refuse to make peace with us.” (1949)

“In his opinion, time will cure all, and all will be forgotten.” (1949)

“Abba Eban [Israeli Foreign Ministry official] came. He sees no point in chasing after peace. The armistice agreement is sufficient for us. If we chase after peace the Arabs will demand a price: either territory, return of refugees, or both. It’s best to wait a few years.” (1949)

“Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we’re still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders— it’s an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country’s borders, so there’s no real limit. A border is absolute. If it’s a desert— it could just as well be the other side. If it’s sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice.” (1949)

“Riley [the UN official] spoke to Rozen [Israeli Foreign Ministry official]. [Husnei] Zaim [Syria's president] wants to develop Syria and accept 300,000 [Palestinian] refugees. Riley asks if we would agree to sign an armistice agreement now, on the basis of the existing situation. Rozen replied that our answer was negative.” (1949)

“The only thing that surprise me, and surprised me bitterly, was the discovery of such moral failings among us [Jews], which I had never suspected. I mean the mass robbery in which all parts of [the Jewish] population participated.” (1949)

[1948, the Military Governor of Jerusalem, Dov Yosef, wrote Ben-Gurion describing the "looting" of Palestinian properties: "The looting is spreading once again. ...I cannot verify all the reports which reach me, but I get the distinct impression that the commanders are not over-eager to catch and punish the thieves. ...I receive complaints every day. By way of example, I enclose a copy of a letter I received from the manager of the Notre Dame de France (a monastery). Behavior like this in a monastery can cause quite serious harm to us. I've done my best to put a stop to the thefts there, which are all done by soldiers, since civilians are not permitted to enter the place. But as you can see from this letter, these acts are continuing. I am powerless."]

[The Jews of Europe are] “the leading candidates for citizenship in the State of Israel. Hitler, more than he hurt the Jewish people, whom he knew and detested, hurt the Jewish State, whose coming he did not foresee. He destroyed the substance, the main and essential building force of the [Jewish] state. The state arose and did not find the nation which had waited for it.” In the absence of the European Jews, the state of Israel had to bring in Jews from Arab countries. Ben Gurion compared them with the Africans who were brought in as slaves to America.

“Even the immigrant of North Africa, who looks like a savage, who has never read a book in his life, not even a religious one, and doesn’t even know how to say his prayers, either wittingly or unwittingly has behind him a spiritual heritage of thousands of years. . . .” (1949)

“They tell me that there are thieves among them [Polish Jews]. I am a Polish Jew, and I doubt if there is any Jewish community which has more thieves among them. I am doubtful if there is any Jewish community which has more thieves in it than the Polish ones.” A few years later Ben-Gurion wrote to Justice Moshe Estzioni: “An Ashkenazi gangster, thief, pimp, or murderer will not gain the sympathy of the Ashkenazi community (if there is such a thing), nor will he expect it. But in such a primitive community as the Moroccans’ — such a thing is possible. . . . ” (1949)

“This tribe [Yemenite Jews] is in some ways more easily absorbed, both culturally and economically, than any other. It is hardworking, it is not attracted by city life, it has — or at least, the male part has — a good grounding in Hebrew and the Jewish heritage. Yet in other ways it may be the most problematic of all. It is two thousands years behind us [European cultured Jews], perhaps even more. It lacks the most basic primary concepts of civilization (as distinct from culture). Its attitude toward women and children is primitive. Its physical condition poor. Its bodily strength is depleted and it does not have the minimal notions of hygiene. For thousands of years it lived in one of the most benighted and impoverished lands, under a rule even more backward than an ordinary feudal and theocratic regime. The passage from there to Israel has been profound human revolution, not a superficial, political one. All it human values need to changed from the ground.” (1949)

“[Nasser must be taught a lesson, thundered, either] to carry out his duties or to be toppled. It is definitely possible to topple him, and it is even a mitzvah [a sacred obligation] to do so. Who is he anyway, this Nasser-Shmasser.” (1954)

“This is a unique opportunity that two not so small powers [UK and France] will try to topple Nasser, and we shall not stand alone against him while he becomes stronger and conquers all the Arab countries. . . . and maybe the whole situation in the Middle East will change according to my plan.” (1955)

“I told him [French PM, Guy Mollet] about the discovery of oil in the southern and western Sinai, and that it would be good to TEAR this peninsula from Egypt because it did not belong to her; rather it was the English who stole it from the Turks when they believed that Egypt was in their pocket. I suggested laying down a pipeline from Sinai to Haifa to REFINE THE OIL, and Mollet [French PM] showed interest in the suggestion.” (1955)

[In a cable sent to the 7th brigade following the occupation of Sharm al-Sheikh in Sinai, Ben-Gurion wrote on October 29 1956:] “Yotvata, or Tiran, which until fourteen hundred years ago was part of the independent Jewish state, we will revert to being part of the third kingdom of Israel.” In his speech to the Israeli Knesset on November 7, 1956 he hinted that Israel planned to annex the entire Sinai peninsula as well as the Straits of Tiran (the southeastern tip of the Sinai peninsula on the Asian side)”

[Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldman before he died:

"I don't understand your optimism.," Ben-Gurion declared. "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipes us out".

I was stunned by this pessimism, but he went on:

"I will be seventy years old soon. Well, Nahum, if you asked me whether I shall die and be buried in a Jewish state I would tell you Yes; in ten years, fifteen years, I believe there will still be a Jewish state. But ask me whether my son Amos, who will be fifty at the end of this year, has a chance of dying and being buried in a Jewish state, and I would answer: fifty-fifty."

"But how can you sleep with that prospect in mind," I broke in, "and be Prime Minister of Israel too?"

Who says I sleep? he answered simply. (The Jewish Paradox by Nahum Goldman, p. 99)]

Menachem Begin

“The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized …. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.” (1947)

“The Jewish people have unchallengeable, eternal, historic right to the Land of Israel, the inheritance of their forefathers,” and pledged to build rural and urban exclusive Jewish colonies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

“Israel will not transfer Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District to any foreign sovereign authority, [because] of the historic right of our nation to this land, [and] the needs of our national security, which demand a capability to defend our State and the lives of our citizens.”

“The hour of decision has arrived. You know what I have done, and what all of us have done. to prevent war and bereavement. But our fate is that in the Land of Israel there is no escape from fighting in the spirit of self-sacrifice. Believe me, the alternative to fighting is Treblinka, and we have resolved that there would be no Treblinkas. This is the moment in which courageous choice has to be made. The criminal terrorists and the world must know that the Jewish people have a right to self-defense, just like any other people.” (1982)

Theodore Herzl

“We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly.” (1895)

[On 7 July 1902, while meeting the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration in London, Herzl was asked why Russian Jews could not be settled in uninhabited lands other than Palestine, such as Argentina, he replied:] “Argentina has a very good soil and the conditions for agricultural labour are much better than in Palestine, but in Palestine they work with enthusiasm and they succeed.”

“We can be the vanguard of culture against barbarianism.”

“The antisemites WILL BECOME our most loyal friends, the antisemites nations will become our allies.”

Validimir Dubnow, 1882:

“The ultimate goal . . . is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years. . . . The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland.”

Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines, 1882:

“There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become a the strong and populous ones.”

Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (Israel’s second president), 1914:

“It should have been the case that the Jewish bourgeoisie would be chauvinistic and would demand only Jewish labor. We, the socialists, tending toward internationalism, should have demanded that workers be employed without regard to national and religious differences. In reality, we see exactly the opposite.”

Meir Disengoff, 1909:

“How can Jews, who demand emancipation in Russia, rob the rights of, and act selfishly toward, other workers upon coming to Eretz Yisrael.”

Azmi Bey, Freemason governor of Jerusalem (who would go on to direct he genocide of Armenians), 1911:

“We are not xenophobes; we welcome all strangers. We are not anti-Semites; we value the economic superiority of the Jews. But no nation, no government could open its arms to groups. . . . aiming to take Palestine from us.”

Sir Edwin Montagu, Secretary of State for India and the only Jewish member of the British Cabinet, 1917:

“Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom … I have always understood that those who indulged in this creed were largely animated by the restrictions upon and refusal of liberty to Jews in Russia. But at the very time when these Jews have been acknowledged as Jewish Russians and given all liberties, it seems to be inconceivable that Zionism should be officially recognized by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorized to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the ‘national home of the Jewish people’. I do not know what this involves, but I assume that it means that Mohammedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews, and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mohammedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine … When the Jews are told that Palestine is their national home, every country will immediately desire to get rid of its Jewish citizens, and you will find a population in Palestine driving out its present inhabitants, taking all the best in the country …

“I deny that Palestine is today associated with the Jews or properly to be regarded as a fit place for them to live in. The Ten Commandments were delivered to the Jews on Sinai. It is quite true that Palestine plays a large part in Jewish history, but so it does in modern Mohammedan history, and, after the time of the Jews, surely it plays a larger part than any other country in Christian history …

“… When the Jew has a national home, surely it follows that the impetus to deprive us of the rights of British citizenship must be enormously increased. Palestine will become the world’s ghetto. Why should the Russian give the Jew equal rights? His national home is Palestine”.

Lord Sydenham to Lord Balfour:

“… the harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country – Arab all around in the hinterland – may never be remedied … what we have done is, by concessions, not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, to start a running sore in the East, and no one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

Edward Mandell House, US President Wilson’s aid, 1917:

“It is all bad and I told Balfour so. They are making [the Middle East] a breeding place for future war.”

A publication issued by the Zionist Organization, 1919:

“Democracy in American too commonly means MAJORITY RULE without regard to diversities of types or stages of civilization or differences of quality. Democracy in that sense has been called the melting pot in which that quantitatively lesser is assimilated into quantitatively greater. This doubtless is natural in America, and works on the whole very well. But if American idea were applied as an American administration might apply it to Palestine, what would happen? The numerical majority in Palestine today is [Palestinian] Arab, not Jewish. Qualitatively, it is a simple fact that the Jews are now predominant in Palestine, and given proper conditions they will be predominant quantitatively also in a generation or two. But if the crude arithmetical conception of democracy were to be applied now, or at some early stage in the future to Palestinian conditions, the majority that would rule would be the Arab majority, and the task of establishing and developing a great Jewish Palestine would be infinitely more difficult.”

Musa Kathim al-Husseini, Jerusalem’s mayor, to the British governor of Palestine, Storrs, a petition from more than 100 Palestinian notables, 1919:

“We have noticed yesterday a large crowed of Jews carrying banners and over-running the streets shouting words which hurt the feeling and wound the soul. They [Zionist Jews] pretend with OPEN VOICE that Palestine, which is the Holy Land of our fathers and the graveyard of our ancestors, which has been inhabited by the Arabs for long ages, who loved it and died in defending it, is NOW a national home for them.”

Lord Balfour, 1919:

“Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder important then the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land.”

Winston Churchill, 1919:

“There are the Jews, whom we are PLEDGED to introduce into Palestine, and who take it for GRANTED the the local [Palestinian] population will be CLEARED out to suit their convenience.”

Winston Churchill, 1921:

“It is manifestly right that the scattered Jews should have a national center and a national home and be reunited and where else but in Palestine with which for 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for the British Empire, but also good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine. … They shall share in the benefits and progress of Zionism.”

Winston Churchill, to Kathim al-Huseini, 1921:

“[The Jews would not] take any man’s lands. They CANNOT dispossess any man of his RIGHTS or his PROPERTY. . . . There is room for all.”

Winston Churchill, 1941 (contradicting the 1939 White Paper):

“I may say at once that if Britain and the United States emerged victorious from the war, the creation of a GREAT JEWISH STATE in Palestine inhabited by MILLIONS OF JEWS will be one of the LEADING FEATURES of the peace conference discussions.”

Mapai leader David Hacohen, 1936:

“I remember being one of the first of our comrades [of the Ahdut Ha'avodah] to got to London after the first World War. … There I became a socialist. … [In Palestine] I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to the housewives that they not buy at [Palestinian] Arab stores, to prevent [Palestinian] Arab workers from getting jobs there. …. To pour kerosene on the [Palestinian] Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies the Keneen Kayemet [Jewish National Fund] that sent Hankin to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendi [landlords] and to throw the fellahin [peasants] off the land– to buy dozens of dunums– from an Arab is permitted, but to sell, God forbid, one Jewish dunam to an Arab is prohibited.”

Lord Moyne (assassinated in 1944 by the Stern Gang in Cairo), to the House of Lords, 1942:

“[European Jews are] not only ALIEN in culture but also in blood. Immigration on this scale [3 million] would be DISASTROUS MISTAKE and indeed an impractical dream. The Arabs who have lived and buried their dead for fifty generations in Palestine, WILL NOT WILLINGLY surrender their land and self-government to the Jews.”

Winston Churchill, 1944:

“Some form of partition is the ONLY solution.”

Winston Churchill, 1944, regarding his masters:

“OBVIOUSLY we shall not proceed with ANY FORM of partition which Jews to do not support.”

Winston Churchill, to  Chaim Weizmann, 1944:

“[If the Jews could] get the WHOLE of Palestine, it would be a good thing, but if it came to choice between the [1939] White Paper and partition, then they should take partition.” Churchill also told Weizmann that “he too was for the inclusion of the Negev” in the future Jewish State.

Shlomo Lavi, one of the influential leaders of the Mapai party, 1948:

“the … transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the MOST JUST, MORAL and CORRECT that can be done. I have thought of this for many years.”

A discussion between MAPAI secretariat, 1948:

Eliyahu Camreli, MK: “I’m NOT WILLING to accept a single [Palestinian] Arab, and not only an Arab but any gentile. I want the State of Israel to be ENTIRELY JEWISH, the descendents of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. . . .”

Yehiel Duvdenvany, MK: “If there was any way of solving the problem way of transfer of the remaining 170,000 [Palestinian] Arabs we would do so. . . .”

David Hakohen, MK: “We didn’t plan the departure of the [Palestinian] Arabs. It was a miracle. . . .”

Z. Onn: “The landscape is MORE BEAUTIFUL—-I enjoy it, especially, when traveling between Haifa and Tel Aviv, and there is not a single [Palestinian] Arab to be seen.”

US ambassador in Damascus to Washington about Israel’s rejections of the proposal sent by Husni al-Za’im (Syria’s president) to conclude a comprehensive peace agreement with Israel. 1949:

“Unless Israel can be BROUGHT to understand that it CANNOT have all of its cake (partition boundaries) and gravy as well (area captured in violation of truce, Jerusalem and resettlement of [Palestinian] Arab refugees elsewhere) it may find that it has WON Pal[estine] war but LOST peace. It should be evident that Israel’s continued insistence upon her pound of flesh and more is DRIVING Arab states (and perhaps surely) to gird their lions (politically and economically if not yet militarily) for LONG range struggle.”

Golda Myrson [later changed to Meir], 1948:

“It is dreadful thing to see the dead city. I found next to the port [Arab] children, women, the old, waiting for a way to leave. I entered the houses, there were houses where coffee and pitot were left on the table, I COULD NOT AVOID [thinking] that this, INDEED, had been the picture in many Jewish towns [i.e. in Europe, during the World War II].

King Abdullah, 1951:

“I could justify a peace by pointing to concessions made by the Jews. But without any concessions from them, I am a DEFEATED before I even start.”

Golda Meir, 1969:

“It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist.”

Arthur Ruppin

“Land is the most necessary thing for establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands. . . . we are bound in each case. . . to remove the peasants who cultivate the land.” (1913)

“[Palestinian dispossession is inevitable because] land is the vital condition for our settlement in Palestine. But since there is hardly any land which is worth cultivating that is not already being cultivated, it is found that whatever we purchase land and settle it, by necessity its present cultivators are turned away.” (1930)

“I do not believe in the TRANSFER of an individual. I believe in the TRANSFER of entire villages.”

Aharon Cizling (Zisling):

“I’ve received a letter on the subject [of war crimes]. I must say that I have known what things have been like for some time and I have raised the issue several times already here. However after reading this letter I couldn’t sleep last night. I felt the things that were going on were hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here. I could not imagine where we came from and to where are we going. . . . I often disagree when the term Nazi was applied to the British. I wouldn’t like to use the term, even though the British committed Nazi crimes. But now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken. . . . Obviously we have to conceal these actions from the public, and I agree that we should not even reveal that we’re investigating them. But they must be investigated. . . .”

“We still do not properly appreciate what kind of enemy we are now nurturing outside the borders of our state. Our enemies, the Arab states, are mere nothing compared with those hundreds of thousands of [Palestinian] Arabs who will be moved by hatred and hopelessness and infinite hostility to wage war on us, regardless of any agreement we might be reached. . . . “

“[Destruction of a site during battle] is one thing. But [if a site is destroyed] a month later, in cold blood, out of political calculation . . . that is another thing altogether . . . This course [of destroying villages] will not reduce the number of [Palestinian] Arabs who will return to the Land of Israel. It will [only] increase the number of [our] enemies.” (1948)

“We are embarking on a course that will most greatly endanger any hope of peaceful alliance with forces who could be our allies in the Middle East …. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs who will be evicted from Palestine, even if they are to blame, and left hanging in the midair, will grow to hate us. If you do things in the heat of the war, in the midst of the battle, it’s one thing. But if after a month, you do it in cold blood, for political reason, in public, that is something altogether different. And I’m speaking now not only of moral considerations but also of political considerations.” (1948)

“I have to say that this phrase [regarding the treatment of Ramla's inhabitants] is a subtle order to EXPEL the Arabs from Ramla. If I’d receive such an order this is how I would interpret it. An order given during the conquest which states that the door is open and that all Arabs may leave, regardless of age, and sex, or they may stay, however, the army will not be responsible for providing food. When such things are said during actual conquest, at the moment of conquest, and after all that has already happened in Jaffa and other places. . . . I would interpret it as a warning: save yourself while you can get out.” (1948)

“It’s been said that, there were cases of rape in Ramla. I can forgive rape, but I will not forgive other acts which seem to me much worse. When they enter a town and forcibly remove rings from the fingers and jewelry from someone’s neck, that’s a very grave matter. … Many are guilty of it.” (1948)

[To Ben-Gurion:] “Again and again in our meetings we discuss the issue of the abandoned property. Everyone expresses shock, bitterness and shame, but we have yet to find a solution. … Up to now we have dealt with individual looters, both soldiers and civilians. Now, however, there are more and more reports about acts which, judging by their nature and extent, could only have been carried out by (government) order. I ask…on what basis was the order given (I hear it has been held back to dismantle all the water pumps in the Arab orange groves). … If there is any foundation to the reports which have reached me, the responsibility rests with a government agency….Meanwhile, private plundering still goes on, too.” (1948)

To Ben-Gurion, 1948:

Cizling: “As I travel about I hear rumors about the destruction of property and I should like to know who gave the order to do this. … I was in Beit Shean and was told by people I trust that the any commander had received an order to destroy the place. … These are facts about villages which I have seen destroyed. In the Hefer Valley I saw Arab villages which had been abandoned by their inhabitants and were not destroyed during the campaign. Now they are in ruins and whoever did it should be called upon to explain. …”

Ben-Gurion: “When you say Beit Shean, that is a particular place. But when you mention generally ‘ruined villages’ — I can’t send people to look for ruined villages.”

Cizling: “Who destroyed the village of Cherkass in the Hefer Valley? At an earlier meeting I mentioned Moussa Goldenberg who reported an order to DESTROY 40 villages and named you, as the source of that order. I stated then that I did not believe it was really done in your name. I am not speaking now about the political aspect, but about things which seem to be happening by themselves, without control. Even if I agreed with a certain act — I wouldn’t accept it being done by itself.”

Yosef Weitz

To the Transfer Committee on November 15, 1937:

“…the transfer of [Palestinian] Arab population from the area of the Jewish state does not serve only one aim–to diminish the Arab population. It also serves a second, no less important, aim which is to advocate land presently held and cultivated by the Arabs and thus to release it for Jewish inhabitants.”

Diary, December 20, 1940:

“it must be clear that there is no room in the country for both [Arab and Jewish] peoples . . . If the Arabs leave it, the country will become wide and spacious for us . . . The only solution [after the end of WW II] is a Land of Israel, at least a western land of Israel [i.e. Palestine since Transjordan is the eastern portion], without Arabs. There is no room here for compromises . . . There is no way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer all of them, save perhaps for Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the old Jerusalem. Not one village must be left, not one [Bedouin] tribe. The transfer must be directed at Iraq, Syria, and even Transjordan. For this goal funds will be found . . . An only after this transfer will the country be able to absorb millions of our brothers and the Jewish problem will cease to exist. There is no other solution.” [Is it a Final Solution?]

Diary, March 18, 1941, while visiting Jewish colonies in the Jordan Valley:

“Once again I come face to face with the land settlement difficulties that emanate from the existence of two people in close proximity . . . . We have clashing interests with the Arabs everywhere, and these interests will go and clash increasingly. . . . and once again the answer from inside me is heard: only population transfer and evacuating this country so it would become exclusively for us [Jews] is the solution. This idea does not leave me in these days and I find comfort in it in the face of enormous difficulties in the way of land-buying and settlement.”

Diary, visit to Mishmar Ha’emek (15 miles south of Haifa) a few day later:

“I am increasingly consumed by despair. The Zionist idea is the answer to the Jewish question in the Land of Israel; only in the land of Israel, but not that the Arabs should remain a majority. The complete evacuation of the country from its other inhabitants and handing it over to the Jewish people is the answer.”

Diary, Jun 26, 1941, on a journey near al-Qubab in central Palestine:

“Throughout the journey my reflections were focused on that plan, about which I have been thinking for year; the plan…of evacuating the country for us [Jews]. I know that difficulties…but only through population transfer will redemption come…. There is no room for us with our neighbours…development is a very slow process…. They [Arabs] are too many and too much rooted [in the country] . . . . the only way is to cut and eradicate them from the roots. I feel that this is the truth. . . . I am beginning to understand the essence of the MIRACLE which should happen with the arrival of the Messiah; MIRACLE does not happen in evolution, but all of a sudden, in one moment. … I can see the enormous difficulties but this should not deflect us from our aim; on the contrary, we must double our efforts to overcome the difficulties and find a listening ear, first in America, then in Britain and then in the neighboring countries. There the money will make it. People and money will be transferred there. We will set up an apparatus from the Yishuv manned by distinguished experts and these will supervise the [Palestinian] Arab transfer and resettlement and a second apparatus will receive the [Jewish] redeemers and plant them in the land. . . . I pondered these measures all the way from Tel Aviv and also while visiting near Ramat Hasharon and K’afr Azar. This is the aim, the redemption, and the dream.”

Diary, on meeting Menachem Ussishkin, June 22, 1941:

“The land of Israel is not small at all, if only the Arabs will be removed, and if its frontiers would be enlarged a little; to the north all the way to Litani [River in Lebanon], and to the east including the Golan Heights…while the Arabs be transferred to northern Syria and Iraq. … From now on we must work out a secret plan based on the removal of the Arabs from here [and] to include it into American political circles. … Today we have no other alternative. … We will not live here with Arabs.”

Diary, Summer, 1941, touring central Palestine:

“LARGE villages crowded in population and surrounded by cultivated land growing olives, grapes, figs, sesame, and maize fields . . . . Would we be able to maintain scattered settlements among these existing [Arab] villages that will always be larger than ours? And is there any possibility of buying their [land]?. . . . . and once again I hear that voice inside me called: evacuate this country.”

Diary, one day after the vote on the UN GA partition plan resolution, November 1947:

“The creation of the Hebrew State in part of the country is the beginning of complete redemption. … How should we solve the question of the Arabs who constitute half of the state population? … I have been working day and night in these days on the calculation of the land in the Hebrew state … Indeed we still need to redeem much until most of the cultivated land will be our property.” [1947, the collective ownership of the Jewish National Fund (one-half of all Zionist and Jewish land ownership) amounted to 3.5% of Palestine.] “Without taking action to TRANSFER population, we will not be able to solve our question by [land] buying. … “[Most of the land is] not Jewish-owned or even in the category of the state domain whose ownership could be automatically assumed by a successor government. Thus, of 13,500,000 dunums (6,000,000 of which were desert and 7,500,000 dunums of cultivable land) in the Jewish state according to the Partition plan, ONLY 1,500,000 dunums were Jewish owned.”

January 13, 1948 Weitz to Haifa Jewish National Fund, on eethnic cleansing of the lands of Wadi Qabbani:

“I gave instructions not to miss the opportunities in the turbulent hour.”

Diary, January 1948, about the inhabitants of Daliyat al-Rawha’ south of Haifa:

“Isn’t now the time to be rid of them? Why continue to keep in our midst these thorn at a time when they pose a danger to us? Our people are weighing up a solution.”

Diary February 20, 1948, about bedouins crossing Baysan valley to Transjordan:

“It is possible that now is the time to implement our original plan: transfer them there.”

About the inhabitants of Qumya and al-Tira in the Baysan valley:

“They must be forced to leave their villages until peace comes.”

Requesting meeting with Ben-Gurion in Tel Aviv, April 4 1948:

[To discuss the] “question of evacuating/clearing out the Arabs. … [ten days after, we] must direct our war towards the removal of as many Arabs as possible from boundaries of out state. The guarding of their property after their removal is a secondary question. … [S]ubmit a proposal for removal [of Arabs] from localities based on my considerations.”

Diary, April 18, 1948:

“I made a summery of a list of the Arab villages which in my opinion must be cleared out in order to complete Jewish regions. I also made a summery of the places that have land disputes and must be settled by military means.”

Diary, April 21, 1948:

“Our army is steadily conquering Arab villages and their inhabitants afraid and fleeing like mice. You have no idea what happened in the Arab villages. It is enough that during the night several shells will whistle over them and they flee for their lives. Villages are steadily emptying, and if we continue on this course –and we shall certainly do so as our strength increases– then villages will empty of their inhabitants.”

Diary, April 24, 1948, regarding the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages near Haifa:

“I was happy to hear from him [a Haganah officer] that this line was being adopted by the commander . . . to frighten the Arabs so long as flight-induced fear was upon them.”

Diary, April 28, 1948:

“Khayriyah and Saqiyah [two Palestinian Arab villages in the coastal plain] have also been cleared out. My plan is getting implemented.”

Diary, May 4, 1948:

“The Beit Shean [Beisan] Valley is the gate for our state in the Galilee … I told them [Beisan Valley Jewish representatives] that its clearing [of Arabs] is the need of the hour.”

Diary, August 1948:

“If the policy want is that they should not be allowed to return, [then] there is no need to cultivate land beyond what is needed for our existence. It is possible that Jews would be settled in some abandoned villages and that there are [Arab] villages that should be destroyed so that they do not attract their refugees to return. What can be bought  should be bought [but] first we must set policy: Arabs who abandoned [their homes, farms, businesses] should not [be allowed to] return.”

Diary, late November 1948:

[Two of my officials at the Jewish National Fund complained that] “the army continues to destroy villages in the Galilee, which we are interested in [for the settlement of Jewish immigrants."

Diary, December 1948, during a visit to al-Zeeb (14 km north of Acre):

"[The village had been] completely leveled and I now wonder if it was good that it was destroyed and would it not have been a greater revenge had we now settled Jews in the village houses. . . [The empty houses are] good for settlement of [our Jewish] brothers who wondered for generation upon generation, refugees. . . steeped in suffering and sorrow, as they, at last, find a roof over their heads. This was [the reason for] our war.”

To Ben-Gurion, 1949:

[Arab refugees] “must be harassed continually.”

To Yaakov Zrubavel, head of the Middle East Department of the Jewish Agency, 1949:

“You know that we do not have a common language with them [Oriental Jews]. Our culture level is not theirs. Their way of life is medieval. … While I was talking to Yosef Shprintsak, he expressed anxiety about preserving our cultural standards given the massive immigration from the Orient. There are indeed grounds for anxiety, but what’s the use? Can we stop it?” [Zrubavel: "Perhaps these are not the Jews we would like to see coming here, but we can hardly tell them not to come."]

Diary, 1949:

“[During the British Mandate period, the JNF had purchased land] crumb by crumb. But now a great change has taken place before our eyes. The spirit of Israel, in a giant thrust, has burst through the obstacles, and has conquered the keys to the land, and the road to fulfillment has been freed from its bonds and its guardians-enemies [Arabs]. Now, only now, the hour has come for planning considered [regional] plans . . . The abandoned lands will never return to their absentee [Arab] owners.”

Diary, 1949:

“Every day our men encounter familiar faces, people who had been absent, and now they are walking about freely, step by step, returning to their villages. I fear that while you are discussing the issue in Laussanne and in other places, the problem is (unfortunately) solving itself—the refugees are coming back! And our government has taken no action to stop infiltration. There seems to be no authority, either military or civilian. We’ve loosened the rope, and the Arab, with his sly cunning, senses it and knows how to take advantage of it.”

“The ring of embittered [Palestinian] Arabs surrounding us with hatred and vengeance on all sides will not be loosened for many years to come, and we will act as a barrier to a genuine peace between us and our neighbors.”

[1949, Weitz proposed an extensive project of getting Christian Arabs to emigrate to Argentina. Nothing came out of his proposal since the Israeli government was unable to make up its mind.]

When the first Israeli Knesset convened in 1949, two elected Palestinian Arab-Israelis to the Knesset were present wearing their tradition headdress. Weitz wrote in his diary:

“It chilled the heart and angered the soul. … I do not want there to be many of them.”

Menachem Ussishkin

“[Land is acquired] by force — that is, by conquest in war, or in other words, by ROBBING land form its owner; … by expropriation via government authority; or by purchase. [The Zionist movement was limited to the third choice] until at some point we become rulers.” (1904)

“We must continually raise the demand that our land be returned to our possession…. If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land. We have a great and NOBLER ideal than preserving several hundred thousands of Arabs fellahin [peasants].” (Jerusalem, 1930)

“What we can demand today is that all Transjordan be included in the Land of Israel…on condition that Transjordan would be either be made available for Jewish colonization or for the resettlement of those Arabs, whose lands we would purchase. Against this, the most conscientious person could not argue. … For the Arabs of the Galilee, Transjordan is a province … for the resettlement of Palestine’s Arabs. … Now the [Palestinian] Arabs DO NOT WANT want us because we want to be the rulers. I will fight for this. I will make sure that we will be the landlords of this land…because this country belongs to us not to them…” (1936)

“We cannot start the Jewish state with … half the population being Arab . … Such a state cannot survive even half an hour. And about transferring sixty thousand Arab families he said: “It is most moral … I am ready to come an defend … it before the Almighty.” (1937)

“We cannot begin the Jewish state with a population of which the Arabs living on their lands constitute almost half and where the Jews exist on the land in very small numbers and they are all crowded in Tel Aviv and its vicinity … and the worst is not only the Arabs here constitute 50 percent or 45 percent but 75 percent of the land is in the hands of the Arabs. Such a state cannot survive even for half an hour … The question is not whether they will be majority or a minority in Parliament. You know that even a small minority could disrupt the whole order of parliamentary life….. therefore I would say to the [Peel] Commission and the government that we would not accept reduced Land of Israel without you giving us the land, on the one hand, and removing the largest number of Arabs — particularly the peasants — on the other before we come forward to take the reins of government in our lands even provisionally.” (1939)

[Zionist historian Louis Lipsky on Manachem Ussishkin: "There are many obstinate Zionists in the early days but none had his arrogance. He was rude and despotic, paternal and sentimental." Ussishkin stated that the frontiers of the Land of Israel stretched from the "GREAT SEA" [the Mediterranean] to the Euphrates. These wider frontiers were clearly “drawn on the wall map of my Jewish National Fund Office.”]

Moshe Smilansky

“Either the Land of Israel of Israel belongs in the national sense to those Arabs who settled there in recent years [i.e. the past two millenia], and then we have no place there and we must say explicitly: The land of our fathers is lost to us. [Or] if the land of Israel belongs to us, the the Jewish people, then our national interests come before all else. . . . it is not possible for one country to serve as the homeland of two peoples.” (In Hapoel Hatzair, Spring edition of 1908:)

“Owing to the many…urban Christians, there developed among the Arabs base values which are not common other primitive people … to lie, to cheat, to harbor grave suspicions and to tell tales…. and a hidden hatred for the Jews. These Semites- they are anti-Semites.” (1914)

“The urge to grab has seized everyone, Individuals, groups and communities, men, women and children, all fell on the spoils. Doors, windows, lintels, bricks, roof-tiles, floor-tiles, junk and machine parts.” (1948)

Ahad Ha’Am

1891:

“We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed … But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains…are not cultivated.”

“If a time comes when our people in Palestine develop so that, in small or great measure, they push out the native inhabitants, these will not give up their place easily.”

“[The Zionist pioneers believe that] the only language the Arabs understand is that of force… [They] behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency.”

“[The Jewish settlers] treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and even take pride in doing so. The Jews were slaves in the land of their Exile, and suddenly they found themselves with unlimited freedom, wild freedom that ONLY exists in a land like Turkey. This sudden change has produced in their hearts an inclination towards repressive tyranny, as always happens when slave rules.”

“We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going around it. But this is a GREAT ERROR. The Arab, like all sons of Sham, has sharp and crafty mind . . . Should time come when life of our people in Palestine imposes to a smaller or greater extent on the natives, they WILL NOT easily step aside.”

“Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora [actually they weren't serfs] and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination …”

“Apart from the political danger [of denying employment to Arabs], I can’t put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to humans of another people, and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: if it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we shall achieve at the end of times power in Eretz Yisrael? And if this be the Messiah: I do not wish to see his coming.”

1914:

“‘[The Zionists] wax angry towards those who remind them that there is still another people in Eretz Yisrael that has been living there and does not intend at all to leave its place. In a future when this ILLUSION will have been torn from their hearts and they will look with open eyes upon the reality as it is, they will certainly understand how important this question is and how great our duty to work for its solution.”

1920s:

“Better to die in the Exile than to die here and be buried in the land of fathers, if that land is considered the ‘homeland’ of the Arabs and we are strangers in it.”

Yigal Allon (Paicovitch)

On the affect of psychological warfare on the Arabs in the Galilee panhandle during the 1948 war:

“The echo of the fall of Arab Safad carried far . . . The confidence of thousands of Arabs of the Hula [Valley] was shaken . . . We had ONLY five days left . . . until 15 May [1948]. We regarded it as imperative to CLEANSE [of Arabs] the interior of the Galilee and create JEWISH territorial continuity in the whole of the Upper Galilee. The protracted battles reduced our forces, and we faced major tasks in blocking [prospective Syrian and Lebanese] invasion routes. We, therefore, looked for a means that would not oblige us to use force to DRIVE OUT tens of thousands of hostile [Palestinian] Arabs left in the Galilee and who, in the event of an invasion, could strike at us from behind. We tried to utilize a stratagem that exploited the [Arab] defeat in Safad and in area cleared by [Operation] Broom – a stratagem that WORKED WONDERFULLY.

“I gathered the Jewish mukhtars [Kibbutz chiefs], who had ties with the different [local] Arab villages, and I asked them to WHISPER in the ears of several [Palestinian] Arabs that a giant Jewish reinforcement had reached the Galilee and were about to CLEAN OUT the villages of Hula, [and] to advise them as friends, to FLEE while they could. And rumour spread throughout Hula that the time had come to flee. The flight encompassed tens of thousands. The stratagem FULLY achieved its objective . . . and we were able to deploy ourselves in face of the [prospective] invaders along the borders, with out fear for our rear.”

“We looked for means which would not obligate us to use force in order to get tens of thousands of sulky Arabs who remained in Galilee to flee.”

A Palmach (the Israeli strike force) report, written by Yigal Allon soon after Operation Dani in the first half of July 1948, stated that the expulsion of the Lydda and Ramle Palestinian inhabitants, beside relieving Tel Aviv of a potential, long-term threat, had:

“clogged the routes of the advance of the [Transjordan Arab] Legion and had foisted upon the Arab economy the problem of “maintaining another 45,000 souls . . . Moreover, the phenomenon of the flight of tens of thousands will no doubt cause demoralsation in every Arab area [the refugees] reach . . . This victory will yet have great effect on other sectors.”

[A Mapam party co-leader, Meir Ya'ari, criticized Allon's use of tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees to achieve a military strategic goals: "Many of us are LOSING their [human] image . . How easily they speak of how it is possible and permissible to take women, children, and old men and to fill the road with them because such is the imperative of strategy. And this we say, the members of Hashomer Hatzair, who remember who used this means against our people during the Second World] war. . . . I am appalled.”]

During the course of the 1948 war, Yigal Allon submitted a detailed plan to Ben-Gurion for the military conquest of the West Bank, arguing that the Jordan River would provide the best strategic border. He believed that a substantial part of the Palestinian population would flee east because of the military operations, he stated:

“Our offensive has to leave the way open for the army and the refugees to retreat. We shall easily find the reason or, to be more accurate, the pretexts, to justify our offensive, as we did up to now.”

1967:

“In…a new war, we must avoid the HISTORIC MISTAKE of the War of Independence [the 1948 war]. . . and MUST NOT cease fighting until we achieve total victory, the territorial fulfillment of the Land Of Israel.”

Nahman Syrkin

“The Jewish Question and the Socialist Jewish State”, 1898:

“Palestine thinly populated, in which the Jews constituted today 10 percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews.”

Yitzhak Epstein

Author of Their Life and Customs (1933) and The Population of Transjordan (1934).

In 1905, during the Zionist Congress convention in Switzerland:

“Among the difficult questions connected to the idea of the renaissance of our people on its soil there is one which is equal to all others: the question of our relations with the Arabs. . . . We have FORGOTTEN one small matter: There is in our beloved land an entire nation, which has occupied it for hundreds of years and has never thought to leave it. …

“We are making a GREAT psychological error with regard to a great, assertive, and jealous people. While we feel a deep love for the land of our forefathers, we forgot that the nation who lives in it today has a sensitive heart and loving soul. The Arab, like every man, is tied to his native land with strong bonds.”

Shmuel Zuchovitzky

1938:

“I think that whenever you discuss it or submit a memo on the question of the transfer, you must make it ABSOLUTELY clear that this transfer is one of the conditions on which we are establishing our state and that the Mandatory Government should carry this out.”

“I am convinced that it would be impossible to carry out transfer without compulsion. I do not see in this any immoral measure. I want to help the Jews to come to the Jewish state and to HELP the Arabs to cross to the Arab state. I know that these things are not easy and involve a lot of difficulties … And also expropriation must be carried out. And we must suggest now that we are prepared to carry out expropriation. In Lita and Latvia there was also expropriation. Latvia finished the whole thing in two years and now everything is all right.”

+ + +

Congress & President: “USA founded on Talmudic Law”

US Public Law 102-14

Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded. These ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws.

Without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos. Society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society. The justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future.

The Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world.

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered. In tribute to The Rebbe, 1991 will be the year in which we return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws.

This will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state.

Therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the birthday of The Rebbe be designated “Education Day, U.S.A.”. The President [George Herbert Walker Bush, American International (AIC-AIG), Harriman, CFR, TRC, Freemason, CIA, Carlyle, Bilderberg, etc. etc.] is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 1991.

Passed the Senate March 7, 1991.

Duly signed by George H.W. Bush, March 20, 1991.

The above is  paraphrase, without all the procedural fluff. The original bill is on the Library of Congress’ website. The bill was titled “Education Day, U.S.A.”, and was passed on March 5, 1991 by “Unanimous Consent”, after the entire membership of the House of Representatives had already been dismissed, after having been told that the day’s work, including all the voting, was over.  After virtually all members had left, the authors of the resolution brought it up for a vote on the House floor – with only four hand-picked members present — and it was passed by voice vote with no record made. Two days later, the U.S. Senate passed the Resolution by voice vote, again with no recorded vote. On March 20, 1991, it was signed by President George H. W. Bush and became Public Law 102-14.

The Seven Talmudic Laws for All Humanity

Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.

1. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder.
2. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.
3. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, bestiality and malehomosexual intercourse.
4. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God’s name.
5. Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive..
6. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

According to Jewish law (according to Wikipedia anyway), non-Jews are not obligated to convert to Judaism, but they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah. Those who subscribe to the observance of such laws and their supporting organizations are referred to as B’nei Noah [בני נוח], Children of Noah , or Noahides.

A non-Jew who keeps the Noahide Laws [שבע מצוות בני נח] in all their details is said to attain the same spiritual and moral level as Israel’s own Kohen Gadol (high priest) [כהן גדול].Maimonides states that a non-Jew who is precise in the observance of these Seven Noahide commandments is considered to be aRighteous Gentile and has earned a place in the world to come.

Christians are neither Jews nor Gentiiles.

Christians believe in virtues, not values.; and aspire to follow the Ten Commandments. Torah, not Talmud.

If a non-Jew is to be accepted to live among the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, then that person must keep the Noahide Laws, and a number of additional Laws and regulations apply as well. Such as person is called a Ger Toshav“Sojourning Alien” [גר תושב] amid the people of Israel. A “Ger Toshav” is the only kind of non-Jew who Jewish law permits to live among the Jewish people in the Land of Israel when the land is run according to Halacha and there is a Sanhedrin and a Temple. Jewish law only allows the official acceptance of a “Ger Toshav” as a sojourner in the Land of Israel during a time when the Year of Jubilee (yovel) is in effect.

Chabad-Lubavitch has been the most politically active in Noahide matters, believing that there is spiritual value to non-Jews by even just acknowledging the seven laws. In 1989 they had a reference to these laws surreptitiously enshrined in a congressional proclamation^..

In April 2006, the spiritual leader of the Druze community in Israel, Sheikh Mowafak Tarif, met with a representative of Chabad-Lubavitch to sign a declaration calling on all non-Jews in Israel to observe the Noahide Laws as laid down in the Bible and expounded upon in Jewish tradition. The mayor of the Galilean city of Shefa-’Amr (Shfaram) also signed the documen^t.

In 2007, Chabad-Lubavitch gathered ambassadors from Poland, Latvia, Mexico, Panama, Ghana, and Japan. to take part in a gathering to declare, in the name of the states they represent, their support of the universal teachings of Noahide Laws. To the amazement of the audience at the Kinus, the embassadors signed a special proclamation which calls for all mankind to follow the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach and to accept the everlasting kingship of the Rebbe Shlita as Melech Hamoshiach.

Japan submits to Noahidic Law.

The US law stating that the US is founded upon the basis of the Talmud, was drafted by Robert H. Michel, and was co-sponsored by the following:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] – 2/27/1991
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] – 2/6/1991
Rep Annunzio, Frank [IL-11] – 2/6/1991
Rep Archer, Bill [TX-7] – 2/6/1991
Rep Aspin, Les [WI-1] – 2/27/1991
Rep Bacchus, Jim [FL-11] – 2/27/1991
Rep Ballenger, Cass [NC-10] – 3/5/1991
Rep Bateman, Herbert H. [VA-1] – 3/5/1991
Rep Bentley, Helen Delich [MD-2] – 2/6/1991
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-26] – 2/6/1991
Rep Bevill, Tom [AL-4] – 2/6/1991
Rep Bilbray, James H. [NV-1] – 2/27/1991
Rep Bliley, Tom [VA-3] – 2/6/1991
Rep Boehlert, Sherwood [NY-25] – 3/5/1991
Rep Borski, Robert A. [PA-3] – 2/27/1991
Rep Boucher, Rick [VA-9] – 2/27/1991
Rep Brewster, Bill K. [OK-3] – 2/27/1991
Rep Broomfield, William S. [MI-18] – 2/27/1991
Rep Brown, George E., Jr. [CA-36] – 2/27/1991
Rep Bruce, Terry L. [IL-19] – 2/27/1991
Rep Bunning, Jim [KY-4] – 2/6/1991
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-6] – 2/27/1991
Rep Bustamante, Albert G. [TX-23] – 3/5/1991
Rep Byron, Beverly B. [MD-6] – 2/27/1991
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-10] – 2/27/1991
Rep Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD-3] – 2/27/1991
Rep Carper, Thomas R. [DE-98] – 2/27/1991
Rep Carr, Bob [MI-6] – 2/27/1991
Rep Chandler, Rod D. [WA-8] – 2/27/1991
Rep Chapman, Jim [TX-1] – 3/5/1991
Rep Clement, Bob [TN-5] – 2/6/1991
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] – 2/27/1991
Rep Coleman, Ronald D. [TX-16] – 2/27/1991
Rep Collins, Cardiss [IL-7] – 3/5/1991
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-21] – 3/5/1991
Rep Crane, Philip M. [IL-12] – 3/5/1991
Rep de la Garza, E. [TX-15] – 3/5/1991
Rep de Lugo, Ron [VI] – 2/27/1991
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] – 2/27/1991
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] – 2/27/1991
Rep Dellums, Ronald V. [CA-8] – 3/5/1991
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] – 2/27/1991
Rep Donnelly, Brian J. [MA-11] – 2/27/1991
Rep Dornan, Robert K. [CA-38] – 2/6/1991
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 2/6/1991
Rep Dwyer, Bernard J. [NJ-6] – 2/27/1991
Rep Dymally, Mervyn M. [CA-31] – 2/27/1991
Rep Early, Joseph D. [MA-3] – 3/5/1991
Rep Eckart, Dennis E. [OH-11] – 2/27/1991
Rep Emerson, Bill [MO-8] – 3/5/1991
Rep Erdreich, Ben [AL-6] – 2/27/1991
Rep Espy, Mike [MS-2] – 2/6/1991
Rep Evans, Lane [IL-17] – 3/5/1991
Rep Fascell, Dante B. [FL-19] – 2/6/1991
Rep Fawell, Harris W. [IL-13] – 3/5/1991
Rep Fazio, Vic [CA-4] – 2/6/1991
Rep Feighan, Edward F. [OH-19] – 2/6/1991
Rep Fields, Jack [TX-8] – 3/5/1991
Rep Fish, Hamilton, Jr. [NY-21] – 3/5/1991
Rep Foglietta, Thomas M. [PA-1] – 2/27/1991
Rep Franks, Gary A. [CT-5] – 3/5/1991
Rep Frost, Martin [TX-24] – 2/27/1991
Rep Gallo, Dean A. [NJ-11] – 2/6/1991
Rep Gejdenson, Sam [CT-2] – 3/5/1991
Rep Gekas, George W. [PA-17] – 2/27/1991
Rep Gephardt, Richard A. [MO-3] – 1/31/1991
Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. [NY-22] – 2/27/1991
Rep Gingrich, Newt [GA-6] – 3/5/1991
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] – 2/6/1991
Rep Grandy, Fred [IA-6] – 3/5/1991
Rep Gray, William H., III [PA-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Green, S. William [NY-15] – 2/27/1991
Rep Guarini, Frank J. [NJ-14] – 3/5/1991
Rep Hansen, James V. [UT-1] – 3/5/1991
Rep Harris, Claude [AL-7] – 2/27/1991
Rep Hastert, J. Dennis [IL-14] – 2/27/1991
Rep Hayes, Charles A. [IL-1] – 2/27/1991
Rep Hefner, W. G. (Bill) [NC-8] – 3/5/1991
Rep Henry, Paul B. [MI-5] – 2/6/1991
Rep Hochbrueckner, George J. [NY-1] – 3/5/1991
Rep Horn, Joan Kelly [MO-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Horton, Frank J. [NY-29] – 2/6/1991
Rep Houghton, Amo [NY-34] – 2/27/1991
Rep Huckaby, Thomas J. (Jerry) [LA-5] – 2/27/1991
Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] – 3/5/1991
Rep Inhofe, James M. [OK-1] – 2/27/1991
Rep Ireland, Andrew P. [FL-10] – 2/6/1991
Rep Jacobs, Andrew, Jr. [IN-10] – 2/27/1991
Rep Jenkins, Edgar L. [GA-9] – 3/5/1991
Rep Johnson, Nancy L. [CT-6] – 3/5/1991
Rep Johnson, Tim [SD] – 2/27/1991
Rep Jones, Walter B. [NC-1] – 2/27/1991
Rep Jontz, Jim [IN-5] – 2/27/1991
Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9] – 2/27/1991
Rep Kasich, John R. [OH-12] – 3/5/1991
Rep Kennelly, Barbara B. [CT-1] – 3/5/1991
Rep Kleczka, Gerald D. [WI-4] – 2/27/1991
Rep Klug, Scott L. [WI-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Kolter, Joseph P. [PA-4] – 2/27/1991
Rep Kopetski, Mike [OR-5] – 2/6/1991
Rep Kostmayer, Peter H. [PA-8] – 3/5/1991
Rep LaFalce, John J. [NY-32] – 2/6/1991
Rep Lagomarsino, Robert J. [CA-19] – 2/27/1991
Rep Lancaster, H. Martin [NC-3] – 3/5/1991
Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-11] – 2/27/1991
Rep Leach, James A. [IA-1] – 2/27/1991
Rep Lehman, Richard H. [CA-18] – 3/5/1991
Rep Lehman, William [FL-17] – 2/27/1991
Rep Lent, Norman F. [NY-4] – 2/6/1991
Rep Levin, Sander M. [MI-17] – 2/27/1991
Rep Lewis, Jerry [CA-35] – 3/5/1991
Rep Lewis, Thomas F. [FL-12] – 2/27/1991
Rep Lipinski, William O. [IL-5] – 2/27/1991
Rep Livingston, Bob [LA-1] – 2/6/1991
Rep Lloyd, Marilyn [TN-3] – 2/6/1991
Rep Long, Jill L. [IN-4] – 2/6/1991
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-20] – 3/5/1991
Rep Machtley, Ronald K. [RI-1] – 3/5/1991
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] – 2/27/1991
Rep Martin, David O’B. [NY-26] – 2/6/1991
Rep Martinez, Matthew G. [CA-30] – 2/27/1991
Rep Mavroules, Nicholas [MA-6] – 3/5/1991
Rep McCollum, Bill [FL-5] – 2/27/1991
Rep McGrath, Raymond J. [NY-5] – 2/27/1991
Rep McHugh, Matthew F. [NY-28] – 3/5/1991
Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-23] – 2/27/1991
Rep Meyers, Jan [KS-3] – 3/5/1991
Rep Miller, John R. [WA-1] – 2/27/1991
Rep Mink, Patsy T. [HI-2] – 2/6/1991
Rep Moakley, John Joseph [MA-9] – 3/5/1991
Rep Molinari, Susan [NY-14] – 2/27/1991
Rep Montgomery, G. V. (Sonny) [MS-3] – 2/6/1991
Rep Moody, Jim [WI-5] – 2/27/1991
Rep Moorhead, Carlos J. [CA-22] – 2/27/1991
Rep Morella, Constance A. [MD-8] – 3/5/1991
Rep Morrison, Sid [WA-4] – 2/27/1991
Rep Mrazek, Robert J. [NY-3] – 3/5/1991
Rep Murphy, Austin J. [PA-22] – 2/27/1991
Rep Nagle, Dave R, [IA-3] – 2/27/1991
Rep Neal, Richard E. [MA-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Nowak, Henry [NY-33] – 2/27/1991
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] – 3/5/1991
Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] – 2/27/1991
Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] – 2/27/1991
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-12] – 3/5/1991
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-3] – 2/27/1991
Rep Panetta, Leon [CA-16] – 2/27/1991
Rep Patterson, Elizabeth [SC-4] – 2/27/1991
Rep Paxon, Bill [NY-31] – 2/6/1991
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] – 2/6/1991
Rep Perkins, Carl C. [KY-7] – 2/6/1991
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 2/27/1991
Rep Peterson, Douglas (Pete) [FL-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] – 3/5/1991
Rep Pickett, Owen B. [VA-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Pickle, J. J. [TX-10] – 2/27/1991
Rep Porter, John Edward [IL-10] – 2/27/1991
Rep Poshard, Glenn [IL-22] – 2/27/1991
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] – 2/27/1991
Rep Quillen, James H. (Jimmy) [TN-1] – 3/5/1991
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-4] – 2/27/1991
Rep Ramstad, Jim [MN-3] – 2/6/1991
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-16] – 2/27/1991
Rep Ravenel, Arthur, Jr. [SC-1] – 3/5/1991
Rep Regula, Ralph [OH-16] – 2/27/1991
Rep Rinaldo, Matthew J. [NJ-7] – 2/27/1991
Rep Ritter, Don [PA-15] – 2/27/1991
Rep Roberts, Pat [KS-1] – 2/6/1991
Rep Roe, Robert A. [NJ-8] – 2/27/1991
Rep Roemer, Tim [IN-3] – 2/27/1991
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] – 2/27/1991
Rep Rose, Charlie [NC-7] – 2/27/1991
Rep Rowland, J. Roy [GA-8] – 2/27/1991
Rep Roybal, Edward R. [CA-25] – 2/6/1991
Rep Russo, Martin A. [IL-3] – 2/27/1991
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] – 2/27/1991
Rep Sangmeister, George E. [IL-4] – 2/27/1991
Rep Santorum, Rick [PA-18] – 2/27/1991
Rep Saxton, Jim [NJ-13] – 2/27/1991
Rep Scheuer, James H. [NY-8] – 2/27/1991
Rep Schumer, Charles E. [NY-10] – 2/27/1991
Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-18] – 2/27/1991
Rep Sharp, Philip R. [IN-2] – 3/5/1991
Rep Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. [FL-15] – 3/5/1991
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] – 2/27/1991
Rep Shuster, Bud [PA-9] – 3/5/1991
Rep Sisisky, Norman [VA-4] – 3/5/1991
Rep Skaggs, David E. [CO-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Skeen, Joe [NM-2] – 3/5/1991
Rep Slattery, Jim [KS-2] – 2/6/1991
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] – 3/5/1991
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 3/5/1991
Rep Smith, Lawrence [FL-16] – 2/27/1991
Rep Smith, Robert [OR-2] – 3/5/1991
Rep Snowe, Olympia J. [ME-2] – 3/5/1991
Rep Solarz, Stephen J. [NY-13] – 2/27/1991
Rep Solomon, Gerald B. H. [NY-24] – 3/5/1991
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [SC-5] – 3/5/1991
Rep Stenholm, Charles W. [TX-17] – 3/5/1991
Rep Stump, Bob [AZ-3] – 2/6/1991
Rep Swett, Dick [NH-2] – 3/5/1991
Rep Synar, Mike [OK-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Taylor, Gene [MS-5] – 2/27/1991
Rep Thomas, Lindsay [GA-1] – 2/27/1991
Rep Thomas, William M. [CA-20] – 2/27/1991
Rep Torricelli, Robert G. [NJ-9] – 3/5/1991
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-11] – 2/27/1991
Rep Traficant, James A., Jr. [OH-17] – 2/6/1991
Rep Traxler, Bob [MI-8] – 2/6/1991
Rep Unsoeld, Jolene [WA-3] – 2/27/1991
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-4] – 2/27/1991
Rep Valentine, Tim [NC-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Vento, Bruce F. [MN-4] – 3/5/1991
Rep Walsh, James T. [NY-27] – 2/27/1991
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-24] – 3/5/1991
Rep Weber, Vin [MN-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Weiss, Ted [NY-17] – 3/5/1991
Rep Wilson, Charles [TX-2] – 2/27/1991
Rep Wise, Robert E., Jr. [WV-3] – 2/27/1991
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] – 2/6/1991
Rep Wolpe, Howard E. [MI-3] – 3/5/1991
Rep Wyden, Ron [OR-3] – 3/5/1991
Rep Yatron, Gus [PA-6] – 2/27/1991
Rep Zimmer, Dick [NJ-12] – 2/27/1991

One reason why so many Jews are aborting non-Jews

“The Lubavitcher Rebbe”, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (who was honoured by Congress when they decreed that all of American law is based upon Seven phony Noahidic Laws, by which Christians can be put to death), in Gatherings of Conversations, 1965:

- “The Halacha, stipulated by the Talmud, showed that a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo, even if the embryo is non-Jewish, while the Jew should not be, even if the embryo is Jewish.”

- “The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: “Let us differentiate.” Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of “let us differentiate” between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world.”

- “The Jewish body looks as if it were in substance similar to bodies of non-Jews, but the bodies only seem to be similar in material substance, outward look and superficial quality. The difference of the inner quality, however, is so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species.”

- “The Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews] ” “their bodies are in vain.” . . . An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.”

- “An embryo is called a human being, because it has both body and soul. Thus, the difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo can be understood. There is also a difference in bodies. The body of a Jewish embryo is on a higher level than is the body of a non-Jew. This is expressed in the phrase “let us differentiate” about the body of a non-Jew, which is a totally different kind. The same difference exists in regard to the soul: the soul of a Jewish embryo is different than the soul of a non-Jewish embryo. We therefore ask: Why should a non-Jew be punished if he kills even a non-Jewish embryo while a Jew should not be punished even if he kills a Jewish embryo? The answer can be understood by [considering] the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews.”

- “All developments, all discoveries, the creation, including the “heavens and the earth – are vanity compared to the Jews. The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim.”

- “It can be understood why a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo and why a Jew should not be punished by death. The difference between the embryo and a [baby that was] born is that the embryo is not a self-contained reality but rather is subsidiary; either it is subsidiary to its mother or to the reality created after birth when the [divine] purpose of its creation is then fulfilled. In its present state the purpose is still absent. A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity. It is written, “And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks” [Isaiah 61: 5]. The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews. Because of this a non-Jew should be punished with death if he kills an embryo, while a Jew, whose existence is most important, should not be punished with death because of something subsidiary. We should not destroy an important thing for the sake of something subsidiary. It is true that there is a prohibition against [hurting] an embryo, because it is something that will be born in the future and in a hidden form already exists. The death penalty should be implicated only when visible matters are affected; as previously noted, the embryo is merely of subsidiary importance.”

Ariel Sharon delivered a moving speech about The Rebbe in the Knesset after his death.

A Graven Image of the Lubavitcher Messiah

THE LUBAVITCHER REBBE OFFICIAL SILVER MEDAL
First in the “Jewish Sages” Medal Series – $108

The Rebbe strove to enhance Jewish awareness through his special “Mitzvah Tanks”, promoting “Tephillin”, “Ahavas Yisroel” (a love for the people of Israel) and “Moshiach” (Messiah). His immense work in the field of education gained such worldwide admiration, that the President of the United States designated the birthday of the Rebbe as National Education Day.

The medal face bears a portrait of the Rebbe. The reverse design, which will be common to all the medals in the “Jewish Sages” series, represents the wisdom and holiness that have emanated from the works of our Jewish Sages, throughout the generations.

Future medals in this series will feature Maimonides (the Rambam) and Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan (the Hafetz Haim).

+ +

Talmudic Wisdom on the “Goyim”

Jews Are Called: Man

The Distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Torah

By Rabbi Moshe Segal, Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, Moshe Asher, Joel Rakovsky, Amishar Segal, Rabbi David Bar Chaim, Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav

Daatemet.org.il

Introduction

…

Rabbi Meir’s words in Tractate Sanhedrin 59a and the beraitha in Torat Cohanim are well known: even a Gentile who sits and learns Torah receives reward…an additional emphasis on the great and exalted study of Torah being relevant to the world of the Gentile.” (From his essay, “Bnei Adam”, in the monthly publication Emda, Number 3, pg.16, and in the previously mentioned pamphlet, pg.74.)

It is amazing that he forgot to point out everything said there on this matter, particularly the conclusion. How could he not mention that Rabbi Meir’s words were brought in order to disagree with Rabbi Yochanan who said: “A Gentile who studies Torah is punishable by death, as it is said: ‘Moses commanded us the Torah as an inheritance,’ for us it is an inheritance, and not for them”? The conclusion is most important — in order to settle the conflicting statements the Talmud answers, “In this case, he is engaged in the seven Noahide commandments” (He is engaged in the halachas of those seven commandments to be skilled in them — Rashi). He is permitted to study those specific seven Noahide commandments — and if he learned more than this, he is punishable by death. So the Tosaphot wrote in Tractate Avodah Zara 3a, s.v.sh’afilu, and Maimonides in The Laws of Kings, chapter 10, halacha 9, writes:

“A Gentile who engaged in Torah is punishable by death. He should not engage in anything other than their seven commandments alone.”

The distance between what was said in the Talmud and Rabbi Lichtenstein’s words is great.

Rabbi Lichtenstein writes:

“The field of prayer also exists as a universal value…this has been said in connection to the Holy Temple at its inception (I Kings 8:41-43); this is part of the prophecy of the end of days: ‘For my house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations.’ There is also room for the Gentile to come and pray in the Holy Temple!”

How is it possible to say such things? Indeed, we have learned a complete Mishna (Kalim, chapter 1, mishna 8): “…Inside the walls of the Temple Mount is holier, and therefore Gentiles and one who has been defiled by the dead cannot enter there…” thus Maimonides ruled in The Laws of the Holy Temple, chapter 7, halacha 16. There is no way for a Gentile “to come and pray in the Holy Temple”! The matter is clear: a Gentile can pray, even on the Temple Mount, but not in the Holy Temple.

An additional proof of the Gentile’s stature, according to Rabbi Lichtenstein:

“Animal sacrifices are conceived by us as being of authentic Jewish character, but they definitely belong, in the pure sense of the halacha, also to the world of the Gentile: a Gentile offers animal sacrifices not just on any altar…but in the Holy Temple” (from the above mentioned essay).

Aside from what has been previously clarified, that there is absolutely no possibility of a Gentile entering the Holy Temple, much less of offering sacrifices there, this statement, like the one before it, does not reflect the position of “pure halacha” on this topic. There is a discrepancy between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosi the Galilean in the Sifra on the portion of Emor, parsha 7, halacha 1, and in the Tosephta, Shekalim, chapter 1, halacha 7 (Zukermandel and Leiberman editions, in the Vilna printing, halacha 3), and brought in Tractate Menachot 73b, concerning which sacrifices can be accepted from a Gentile. Maimonides ruled based on Rabbi Akiva (The Laws of Sacrifices, chapter 3, halacha 2): “Men or women or slaves can bring sacrifices. But from the Gentiles we only accept burnt offerings as it is said: ‘From the hand of a Gentile do not offer the bread of your Lord’…but we do not accept from them peace-offerings, nor meal-offerings, nor sin-offerings or guilt-offerings…” In connection to this we must add that even if a Gentile volunteered to donate money in order to have a part in the public sacrifices, we do not accept it from him, as it is cited in the Sifra, chapter 7, halacha 12, and in Shekalim, chapter 1, mishna 5, and Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Shekalim, chapter 1, halacha 7: “Everyone is obliged to give half a shekel…but from the Gentiles who gave a half shekel, we do not accept it.” Generally speaking — there is no equality of rights for a Gentile, not in their entrance to the Holy Temple nor in their offering of sacrifices there.

1. Between Jews and Gentiles – In Halacha

A. Killing a Gentile

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 24:17): ”He who kills any man shall surely be put to death,” and it is also stated in the portion of Mishpatim (Exodus 21:14): “But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent, to slay him with guile, you shall take him from my altar that he may die.” On the latter verse it is stated in Mechilta (Masechta D’Nezikin parasha 4): “‘But if a man comes with intent’ — Why was this stated? Since it is stated ‘And he that kills any man…,’ perhaps this also speaks of one who kills on purpose, in error, and others: a healer who killed [his patient], one who inflicts [deadly] blows with permission of Beit Din, a father who tyrannizes his son or student [to death] — is this what it implies? It is taught: ’But if a man comes with intent’ — to exclude [one who kills in] error, ’man’ to exclude the minor, ’man’ – to include the others, ‘his neighbor’ — to include the minor, ’his neighbor’ — to exclude the others.” Isi the son of Akiva says: “Before the giving of the Torah we were warned concerning the spilling of blood. After the giving of the Torah, instead of being more severe, they were more lenient. In truth they said he is exempt from the rule of man, and his judgement is the hands of Heaven.”

We learn from the Mechilta that a Jew who killed a Gentile with intent is not put to death by the Beit Din, as he would be had he killed a Jew. The halacha is the same concerning a ger toshav, as is explicitly stated in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on the above mentioned verse: “‘Upon his neighbor’ — with the exception of others, ‘his neighbor’ — with the exception of the ger toshav. Perhaps I ought to exclude the others, for they do not have commandments similar to the Jews, yet I ought not exclude the ger toshav who has commandments similar to the Jews. It is taught: ‘his neighbor’ — with the exception of the ger toshav.” Likewise it is written in Sifri on the portion of Masaei, paragraph 160, see there, and in Sifri Zuta on the portion of Masaei, 23: “Upon his neighbor — with the exception of the ger toshav.”

Similarly we learn in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin chapter 9, mishnah 2: “One who intended to kill an animal [and instead] killed a man, [intended] to kill a Gentile [and instead] killed a Jew, [intended to kill] a fetus [and instead] killed a child who is able to exist outside the womb, [he is] exempt.” These, too, are the words of Maimonides in The Laws of a Murderer and Saving Life, chapter 2, halachas 10 and 11 (in manuscripts it appears as a single halacha): “One who kills a Jew or kills a Cannanite slave is put to death for this. And if he killed unintentionally, [he is] exiled. A Jew who kills a ger toshav is not put to death for this by a Beit Din, as it is said: ‘But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent.’ And it need not be said that he is not put to death for [the killing of] a Gentile.  The same for one who kills the slave of another, or kills his own slave — he is put to death for this, for the slave has already accepted upon himself commandments and is [therefore] included in the inheritance of G-d,” and so the Tosaphot has written  in the Talmud, Tractate Makkot 9a, s.v. k’savur.

In contrast, a ger toshav (and all the more so a Gentile) who killed a Jew, even unintentionally, is put to death, as we learned in chapter 2 of Tractate Makkot, mishnah 3, and in the Gemara there (9a), and as Maimonides wrote in chapter 5 of The Laws of a Murderer and Protecting Life, halacha 4: “A ger toshav who killed a Jew without intent — even though he did it unintentionally, he is put to death.”

However, it must be emphasized that one cannot take this as permission to kill a Gentile. In the aforementioned Mechilta it clearly states the opposite  – “his [one who kills a Gentile]  judgement is in the hands of Heaven” — so it is forbidden. See further in Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (Zukermandel edition, in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4): “On the spilling of blood, how? …a Jew [who killed a] Gentile is exempt,” for one who kills is exempt [from punishment by Beit Din], however [this action is] prohibited, and in Sanhedrin 57a on this beraitha it is stated: “There, how should we learn the beraitha, prohibited [for a Gentile to kill a Gentile or a Jew] and permitted [for a Jew to kill a Gentile]? Yet we have learned in a beraitha that Gentiles and shepherds of small cattle are not raised [from the pit] nor lowered [into it]?” –so there is a prohibition against the killing of a Gentile. However, we have not found in the words of Chazal a definition of the prohibition, and the Rishonim are in dispute on this matter.

The opinion of the HaRa’aban is that one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of “You shall not murder” and these are his words in the commentary on Bava Kama paragraph 22 (page 74d): “… ‘You shall not steal’ is similar to ‘You shall not murder’ and ‘You shall not commit adultery’ in that it refers both to Jew and Gentile.”

This is not the opinion of Maimonides in the beginning of The Laws of a Murderer and Protecting Life: ”One who kills a Jew transgresses a negative commandment as it is stated: ‘ You shall not murder’.” Maimonides also wrote something similar in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 289, and Rabbi David HaKochavi restated it in his Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 289. Likewise, it is written in Yere’im paragraph 175 (Schiff edition, in other editions paragraph 248): “…and it is called murder only concerning a Jew, as it is written: ‘who murders his neighbor’ — the murder of one’s neighbor is called murder, but the murder of a Gentile it is not called murder.” And in the continuation of his statement: “Subsidiary [prohibition] of murder: not to kill a Gentile, as we learned in the beraitha in Avodah Zarah chapter 2 (page 26a): The Gentiles and shepherds of small cattle are not raised [from the pit] nor lowered [into it].” According to Maimonides, the Yere’im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi, one who kills a Gentile does not transgress the negative commandment ‘you shall not murder.’

Summary

1. One who kills a Gentile, and even a ger toshav, is not put to death for this by the Beit Din, even if he kills him with intent. This is clearly stated in the Torah and in the words of Chazal.

2. In the opinion of the HaRa’aban, one who kills a Gentile transgresses the negative commandment of “You shall not murder,” and in the opinion of Maimonides, the Yeare’im, and Rabbi David HaKochavi, the murder of a Gentile is not included in this negative commandment. However, according to all opinions there exists a prohibition in this matter, as is clear from the words of Chazal.

So the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile with regards to the killing of a man.

B. Saving of Life

Regarding the subject of saving a life, too, the Torah differentiates between a Jew and a Gentile. We learn in chapter 8 of Tractate Kippurim (Yoma) mishnah 45 (in the Vilna edition mishnah 47): “One upon whom the ruins of a building collapsed and there is doubt whether he is there or not, whether he is alive or dead, whether he is a Jew or a Gentile, we clear off [the rubble]. If they found him alive, they clear off [the rubble], if dead, they leave him there.” The Talmud explains on page 85a: “It is needless to say ‘there is doubt whether he is alive or dead’  if he is a Jew, but even if we are uncertain whether he is a Gentile or a Jew we clear off [the rubble],” and thus wrote Maimonides in chapter 2 of The Laws of the Sabbath, halacha 21 (in the Vilna edition, halacha 20): “If there was a courtyard with both Gentiles and Jews, even one Jew and a thousand Gentiles, and the ruins of a building collapsed upon them, we clear off the rubble from everyone for the sake of the Jew. If one of them moved to another courtyard and it collapsed upon him, we clear [the rubble] off him, for perhaps the one who moved [to the other courtyard] is the Jew and the ones who remained are the Gentiles.” Likewise in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, paragraph 329, section 3.

“It must be pointed out that a Jew who wanted to engage himself in the saving of the life of a Gentile which involved a transgression of the Sabbath, and did so in front of witnesses and after being warned, is put to death by the Beit Din – this is self evident.”

C. Death by a Beit Din

It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 19:15): “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any guilt, in any sin that he may commit: at the word of two witnesses, or at the word of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” And in the Sifri (Shoftim, paragraph 188) it is written: “Thus far we [learn] it with regards to the capital laws; from where do we learn it concerning monetary laws? It is written, ‘for any iniquity.’ From where do we learn it concerning [transgression for which one must bring] sacrificial offerings? It is written, ‘or for any guilt.’ Where do we learn it concerning [transgressions punishable by] lashes [by a Beit Din]? It is written, ‘in any sin that he may commit’…” Maimonides wrote similarly in the beginning of chapter 5 of The Laws of Testimony: “No verdict of judgement may be made based on the testimony of one individual, neither in monetary laws nor in capital laws, as is written: ‘One witness shall not rise up against a man for an iniquity, or for any guilt’…”

Likewise, one is not put to death by a Beit Din, even if there were several witnesses to his transgression, without forewarning, as we learn in the beginning of chapter 5 of Tractate Sanhedrin: “They [a Beit Din] would investigate them [the witnesses] with seven interrogations: Which week? Which year?…Do you recognize him? Did you warn him?…” and there in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 40b): “Ula said: From where [do we learn] forewarning from the Torah? As it is said: ‘And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness.’ Is this matter contingent on ’seeing?‘ Rather, until it is made perfectly clear to him [that sexual relations with her are forbidden to him -- Rashi]…In the school of Hizkiya they learn it thus: ‘But if a man comes upon his neighbor with intent to slay him with guile’ — [this speaks of a case] when he was forewarned, yet he still came with intent. In the school of Rabbi Ishmael they learn it thus: ‘…those who find him gathering sticks,’ [it is mentioned in the present tense to teach us that] they forewarned him, yet he continued to gather sticks” (see there; in the Jerusalem Talmud there are other ways of learning the requirement of  forewarning). Thus Maimonides wrote in the beginning of chapter 12 of The Laws of Sanhedrin: “How are capital cases judged? When witnesses come to the Beit Din… the judges say to them: ‘Do you recognize him? Did you forewarn him?’ If they say  ’We do not recognize him,’ or ‘We are not sure,’ or they did not forewarn him, behold, [he] is exempt.”

This is the way concerning a Jew. With regards to a Gentile, however, it is taught in Sanhedrin 57b: “Rabbi Jacob bar Acha found it written in an Aggadic book from the school of Rav: a Gentile is put to death by one judge and by one witness, even if he was not forewarned, by testimony of a man and not of a woman, and even of a family member. In the name of Rabbi Ishmael they said: Even for [the killing of] a fetus.” Thus Maimonides wrote in chapter 9 of The Laws of Kings and Wars halachas 4 and 14 — these laws were stated concerning a Gentile, in contrast to the laws concerning a Jew. (A Jew is not put to death for killing a fetus as it is stated in chapter 5 of Tractate Niddah, mishnah 3: “A one-day old baby becomes impure by discharge…and one who kills him is liable…” and see the reason for this in Rashi on Sanhedrin there, s.v. af al ha’ubarin, and in the Gemara, Tractate Niddah there. Similarly, verdicts on capital cases where a Jew is accused may be made only by a Beit Din of twenty three members, as we have learned in Sanhedrin chapter 1, mishnah 4. Likewise regarding the laws of testimony: the testimony of a family member is invalid for a Jew, as it says in Sifri, paragraph 280, on the verse: “Fathers shall not be put to death for children”: “…fathers shall not be put to death by the testimony of children, and children shall not be put to death by fathers. When it says ‘and children,’ it includes family members…”).

We clearly see that the Torah is much stricter about the procedures of judgement when dealing with the life of a Jew than it is when dealing with that of a Gentile.

D. Damage by a Gentile

It is written in the Torah: (Exodus 21:35): “If a man’s ox injures his neighbor’s ox and it dies, they shall sell the live ox and divide the money received for it; they shall also divide the dead animal.” In the Mechilta (Tractate Nezikin section 12) it is said: “‘A man’s ox’ – to exclude the ox of a minor, ‘a man’s ox’ – to include the ox of others.’ His neighbor’s ox,’ to include [the ox of] a minor, ’his neighbor’s’ to exclude [the ox] of a Gentile, the ox of a Samaritan, the ox of a ger toshav.” And in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai it is stated: “‘His neighbor’s,’ — to exclude others, to exclude the ger toshav. Is it possible no payment will be made to a Gentile or that a Gentile will not pay him? It is taught: ‘He shall surely pay,’ to include [the payment of] a Gentile and of a ger toshav. Is it possible that they pay for an innocent [ox] half the damage, and for a notorious [ox] full damage? It is taught: ‘His neighbors’ ox,’ the ox of his neighbor is dealt with in such a manner, and not [the ox] of others, concerning whom it is stated: ‘He appeared from Mount Paran’ (Deuteronomy 33:2), — [G-d] appeared disfavoring all the inhabitants of the world [in contrast to the Jews].”

Furthermore, there is an explicit mishnah in Tractate Baba Kama 4:3: “An ox of a Jew who injured an ox which was dedicated [to the Temple] or a dedicated ox which injured an ox of a Jew is exempt, as it is written: ‘his neighbor’s ox’ — and not a dedicated ox. An ox of a Jew who hurt an ox of a Gentile is exempt. An ox of a Gentile who hurt the ox of a Jew — whether it is an ox who was harmless before or an ox which has been proven dangerous, [the owner] must pay the full damage.” A Jew who causes damage to a Gentile is always exempt, however a Gentile who causes damage to a Jew must pay the full damage in every case. And thus it is in Maimonides, chapter 8 of The Laws of Property Damage, halacha 5, and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, beginning of paragraph 406. The distinction between a Jew and a Gentile is clear.

It is appropriate to cite the words of Maimonides in his explanation of the mishnah in Bava Kama there: “If there was a legal case between a Jew and a Gentile, then the manner of judging between them is as I will explain: if we [i.e., a Jew] will win under their laws, we judge them according to their laws and say to them: this is your law! If it is better that we judge according to our laws, we judge them according to our laws and say to them: this is our law! And do not find it difficult, and don’t be surprised by it, just as one is not surprised about the slaughter of animals even though they have done no harm, for one in whom human characteristics are not complete is not truly a man, and his end purpose is only for ‘man’ [that is to say, the entire raison d'etre of the Gentiles is only for the benefit of the complete man -- comment by Rabbi Y. Kapach shlita in his edition of Maimonides's Commentary on the Mishnah], and the discussion on this matter requires a separate book.”

E. Robbery and Theft of a Gentile

With regards to robbery and theft from a Gentile, the Tanna’im disagreed, and subsequently so did the Rishonim, whether the prohibition is from the Torah or only Rabbinic.

It is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 4 of Bava Kama, halacha 3: “It happened that the [Roman] kingdom sent two officials to learn Torah from Rabban Gamliel. They learned from him Scripture, Mishnah, Talmud, Halacha, and Aggadah. In the end they said: your entire Torah is fine and praiseworthy, except for these two matters which you say — a Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Gentile woman, but a Gentile woman can be a mid-wife for a Jewish woman, and a Jewish woman cannot breastfeed the son of a Gentile woman, but a Gentile woman can breastfeed [the child of] a Jewish woman with her permission; robbery of a Jew is forbidden, but robbery of a Gentile is permitted. At that moment Rabban Gamliel issued an edict that what is stolen from a Gentile is forbidden because of the desecration of G-d’s name.” According to the Jerusalem Talmud, that which is stolen from a Gentile is forbidden because of Rabban Gamliel’s edict and it is only a Rabbinic prohibition. Likewise it is written in Sifri on the portion of V’zot HaBracha, section 344, except that the edict of Rabban Gamliel is not mentioned there.

This is also what is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4): “…Regarding theft — a thief, a robber, one who takes a [captive] beautiful woman, and the like — these are things it is forbidden for a Gentile [to perpetrate] against a Gentile, or [against] a Jew, but it is permissible for a Jew [to perpetrate] against a Gentile.”

Thus Rashi wrote on the aforementioned beraitha which appears in Sanhedrin 57a, s.v. yisrael b’goy mutar: “For ‘You shall not exploit your neighbor’ is written, and it is not written ‘a Gentile,’ but there is a Rabbinic prohibition, according to the one who says that robbery of a Gentile is forbidden because of desecration of G-d’s name in the last chapter ‘HaGozel’ [chapter 10 of Bava Batra].” Thus it also appears in Bava Metzia 111b: “And since the first Tanna learned the law from the phrase ‘his brother,’ what does he do with the phrase ‘his neighbor’? That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as stated in the beraitha: ‘his neighbor’ — and not a Gentile. But isn’t it appropriate to learn that a Gentile is excluded from the phrase ‘his brother’? One [phrase] comes to permit exploiting him [a Gentile] and the other comes to permit robbing him, as he holds that robbery of a Gentile is permitted.” And so it is determined in the commentary attributed to the Ran on Tractate Sanhedrin 57a. Thus, too, ruled the Rama in Even HaEzer, paragraph 28, section 1, and also the Maharshal in Yam shel Shlomo on Bava Kama, paragraph 20.

In contrast, it is explained in Torat Cohanim on the portion of Behar Sinai, beginning of chapter 9 (and it appears in Bava Kama 113a with differences): “Rabbi Shimon says: from where do we learn that stealing from a Gentile is forbidden? It is written: ‘after he [a Jew] is sold [to Gentiles].’ Perhaps one can take him by force and leave? [Take the Jew by force from the Gentile's house without paying, to steal him from the Gentile -- commentary attributed to Rabbi Simon Sens]. It is taught: ‘He shall be redeemed.’ Perhaps one can deceive him? [Fool the Gentile and treat him like an imbecile in order to buy his slave cheaply -- ibid..] It is taught: ‘He shall reckon with the one who bought him’ — to be precise with him… If the Torah is so strict in [forbidding] robbery of a Gentile, how much more so concerning robbery of a Jew.” It is explained that robbery of Gentiles is prohibited, and the plain meaning of the beraitha is that this prohibition is from the Torah, as the GRA wrote in his commentary on Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 8, and as the Radbaz wrote in his Responsa, part 2 paragraph 1276.

Thus it also appears in Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, section 266: “‘When you come into your neighbor’s vineyard’ — ‘your neighbor’s,’ to exclude others, ‘your neighbor’s,’ to exclude a vineyard dedicated to the Temple…” (’To exclude others’ — that is to say, the vineyard of Gentiles, for concerning ‘your neighbor’s’ it is written: ‘But you shall not put any in your vessel’ — so in the vineyard of a Gentile it is permitted, and it is derived according to the one who says that view which states that generally robbery of a Gentile is forbidden… –commentary of Rabbeinu Hillel.) Thus it also appears in Tractate Bava Metzia 87b: “…in your neighbor’s vineyard and not in the vineyard of a Gentile. It is understandable according to the one who says robbery of a Gentile is forbidden, that is to say, we need this verse to permit a robbery to a worker…” According to these Tanna’im, robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah. Likewise it is stated in Seder Eliyahu Rabba (Tanna d’vey Eliyahu) chapter 16 (in the Ish Shalom edition, in other editions it is chapter 15), see there. See further the Tosephta on Bava Kama, chapter 10 halacha 15 (in the Vilna edition, halacha 8).

Maimonides wrote at the beginning of The Laws of Theft: “Anyone who steals property worth the value of a prutah and above transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not steal’… no matter if he steals money from a Jew or the money of a Gentile idolater…” In The Laws of Robbery and Lost Items, chapter 1 halachas 1 and 2, he wrote: “Anyone who steals from a his fellow something worth a prutah transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not steal’…and it is forbidden to steal anything according to the ruling of the Torah. It is forbidden to rob or exploit even a Gentile idolater, and if one robs or exploits him, he must recompense him.” This is also the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 2, and in the beginning of paragraph 359. Thus also ruled the Gaon of Vilna there, paragraph 348, subsection 8, and in Even HaEzer, paragraph 28, subsection 5, and the Ridbaz in the aforementioned responsum. (It is appropriate to note what the Ridbaz wrote: even though stealing from a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah, one does not transgress a negative commandment by doing it; it is also explained so in Likutei HaGRA on Maimonides, and according to this, once again there is no equality between a Jew and a Gentile). See Chidushei Rabbi Akiva Eiger, paragraph 359, where he proved that according to the view which holds that stealing from a Gentile is prohibited, the prohibition stems from the Torah.

However, even according to Maimonides’s opinion  that stealing from a Gentile is forbidden from the Torah and that consequently one transgresses a negative commandment by doing it, we find nevertheless found in his words a distinction between a Jew and a Gentile, for thus he wrote in The Laws of Robbery, chapter 6, halacha 7: “The Sages prohibited many things on account of robbery, and one who transgresses these matters is a robber according to their words — for example, pigeon racers and dice rollers,” and there in halacha 11: “one who plays dice with a Gentile does not transgress the prohibition of robbery,but he transgresses the prohibition of engaging in idleness, for it is not worthy of man to engage himself all the days of his life in matters other than words of wisdom and cultivation of the world.” That is, in this issue also a Gentile is not completely equal with a Jew. See in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 370 who brought the words of Maimonides  and did not dispute him on this matter, and the SM’A in subsection 4 and in the Prisha in subsection 7. The GRA, in subsection 7, agreed with him.

F. The Lost Item of a Gentile

It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:2): “You shall not see your brother’s ox or sheep going astray and hide yourself from them. You shall surely bring them back to your brother.” It is also stated (Exodus 23:4): “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his ass going astray, you shall surely bring it back to him.” In the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai on the latter verse it is written: “‘Your brother’s ox’ — I only have [learned about] my brother, from where [do I learn about] my enemy? It is written: ‘your enemy’s ox’ anyway. Perhaps this is also the case concerning others? It is written: ‘your brother,’ as your brother is your partner, so too, any man who is your partner.” And in Tractate Bava Kama 113b: “Rabbi Bibi bar Gozla said in the name of Rabbi Shimon Chasida:robbery of a Gentile is forbidden… his lost item is permitted, similar to what Rav Chama bar Guryeh said in the name of Rav: from where do we know that the lost item of a Gentile is permitted? As it says: ‘In like manner shall you do with his ass; and so shall you do with his garment; and with every lost thing of your brother’s’ — every lost thing of your brother’s and not every lost thing of a Gentile. It was taught in a beraitha: Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said, in any instance where there is a desecration of G-d’s name, even his [a Gentile's] lost item is forbidden…”

We learn in Tractate Machshirin, chapter 2 mishnah 8: “One who finds a lost item — if the majority [in the surrounding area] are Gentiles, he does not have to publicly announce his finding; if the majority are Jews, he must publicly announce it; if half are Gentiles and half are Jews, he must publicly announce.” Thus wrote Maimonides in the beginning of chapter 11 of The Laws of Robbery and Lost Items: “One who returns a lost item to a Jew fulfills a positive commandment, as it says: ‘You shall surely bring them back to your brother.’ One who sees a lost item of a Jew and ignores it and leaves it there transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not see your brother’s ox and hide yourself from them,’ and he also abandons a positive commandment. And if he returns it, he fulfills a positive command.” But in halacha 3 he wrote: “A lost item of a Gentile is permitted, as it says: ‘Every lost thing of your brother’s’.” Thus it is explained in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 266, section 1.

In addition, it is explained in Sanhedrin 76b: “Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: one who marries his daughter to an elderly man, and one who marries his son of minor age to a woman, and one who returns a lost item to a Gentile, concerning him the verse says, ‘To add drunkenness to thirst: the Lord will not spare him’.” These are the words of Maimonides there, halacha 3: “If one returns a lost item [to a Gentile] to sanctify G-d’s name, in order that the Gentiles glorify the Jews, and know that they [the Jews] are a faithful people — this is praiseworthy. In a case where there is a desecration of G-d’s name, his [a Gentile's] lost item is forbidden, and he [the Jew] is obligated to return it…”. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote similarly there. (In regards to what Maimonides wrote “If he returned the lost item to sanctify…,” this is according to the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 2 of Tractate Bava Metzia, halacha 5 — but it is important to emphasize that one cannot learn general permission from this, as the Maharshal wrote in Yam shel Sholomo, chapter 10 of Bava Kama, section 20: “G-d desires a man’s heart [aspiration to worship Him], therefore [one may do it] if this is his intention [to sanctify G-d's name], however if his intention is that he, and not the faith of Israel, should be praised, or because he loves the Gentile and has mercy on him, it is forbidden [to return the Gentile's lost item].”)

G. The Error of a Gentile

The error of a Gentile [i.e., property of which he deprived himself due to an error] is permitted, similar to the case of his lost item. Thus it is explained in Bava Kama 113b: “Shmuel said: and his error is permitted.” However, the Rishonim disagree about whether it speaks of a case where a Gentile erred in his calculation on his own or if it is permitted to deceive him. In the opinion of Rashi, there (s.v. v’ivla lei zuza) it is permitted to deceive him, in accordance with Rashi’s opinion which was clarified above, that stealing from a Gentile is permitted. The Tosaphot also wrote there, s.v. ya’chol, that it is permitted to deceive a Gentile, however only if he cannot discover it and it won’t cause a desecration of G-d’s name. This is also the opinion of the Tur in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 3: “However, his error — that is, to deceive him in calculations or to raise his loan — is permitted, but only if it will not become evident to him — for in such a situation there is no desecration of G-d’s name.”

But this is not the opinion of Maimonides, who wrote in chapter 11 of The Laws of Robbery and Lost Items, halacha 4: “The error of a Gentile is similar to his lost item and is permitted — that is, if he erred on his own, but to deceive him is forbidden.” Likewise he wrote in the beginning of chapter 18 of The Laws of Transactions. This is also the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel (brought in Shita Mikubetzet; in Aruch, entry plez, it is brought without attribution) of the Rif, of the HaRaviyah (brought in the Mordechai, paragraph 158, and in Or Zarua there on Bava Kama), of the Mordechai, and of the Nimukei Yosef.

The Rama in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 348, section 2, brought both opinions and did not determine in this matter; however, the Maharshal ruledin Yam shel Shlomo (chapter 11 of Bava Kama, paragraph 20) that it is forbidden to deceive a Gentile, and this is the intent of the Gaon of Vilna there, subsection 13.

In any case, the entire essence of this dispute is specifically concerning a Gentile, for with regards to the error of a Jew, everything must be recompensed, as it appears in a number of places, including Kiddushin 42b: “Rava said: anything concerning [faulty] measurements, weights or calculations, even if they are of minimal value, is also recompensed,” and so wrote Maimonides in the beginning of chapter 15 of The Laws of Transactions, and the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 232.

H. Abduction

It is written in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13): “You shall not steal,” and also there  (21:16): “Whoever steals a man and sells him — if he is found in his hand, he shall be put to death.” In Mechilta, Yitro section 8 it is explained: “‘You shall not steal’ — why is this stated? Since it says ‘And he that steals a man, and sells him’ — his punishment is stated, from where do we learn a warning? It is written: ‘You shall not steal,’ this is a warning with concerning abduction.” In Deuteronomy 24:7 it says: “If a man is found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel and maltreating or selling him, that thief will die: and you shall eliminate evil from within you” — so it is clearly stated in the Torah that only for abduction of a Jew is one punished by death.

In Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, paragraph 273: “Stealing any of his brethren — and not others” (that is, Gentiles — commentary of Rabbeinu Hillel).  Thus we also learn in the beginning of chapter 11 of Sanhedrin: “These are the ones who are [put to death by] strangulation: one who hits his father and mother, and one who abducts a  Jew…” And this is the wording of Maimonides in The Laws of Theft, chapter 9, halacha 1: “Anyone who steals a Jewish person transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not steal.’ And there in halacha 6: “No matter whether he abducted [one born] a Jew or a convert or a manumitted slave, as it says: ‘Any of his brethren,’ and these are considered our brothers in Torah and commandments. However, one who steals a slave or a man who is half-slave/half-free is exempt” — in any case, we learn that one who abducts a Gentile is exempt.

I. One Who Injures His Fellow

It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:2-3): “And it shall be, if the wicked man is worthy to be beaten, the judge shall make him lie down, and he shall be beaten before him, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty lashes he shall give him and not exceed, lest, if he exceeds and beats him with more lashes than these, your brother shall be made vile before you.”

In the Mechilta, Mishpatim section 5 on the verse “And he that smites his father or his mother shall surely be put to death,” it is explained: “We have heard the punishment, but a warning we have not heard. It is as written, ‘Forty lashes he shall give him, and not exceed,’ and the matter is an a fortiori inference: if one who is commanded to beat is warned not to [over]beat, one who is commanded not to beat is obviously warned not to beat.”

All this is regarding a Jew, as Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 300 (in Rav Kapach’s edition): “And from this negative commandment stems the warning not to beat any Jew: if concerning this sinner we are warned not to beat him, all the more so regarding any other man.” Likewise, he wrote in The Laws of Monetary Damages in the beginning of chapter 5: “It is forbidden for one to injure himself or his fellow. And not only the one who causes injury, but anyone who strikes a kosher Jewish person,whether a minor or an adult, whether a man or a woman, in any manner like fighting, transgresses a negative commandment, as it is written: ‘He shall not exceed to beat him’.” See further in The Laws of the Rebellious, chapter 5, halacha 8, and in chapter 16 of The Laws of Sanhedrin, halacha 12. Thus it is also written in Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 600 (in other editions, commandment 595).

Furthermore, one who injures his fellow is obligated to recompense him, as we learn in the beginning of chapter 8 of Bava Kama: “One who injures his fellow is obligated in five categories: damage, pain, healing, rest, and embarrassment.” However, the obligation of compensation applies specifically to one who hit a Jew, as Maimonides wrote there, halacha 3: “One who hits his fellow a blow which does not have the value of a prutah is given lashes, for there are no payments appropriate to enable the paying off of this negative commandment. Even if he hits a slave of his fellow, giving him a blow which does not have the value of a prutah, he is given lashes, for he [the slave] is obligated in some commandments” — but one who hits a Gentile is not liable for any punishment.

In contrast, it says in Sanhedrin 58b: “Rabbi Chanina said: a Gentile who hits a Jew is punishable by death, as it says: ‘And he looked this way and that, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian” (because [the Egyptian] had hit a Jewish man — Rashi, s.v. v’yach). Thus wrote Maimonides at the end of halacha 3: “And a Gentile who hit a Jew is punished by death, as it says, ‘And he looked this way and that…he slew the Egyptian’.” (However, in The Laws of Kings, chapter 10, halacha 6 he wrote: “And a Gentile who hits a Jew, even if he injured him slightly — even though he is punishable by death, he is not killed.” See there, in the Kesef Mishneh and the Ridbaz, for an explanation of why he is not put to death).

J. Fraud

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 25:14): “And if you sell anything to your neighbor, or buy anything from your neighbor’s hands, you shall not defraud one another.” In Sifra on the portion of Behar Sinai, section 3, halacha 4 it is written: “‘You shall not defraud one another’ — this is monetary fraud.” Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Transactions, in the beginning of chapter 12: “It is forbidden for either the seller or purchaser to defraud his fellow, as it says: ‘And if you sell anything to your neighbor, you shall not defraud one another.’  Even though one [who does that] transgresses a negative commandment, he is not given lashes, for it can be recompensed. Whether he defrauded with intent or he did not know that the transaction was fraudulent, he is obligated to recompense.”

However, regarding a Gentile the law is different. In Tractate Bechorot 13b it is explained: “They said: to your partner you return [something gained by] fraud, and you don’t return it to a Gentile.” Maimonides wrote in chapter 13, halacha 7: “A Gentile has not [been included in the transgression of] fraud as it says: ‘one another’ [literally, 'each his brother']. But a Gentile who defrauded a Jew must recompense him according to our laws — it should not be more severe than it is with a Jew.” Thus also wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 227 (in the Tur, section 30 and in the Shulchan Aruch section 26). In this matter also the inequality of a Gentile is obvious.

K. Appointing a King and Other Authorities

It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 17:15): “Then you shall appoint a king over you, whom the Lord your G-d will choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you, but you shall not set over you a stranger who is not your brother.” In Sifri, Shoftim, paragraph 157 it says: ”Your brother, and not from others” (that is to say, Gentiles, for a Gentile king may not be appointed over Jews — Rabbeinu Hillel). And not just a Gentile, but also a righteous convert, considered a Jew in every matter, is disqualified for kingship, as is explained in Midrash HaGadol: “‘You shall not set over you a stranger ‘ –to exclude the convert… from here they said it is forbidden to appoint a king from the converts, even after a number of generations, until his mother is [one born] Jewish.”

This is also  the law concerning any position of authority, as explained in Kiddushin 76b: “We have learned: ‘Then you shall appoint a king over you from among your brethren,’ all appointments of authority that you make should not be [made] except from among your brethren.” Thus wrote Maimonides in chapter 1 of The Laws of Kings, halacha 4: “We do not appoint a king from amongst the converts, even after several generations, until his mother is [one born] Jewish, as it is written, ‘You will not set over you a stranger who is not your brother.’ Not only for kingship, but also for any position of authority in Israel, neither a general nor chief over fifty people, nor chief over ten people, nor even a person appointed to verify that the water is distributed to the fields. It is superfluous to talk about a judge or a nasi, who may not be other than [one born] a Jew, as is written, ‘one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you’–all the people whom you give positions of authority shall not be from other than your brethren.”

However, regarding the possibility of appointing a convert to judge over Jews, the Rishonim are in disagreement. In the opinion of Rashi on Tractate Yevamot 102a, s.v. ger dan et chaveiro, a convert is allowed to judge a Jew on property matters, but not concerning capital laws (see also on Kiddushin 76b, s.v. kol mesimot.) However, in the opinion of the Rif at the end of chapter 4 of Sanhedrin, the Tosaphot on Yevamot 45b s.v. keivan and in Sanhedrin 36b s.v.chada, the Nimukei Yosef at the beginning of chapter 12 of Yevamot, the Ran on the Rif, end of chapter 4 of Sanhedrin, and the Meiri on Kiddushin there, a convert cannot judge a Jew, even on property matters, until his mother is [one born] Jewish. Thus Maimonides also ruled in The Laws of Sanhedrin, chapter 2 halacha 9: ”A Beit Din of three [judges], one of them being a convert, is disqualified until his mother is [one born] Jewish.” Nevertheless, a convert may judge his fellow convert, as it is explained in Yevamot 102 and as Maimonides wrote in chapter 11, halacha 11. Also the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 7, wrote similarly.

It is appropriate to mention the words of the Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 509 (in other editions 498) on this subject: “The root of this commandment is well known… one appointed to authority… must be, at the very least, from the seed of Israel, for they are merciful [people] the sons of merciful [people], in order that they have mercy on the nation and not oppress them in any matter. He must love truth, righteousness, and integrity; as is known, anyone from the family of Abraham possess all these good qualities…”

It must be emphasized that this is an example of the distinction between one who comes from the seed of Israel and a righteous Gentile who converts to Judaism. Even though there may not be many such examples, this is not an exceptional case, as will be further clarified.

L. Defamation

It is written in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:19-21) regarding defamation of one’s wife: “And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the girl, because he has defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he may not divorce her all his life.” In Sifri on the portion of Ki Teze, section 238 it is written:  ”‘And give them to the father of the girl’ – with the exception of a female convert whose mother became pregnant before she converted, but gave birth after she converted, for [defaming] her daughter one does not pay a hundred shekels of silver.”

Thus we learn in Ketubot, chapter 4, mishnah 3: “A woman who converted with her daughter and [the daughter, while engaged] had illicit sexual relations — she is put to death by strangulation [and not by stoning, for stoning is only in the case of a woman born Jewish]. She need not be taken out of her father’s door [as is the law for an engaged woman born Jewish] and [her husband does not have to pay a fine] of one hundred shekels [if he defamed her, for this is only the law concerning a woman born Jewish]. If the mother became pregnant before she converted and gave birth after her conversion, she [the engaged daughter who had illicit sexual relations] is put to death by stoning, but [the law concerning] her father’s door does not apply to her, nor [the law concerning] one hundred shekels. If the mother both became pregnant and gave birth after her conversion, her daughter is considered a born Jew in all matters.” Thus Maimonides also wrote in The Laws of a Virgin Girl, chapter 3, halacha 8: “For any woman whose rape or seduction does not carry a fine, one who defames her is exempt from lashes and payments. So it is regarding a Gentile woman who converted and a maidservant who was manumitted under the age of three years; even if she was conceived before her mother converted and was born after she converted, one who defames her is exempt from lashes, as it says: ‘Because he has defamed a virgin of Israel’ — [this does not apply] until her conception and birth are in holiness.”

M. You Shall Not Hate

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 19:17): “You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall certainly rebuke your neighbor, and not suffer sin on his account” — so it is clearly stated in the Torah that this prohibition specifically regards Jews. And so Maimonides wrote in The Laws of Mental States, chapter 6, halacha 6 (in the printed edition, halacha 5): “Anyone who hates a Jew in his heart transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart’.” Thus he also wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 302, and likewise it appears in Sefer HaChinuch, commandment 245 (in other editions 238).

N. You Shall not Avenge or Bear a Grudge — And You Shall Love Your Neighbor as Yourself

It is written in the Torah (Leviticus 19:18): “You shall not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” — here also the verse yells out “the children of your people.” In Torat Cohanim on the portion of Kedoshim, chapter 4, halacha 12: “You shall not avenge nor bear a grudge against the children of your people –but you can avenge and bear a grudge against others” (that is, against Gentiles — explanation of the Ra’avad). In the words of Maimonides in The Laws of Mental States, chapter 7, halacha 10 (in the printed edition, halacha 7): “One who avenges against his fellow transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not avenge’.” And there in halacha 11 (in the printed edition, the continuation of halacha 7): “What is considered vengeance? If one’s fellow said to him ‘lend me your ax’ and he answered ‘I will not lend it to you.’ The next day he needed to borrow an ax from his friend. He said to him ‘lend me your ax’ and the other answered, ‘I will not lend it to you, as you did not lend it to me when I requested.’ This is vengeance.” And there, halacha 12 (in the printed edition, halacha 8): “Also, anyone who bears a grudge against a Jew transgresses a negative commandment, as it says: ‘You shall not bear a grudge against the children of your people.’ How is this? Reuven said to Shimon ‘rent me this house’ or ‘lend me this ox’ and Shimon refused. Later, Shimon needed to borrow or to rent and Reuven said: ‘See? I will lend it to you, for I am not like you and I will not pay you back for your actions.’ One who does so transgresses the commandment ‘You shall not bear a grudge’…”

With regards to the second half of the verse, Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot positive commandment 206 (according to Rav Kapach’s edition): “We were commanded to love one another…and my compassion and love to my brother in faith and religion shall be as my love and compassion to myself…” In chapter 6 of The Laws of Mental States, halacha 4 (in the printed edition, halacha 3): “It is a commandment for every person to love each and every Jew as he loves himself, as it says: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’.”

O. One Who Sees Jewish Houses/Jewish Graveyards — Gentile Houses/Gentile Graveyards

In Berachot 58b this beraitha appears: “The rabbis learned: one who sees inhabited Jewish houses says: ‘Blessed is He who establishes the border of the widow,’ [if he sees them] in their destruction he says: ‘Blessed is the true judge.’On Gentile inhabited houses he says ’The Lord will pluck up the house of the proud, but He will establish the border of the widow,’ in their destruction –he says,  ’O Lord G-d of vengeance; O G-d of vengeance, appear!’” Furthermore there: “The rabbis taught: one who sees Jewish cemeteries says: ‘Blessed be He who created you in judgement, and maintained you in judgement, and gathered you in judgement and in the future will raise you up in judgement.’ The son of Ravina concluded in the name of Rav Nachman the son of Isaac: ‘and knows all of your numbers, and in the future He will give you life and establish you in judgement; blessed is the reviver of the dead.’ On cemeteries of the Gentiles he says: ’Your mother shall be greatly ashamed; she that bore you shall be disgraced: behold the end of the nations is a wilderness, dry land, and desert’.” The exact words of the Talmud appear in Maimonides, chapter 10 of The Laws of Blessings, halacha 11 (in printed editions, halacha 10) and in halacha 22 (in printed editions, halacha 19), and also in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, end of paragraph 224.

P. ‘You [Jews] Are Called Man’ — The Comparison of Gentiles to Animals

In Ezekiel 23:20 it says: “There she lusted upon her paramours, whose members were like those of asses, and whose issue was like that of horses” (’whose members were like those of asses’ — their sexual organs, ‘and whose issue was like that of horses’ — means excessive sexual relations, for horses engage in copulation more that any other male animals, ‘whose issue’ — spouting of semen like a stream of passing water — Rashi). This verse is a parable to the Gentiles, as is explained there, and the verse compares them to animals. This comparison is not by chance, as we will see further on, and it represents the foundation for a number of Halachic laws.

Q. An Ox who Damages a Maidservant

It is written in the Torah (Exodus 21:22): “If men fight and hurt a woman with child so that her fetus departs from her, and yet no further harm ensue, he shall surely be punished, as the woman’s husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.” In Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and in the Midrash HaGadol it is stated: “‘If men fight — from here I only have [learned concerning] men, from where do I know that this includes two women or a woman and a man? It is stated: ‘…shall surely be punished’ — whether a man or a woman. What is taught by ‘men’? — men and not oxen. From here they said: if one’s ox injures a woman, [the owner] is exempt from payments for her offspring.” And in the Mishnah (Bava Kama, chapter 5, mishnah 5): “An ox which attempted to injure his fellow [ox] and [instead] hit a [pregnant] woman and she aborted her child — [the owner of the ox is] exempt from payment for her offspring.” And there in the Talmud (49a): “Rav Papa said: an ox who injured a pregnant maidservant and she had a miscarriage — [the owner of the ox] must pay her for her offspring. What is the reason? For he [the ox] has merely injured a pregnant she-ass, as the Scripture says: ‘Stay here with the ass,’ – the people who are like asses.” And in the words of Maimonides in chapter 1 of The Laws of Monetary Damage, halacha 4: “[Ones' ox] that injured a pregnant maidservant and she miscarried — [the owner of the ox] must pay for her offspring charges, for this is similar to injuring a pregnant she-ass.” Likewise it appears in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 405, section 3. (This exegesis, “A people who are like asses,” appears in a number of places in the Talmud; only this example has been presented in order not to prolong the discussion).

R. The Impurity of a Gentile

Concerning the matter of impurity caused by a dead person, it is written (Numbers19:14): “This is the law: when a man dies in a tent, all that comes into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.” In Yevamot 61a, and also in Tractate Bava Metzia 114b, this beraitha appears: “Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: Gentile cemeteries do not defile as it says, ‘But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, are men.’ You are called men, but the nations of the world [Gentiles] are not called men” (’do not defile’ — that which overshadows them — Rashi in Yevamot). This is the wording of Maimonides, chapter 1 of The Laws of The Impurity of the Dead, halacha 13: “And a Gentile does not defile [objects within] a tent. This law is received from tradition. Behold, it says concerning the wars with Midian: ‘And whoever has touched any slain’ — and it does not mention there a tent. Also, a Gentile cannot become impurified by the dead. If a Gentile touched, carried, or overshadowed a dead body, he is considered as one who had not come in contact with it. Behold, to what is this similar? — To an animal who touched or overshadowed a dead body. Not only the impurity of the dead alone, but all impurities — Gentiles and animals are not defiled by them.” (The source for this law, that a Gentile does not become impurified, is in Tractate Nazir 61b and in Tosephta on Ohalot, chapter 1, halacha 4 [in the Vilna edition, halacha 2]: “A Gentile, an animal, a child born after eight months of gestation, clay vessels, food and liquids which came in contact with a dead body — utensils that touched them are pure.”) So agreed Nachmanides and the Rashba in their novellae on Yevamot, as did the Yere’im in paragraph 322, and the Raviyah in Hilchot Azharot HaCohanim M’tum’atan page 249 (explained also in Haga’ot Mimoniot Hilchot Evel, chapter 3 halacha 3 section 2, see there, where he states that this is also the opinion of Ritzba), and the Eshkol, end of Hilchot Tumat Cohanim. This is also the opinion of the Gaon of Vilna in Aderet Eliyahu on Chukat 19:18, and also of the Meiri in Yevamot and Bava Metzia there. However, Rabbeinu Tam determined that the Halacha does not follow Rabbi Shimon’s opinion regarding the impurity of the tent as the Tosaphot has written on Yevamot there, s.v. m’maga, and in Bava Metzia there (page a), s.v. mahoo, and so the Rosh wrote in Bava Metzia, and the SM’G in negative commandment 235 — but for our purposes this does not matter, for even according to the opinion of those who disagree, this foundation is a general one and determines the Halacha in other cases, as will be clarified further on.

S. Gentiles and the Anointing Oil

It is written in the Torah (Exodus 30:22) with regards to the prohibition of pouring the anointing oil: “Upon man’s flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall you make any other like it…or he who puts any of it upon a stranger shall be cut off from his people.” In the Midrash HaGadol it is stated: “One who pours it on himself or on others is guilty. Is it possible that even if he poured it on an animal and utensils, and upon Gentiles who are like animals, or poured it on the dead, he is guilty? It is written: ‘upon man’s flesh it shall not be poured,’ this excludes those whom I cannot call men.” In Kritot 6b it is written: “The rabbis taught: one who pours the anointing oil on an animal or utensils is exempt, on Gentiles and the dead, exempt. It is all right about animals and utensils, as it is written: ‘Upon man’s flesh shall it not be poured’; animals and utensils are not men. [One who pours on the] dead is also exempt, for once one has died, he is called ‘dead’ and not ‘man.’ However, [one who pours on] Gentiles, why is he exempt? Aren’t they men? It is true, as it is written: ‘But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, are men’ — you are called ‘men’ and the nations of the world [Gentiles] are not called ‘men’.” In the words of Maimonides in The Laws of Holy Temple Utensils and Their Users chapter 1 halacha 6: “One who pours on utensils or on animals and Gentiles who are similar to them, or pours it on the dead, is exempt, as it says: ‘upon man’s flesh shall it not be poured’.” We have not found anyone who disputes this halacha.

T. Animal Slaughter by a Gentile

Another example: we learn in the beginning of Mishnah Chulin: “An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is considered a carcass and defiles one who carries it.” (even if it was slaughtered according to the Halacha and others observe him, Rashi, Chulin 13a, s.v. shchitat nocri). In the Tosephta there: “All are acceptable to slaughter, even a Samaritan, even an uncircumcised person, and even a man forcefully converted from Judaism. An animal slaughtered by a heretic is like an idol, an animal slaughtered by a Gentile is unfit, and an animal slaughtered by a monkey is unfit, as it says: ‘And you shall slaughter and eat’ — not the slaughter of a Gentile, not the slaughter of a monkey, and not an animal that was slaughtered by accident.” So the slaughter of a Gentile is not kosher because the Halacha considers him similar to an animal, and so it is explained in the words of Tosaphot, Chulin 3b s.v. k’savar: “…and their slaughter is disqualified as is that of the Gentiles from ‘And you shall slaughter’ — what you slaughter you may eat. And it is you who is permitted to slaughter — to exclude a Gentile…” Likewise wrote the Rosh in the beginning of Chulin.

However, in chapter 2 of The Laws of Other Principal Categories of Impurity, halacha 10, Maimonides brought a different reason for this law: “A Gentile’s slaughter is considered a carcass… it seems to me that even this is from the words of the Sages, for the impurity of idol worship and the impurity of its offerings is Rabbinic, as will be explained. And because of idol worship, the Gentiles were distanced and their slaughter was forbidden.” But the Ra’avad criticized him and wrote: “Abraham says: this is one of his opinions, and there is none inferior to it, for the Gentiles are like animals, they don’t become impure and cannot defile, ‘a people who are like asses,’ ‘behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket,’ and the wind will blow them all away, and one who thinks of them as something [worthwhile] will gather the wind in his fist.” (See further the words of  Maimonides in chapter 4 of The Laws of Slaughtering halachot 11-12).

The matters are, therefore, very clear: in the Tosephta it is plainly stated that an animal slaughtered by a Gentile is unfit for there is no difference between what he has slaughtered and what a monkey has slaughtered, and thus wrote the Rosh and the Ra’avad. Even though Maimonides wrote a different reason for this halacha, we have already clarified similar matters from the words of Maimonides in other halachot, like his reasoning concerning the abovementioned case of pouring oil of anointing. From here we see there is no discrepancy regarding the status of a Gentile in Halacha, just a difference in reasoning for this specific law.

U. Whose Members Are Like Those of Asses

Similarly, we have found in Berachot 25b: “Rav Yehuda said: it is forbidden to recite the Shema in front of a naked Gentile. But why mention a Gentile? Even in front of a naked Jew it is forbidden. [And it answers]: it is necessary to speak of ‘a naked Gentile,’ for one might have thought that since it is written ‘Whose members are like those of asses’ a Gentile is like an ass. So this statement comes to tell us that ‘nakedness’ is mentioned in relation to the Gentiles: “‘And they saw not their father’s nakedness’.” And these are the words of Maimonides in chapter 3 of The Laws of Reciting the Shema, halacha 16: “As it is forbidden to read in front of feces and urine until one distances himself from them, so is it forbidden to read in front of nakedness until he turns aside. Even a Gentile or a minor — it is forbidden to read in front of them while they are naked.” So wrote the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chaim, paragraph 74, section 4. These words speak for themselves.

And in Berachot 58a it is stated: “Rav Shila saw a Jew who had sexual relations with a Gentile woman, and he gave him lashes. The Jew went to inform to the king. He said to them: ‘There is one Jew who judges without the permission of the king.’ The king sent for him and they said: ‘Why did you act in such a manner?’ Rav Shila answered: ‘He had relations with a she-ass.’ They asked: ‘Do you have a witness?’ He answered: ‘Yes!’ Elijah appeared as a human being and testified. They said: ‘If so, his punishment is death.’ Rav Shila said: ‘From the day we [Jews] were expelled from our land we don’t have permission to enact the death penalty. You, however, whatever you wish to do with him, do.’ As they were consulting on the matter, Rav Shila said: ‘Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty.’ They asked him: ‘What did you say?’ He answered: ‘This is what I said: blessed is the Merciful One who places kingdoms on earth similar to the kingdom of heaven, and has given you governing powers and mercy in your rulings [that you love justice -- Rashi]. They said to him: ‘Since you think so highly of us, we will allow you the permission to judge.’ [They gave him a stick to give lashes -- Rashi.] When he was about to leave, that Jew asked him: ‘Does G-d perform miracles for liars?’ Rav Shila answered: “Wicked one! Didn’t I tell the truth? Aren’t they called asses? As it is written: ‘whose members are like those of asses’.”

And the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot chapter 3 halacha 4, states: “It happened once that a man attempted to have sexual relations with the maid-servant of Rabbi [a Gentile maidservant -- Toldot Yitzhak]. She said to him: “if my mistress does not immerse [in the mikveh], I do not immerse” [for I go together with my mistress to immerse, and she has not yet gone and therefore I am a niddah --ibid.]. He said to her: aren’t you similar to an animal? ['a nation who are like asses' -- why must you immerse -- ibid.] She said to him: haven’t you heard that one who has relations with an animal is stoned to death? As it says: ‘Anyone who lies with an animal shall surely be put to death’.”

Summary

What arises from all the aforementioned is that in the words of the Prophets, and also in the words of our Sages OBM, the Gentiles are thought of as animals. Even so, it clearly does not mean that they are actually treated as animals, and there are distinctions between Gentiles and animals, for we have already seen that the Halacha deems stealing from a Gentile to be forbidden by the Torah’s law, while it is clear that stealing from a beast is not considered stealing. Likewise the Mechilta says that judgement of one who intentionally kills a Gentile is given to Heaven and, of course, this is not the case regarding an animal. Also, the Gentiles were commanded to fulfill the Seven Commandments of the sons of Noah — in contrast, of course, to animals. Nevertheless, we have seen that the status of the Gentiles in Halacha is similar to that of animals in many respects, and generally speaking, there is no real distinctions made between them (further on we will expand slightly this on deep concept).

2. Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought

Until now we have dealt with differing Halachic sources, scattered throughout the Written and Oral Torah, which ridicule the aforementioned words of Professor Shaki: “For all human beings are born equal according to the viewpoint of Judaism…the equality of man… is primary and one of the foremost foundations of the Torah of Israel…”(!) (It must be emphasized that in the aforementioned list, not all of the halachot that make clear distinctions between the Jews and Gentiles were mentioned. There are dozens, if not more, of Halachic laws of this kind.) We will now deal with the spiritual aspect of the subject — but first, a brief introduction.

It is well known to all that the essence of the Torah is its inner aspect. This inner aspect is found in all parts of the Torah that are not Halachic: in the Aggadah, in Jewish thought, and in the Kabbalah. The Halacha represents the practical expression of this inner aspect, bringing it to action, but behind these Halachic laws stands a spiritual world whose result are these laws themselves. There is not one commandment from the Torah that stands on its own, without foundation or background in the spiritual level. In this section of the essay we will attempt to point out the inner/essential background of the Halachic laws we have previously dealt with.

Below is an anthology of writings by great Jewish scholars, Rishonim, and Achronim which deal with and expand upon the difference between the Jews and the rest of the nations. Here too, we will concentrate only on the distinction the Torah makes between a Jew and a Gentile, and we will not deal with everything mentioned on this matter in these parts of the Torah.

‘You Are Called Men’ — The Image of G-d in Man

A. The Ra’avad

We have already mentioned the words of the Ra’avad with regards to an animal slaughtered by a Gentile: “for the Gentiles are like animals…and one who thinks of them as something [worthwhile] will gather the wind in his fist.” It is clear that this is not a simple Halachic argument merely explaining why he disagrees with Maimonides on matters of Halacha, but rather the expression of an entire outlook concerning the Gentiles. As far as an explanation is concerned, his words speak for themselves.

B. Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi

In the first part of his book The Kuzari, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi explains at length the nation of Israel’s exceptional nature and the difference between them and the other nations. To the Kuzari king’s question (paragraph 102): “Why was the Torah not given to all mankind? Would it not have been better or more commensurate with Divine wisdom?” the Rabbi answers (paragraph 103): “Would it not have been best if all the animals could speak? You have apparently forgotten what I said earlier concerning the genealogy of Adam’s progeny: that at first the spirit of Divine prophecy rested on one person, who was chosen from his brethren, and inherited the merit of his father. It was he in whom the Divine light was concentrated. He was the kernel, while the others were as shells which had no share in that light. Thus it was until the sons of Jacob came, who all were the meritorious kernel, distinguished from all the other people by G-dly qualities, which made them, so to speak, an different genus –an angelic one. Each of them, Divine endeavored to attain the degree of prophecy, most of them succeeded in so doing; even  those who were not successful were close to that degree in their pious acts, sanctity, purity, and interaction with the prophets.”

So we see that the Jews, because of their special spiritual level, are considered to be a genus different from all the other people.

C. The Maharal

The Maharal of Prague OBM, explains the saying of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, “You are called men” in a number of places. In the book Gevurot HaShem chapter 44 (page 167) he wrote: “…for even if all human beings have a common shape, there still is a distinction…there are nations who have more of a tendency towards the physical and their actions testify to this, for they are inclined towards lust and abominable things. This is evidence of their materialistic nature…and as we find animals, which are like an intermediary between man and the rest of the animal world, such as the monkey…likewise there exist men–who are not completely men. Therefore he [Rashbi] spoke of, the complete man who doesn’t gravitate towards materialism too much — these are the Jews, for they posses the complete form without a tendency towards materialism. However, as for the other nations, their form is nullified by their material aspect, until they, so to speak, cease to be ‘men,’ because their material aspect is primary and their form is secondary — and in everything which has both a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondaryaspect is always nullified by the primary aspect. With the Jews, however, the opposite is true, for their form is primary and their material aspect is secondary, and is therefore nullified.”

In chapter 67 (ibid., page 311-312) he wrote: “For even thought all human beings were created in the image of G-d, said it is written: ‘You are called men and the nations of the world are not called men,’ for the G-dly form that was placed in man should not be nullified. In the Gentiles, who are extremely materialistic, this form is nullified by the materialistic aspect until the form itself becomes materialistic. Concerning the Jews, however, the material aspect is nullified compared to the form, and since the material aspect is nullified by the form, they are considered men.”

Regarding what is written in Avot, chapter 3, mishnah 17 (in the Vilna edition, mishnah 14), “He used to say, ‘beloved is man for he is created in [G-d's] image,’ a greater love spreads upon him because he was created in [G-d's] image, as it is written: ‘For with G-d’s image He made man;’ beloved are Israel, for they are called G-d’s children. A greater love spreads upon them, for they are called G-d’s children, as is written, ‘You are the children of the Lord, your G-d’.” The Maharal wrote in his commentary on Avot, “Derech Chaim,” (Hanig edition, page 146; in R’ Chaim Pardes’s edition, page 354): “Even though it says ‘Beloved is man,’ this does not include all human beings, for Chazal said:’You are called men and the nations are not called men’ – as though the completeness of the Creation, which is given to man in particular, is given to the Jews and not to the other nations…And even though this advantage is only possessed by Israel, he said on this matter ‘beloved is man’ and not ‘beloved are Israel,’ because there is a great difference [between the two]. Even though this advantage is also possessed by Israel in particular, nevertheless, there does exist the form of man in the nations also. However, the principal form of man does not appear in the nations. In any case, this image does exist amongst the rest of the nations, but it is worthless, and therefore he did not say ‘beloved are Israel who were created in G-d’s image.’ Additionally, when man was created, this advantage was only possessed by Adam and Noah, even though they are not called ‘Israel.’ Though after G-d chose Israel this Image was lessened amongst the nations, nevertheless His image belongs to man in essence, and this matter is clear” (see also “Netzach Yisrael,” page 73).

In “Netzach Yisrael” chapter 14 (page 83) it is written: “…Israel is special and separate from all the Gentiles, for the Gentiles are on a materialistic level, whereas Israel is on the ‘form’ level…as Chazal said: ’You are called men and the nations are not called men,’ as though it were an ordinary thing for them, that the comparison between Israel and the Gentiles is similar to the comparison between man and animals who cannot speak, and this is because man is distinct from animals in that he is not materialistic and physical like the rest of the animal world; man is intelligent. This is the level of Israel, for they are distinguished from the material and are not immersed in it. Likewise with regards to Israel, the material is nullified compared to the soul; the material aspect is merely a transporter with the soul riding upon it, and the material is nullified, just like an ass is nullified and secondary with regards to one who rides on it. So is the matter with Israel, when they fulfil the will of G-d they alone are considered a transcendent form. However, in regards to the nations it is the exact opposite, as though their soul is nullified compared to the body, and as though they are only body and material.”

In “Tif’eret Yisrael,” at the end of the first chapter, the Maharal wrote: “…what Chazal said: ‘You are called men and the nations are not called men’…for the special difference between man and the animals is that man possess a Heavenly soul. Behold, those who possess this Heavenly soul are prepared for Heavenly matters such as prophecy and the Divine spirit, and this matter can only be found in the nation that G-d has chosen. Therefore they in particular are called ‘man,’ in completeness, in that they possess everything worthy of being called ‘man’… Therefore, ‘you are called men.’ Subsequently, the commandments as Heavenly actions, are particularly related to Israel in their entirety…”

Also in “Gur Aryeh” on the portion of Matot (page 164 s.v. v’ein ha’goyim) it is written: “…and this is what they said ‘You are called men and the nations are not called men,’ for the difference that exists between the animal world and man exists within you exceedingly, but the nations are not ‘men,’ for their souls are immersed in the material, associated with the materialistic animal world, and this matter is clear.”

D. The Ramchal

In the book “Derech Hashem,” part 2, section 4, the Ramchal explained at length the difference between Israel and the nations of the world:

One of the deepest concepts of G-d’s providence involves Israel and the other nations. With regards to their basic human characteristics, the two appear exactly alike. From the Torah’s viewpoint, however, the two are completely different, and are treated as ones belonging to completely different genera…

Before Adam sinned, he was on a level much higher than contemporary man… In that state, man was on a very lofty level, fit for a high degree of eternal excellence…He would have then sired future generations while still in that state of excellence. Their number would be accurately determined by G-d’s wisdom, depending on how those enjoying His good should best be perfected…

G-d had also determined and decreed that all these generations that would have been born of Adam should exist on various pre-determined levels. Some generations would thus be primary, while others would be secondary, like roots and branches. Later generations would stem from the earlier ones [and share their characteristics], like branches stemming from a tree…

However, when Adam sinned, he fell from his original high level, and brought upon himself a great degree of darkness and insensitivity…. Mankind in general also fell from its original height, and remained on a degraded level…He was thus only prepared and receptive to a much lower level, and it was in this state that his children were born…they were all born into this degraded state…

Nevertheless, even in the time of his downfall, the elevated aspect that existed in man as a result of his true root was not completely extinguished. Adam was therefore not cast aside completely, and could still return to the higher level. But he was actually on a lower plane with only the potential for the higher level.

Behold, G-d gave Adam’s descendants the choice, at that time, to strengthen themselves and strive to elevate themselves from this lower state and regain the higher level. The Highest Wisdom, however, determined the length of time best suited for such an effort…

The Highest Wisdom deemed it fitting that this effort be divided into a period for the roots and another for the branches. The original effort would thus be that of the founding generations, while what would come later would involve the following generations. The whole  human race still needed its state to be properly determined and the spiritual damage that had been done to be rectified gradually. The proper procedure…the roots and chiefs of Adam’s descendants would first elevate themselves to the rectified level — once this had been accomplished, both the roots and their branches would remain in this state forever, since the branches always follow the roots.

The time provided for generations to function as roots, however, was limited, so one…who prepared himself properly would permanently become a good and worthy root. He would then be prepared for a high degree of excellence, appropriate for man in his original state… He would also attain the opportunity to produce offspring…on the level and state already attained by him as their root.

The period during which this was possible extended from the time of Adam until the generation of the Tower of Babel. During this period there never ceased to be some righteous people who preached the truth to the multitudes, such as Enoch, Methuselah, Shem and Eber…Man’s measure was filled, however, in the generation of the Tower of Babel. G-d’s attribute of justice then decreed that the time when men could be considered roots should come to a close. Until this time, things could become a permanent part of these roots, depending on…until this period came to a close.

G-d then scrutinized all mankind, perceiving the levels that should be made permanent in that generation’s people according to their deeds. These things then became a permanent part of their nature in their aspect as roots…It was thus determined that they should bear future generations, all possessing the qualities that were deemed appropriate for their root [ancestor]. So all human beingswere thus divided into permanent genera, each with its own characteristics and limitations, just as all other genera in Creation…

According to the Highest Judgment, it turned out that none of them deserved to rise above the degraded level…not even a little bit. But Abraham, being the only exception,succeeded in elevating himself through his deeds, which led to him being chosen by G-d. Abraham was therefore permanently made into a superior and excellent tree, conforming to man’s highest level. It was further provided that he would be able to produce branches [and father a nation] based on his characteristics. The world was then divided into seventy nations, each on its own particular level in the general scheme. All of them, however, remained on the level of man in his fallen state, while only Israel became men in the elevated state.

After this, the gate was closed on the era of roots. Things would then be directed and brought about on the level of branches, each one according to his nature…. When this period ended, things were judged and made permanent, and a new era began. This is the era of branches, which is still ongoing…

The verdict, however, was not that the other nations should be destroyed. It only meant that they would have to remain on the lower level that we have discussed. This lower state of man should never have existed, had Adam not sinned…These nations still have the human aspect, blemished though it may be, so G-d desired that they should at least have a part of what was actually appropriate for the true mankind. He therefore granted them a divine soul somewhat like that of the Jew, even though it is not on the same level as Jewish souls are, but on a much lower level. They were likewise given commandments through which they could attain both material and spiritual advantages appropriate to their nature — the Seven Commandments given to the children of Noah.

In the World to Come, however, there will be no nation other than Israel. The souls of righteous Gentiles will be allowed to exist in the Future World, but only as an addition and attachment to Israel. They will therefore be secondary to the Jews, just as a garment is secondary to the one who wears it. All that they attain of the ultimate good will have to be attained in this manner, since by virtue of their nature they can receive no more.

Jews, therefore, are the “true humanity,” whereas the Gentiles are only “on a low level of humanity”; Jews “are true humanity from its authentic roots,” whereas the other nations are “all on the level of Man in his fallen state” — and therefore “are treated as ones belonging to completely different genera.”

One who reads the words of the Ramchal will notice how precisely he chose them and how accurately they represent the words of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, “You are called men.”

E. Rabbi Abraham Issac HaCohen Kook

In the book “Orot,” Orot Yisrael chapter 5, article 10 (page 156), Rabbi Kook wrote: “The difference between the Jewish soul, in all its independence, inner desires, longings, character and standing, and the soul of all the Gentiles, on all of their levels, is greater and deeper than the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of an animal, for the difference in the latter case is one of quantity, while the difference in the first case is one of essential quality.”

F. Rabbi Charlap

In the book “Mei Marom” on Tractate Avot, Rabbi Charlap wrote on the aforementioned mishnah (page 174): “And it is well known that the argument of the nations is that they will say, ‘Come, let us go to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the G-d of Jacob; He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths’ (Isaiah 2)…from this aspect they also possess the level of ‘man’ — however, this aspect is not theirs. It is only latent and concealed within them through by virtue of the Jews, and this virtue is called ‘man.’ This is what is meant by ‘beloved is man who was created in [G-d's] image.’ However, a greater love spreads upon Israel, for upon them appears the light of G-d’s image in all its holy shining…Therefore only Israel cling to the Living G-d, ‘And you who cling to the Lord your G-d are all living today’ — you, the Jews, and not the nations of the world…”

G. Rabbi Tzadok HaCohen of Lublin

In the book “Poked Akarim” page 19, column 3, he wrote: “Concerning what is explained in Yevamot, ‘You are called men,’ and not the other nations, [the meaning is] that the Gentiles were deprived of the title ‘men’ only where Israel were called ‘men,’ because in comparison to Israel, who are the primary form of man in the Divine Chariot, it is irrelevant to call any of the Gentiles ‘men’; at most, they are like animals in the form of men. Taken as themselves, however, all the children of Noah are considered men…and when the Messiah comes…they too will recognize and admit that there are none called ‘man’ except Israel…anyway, in comparison to Israel even now they are in the category of animals…”

In “Pri Tzadik” part 1, page 30, column 3, he wrote: “…before the Giving of the Torah, the souls of the nations and of Israel were all at one level, for good and evil and the filth of the snake were all combined. When Israel received the Torah and were chosen to be a special nation, the filth ceased to exist in them and consequently, the roots of their souls were separated [from those of the Gentiles]…And all the good was rooted and set aside for the souls of Israel, and all the evil found root in the souls of the other nations, for they all are part of the evil and  Satan’s camp…”

He wrote similarly in  ”Pri Tzadik,” part 5, page 76, column 2: “…for the nations, whose inner essence lacks any root of holiness, can easily be caused to falter…which is not the case concerning the holiness of Israel, who in their inner roots are clinging to G-d…”

In “Takanat HaShavin,” page 31, column 1 he wrote: “… for the source of the souls of Israel is from a different chamber than the souls of the other nations…and this soul has no connection whatsoever with the soul of the nations. Therefore, even if one converted to idolatry he is still considered a Jew with regards to the laws of marriage and divorce…”

H. The Arizal and Rabbi Chaim Vital

On the difference between souls of the Jews and Gentiles it is written in the book “Etz Chaim” (Heichal Abi’a, Sha’ar HaKlipot, chapter 2):

“So we find that Israel possesses the three levels of soul (nefesh, ruach, neshama) from holiness… The Gentiles, however, possess only the level of nefesh from the feminine side of the klipot…for the souls of the nations, which come from the klipot, are called ‘evil’ and not ‘good,’ are created without the da’at [knowledge], and therefore they also lack the ruach and neshama.”

In Sha’ar Klipat Noga, chapter 3, it is written: “Now you will understand what the animalistic soul of man is; it is the good and evil inclination in man. The soul of the Gentiles comes from the three klipot: wind, cloud, and fire, all of them evil. So is the case with impure animals, beasts, and birds. However, the animalistic soul of Israel and the animalistic soul of pure animals, beasts, and birds all come from [klipat] noga.”

In “Midrash Shmuel” on Tractate Avot (written by Rabbi Shmuel Di Osida OBM — one of the Kabbalists from Safad, who learned Kabbalah from the Arizal) on the aforementioned mishnah it is explained as follows:

Afterwards, I asked the magnificent and G-dly sage Rabbi Chaim of Vital to explain…if the sons of Noah are included in ‘beloved is man who was created in [G-d's] image’ or not. He answered that definitely the wicked [perhaps this is a distortion of the censor and it should state 'the Gentiles'] are not included in this statement, and the reason the term ‘man’ was used is because it is a more important title than ‘Israel’…additionally, the quarry from which the soul of Adam was taken is higher than that of Jacob our forefather…and since Adam was created in G-d’s image so all men follow him, that is to say, the holy and pure amongst them and the entire Jewish nation. Regarding the reason why the mishnah brings an argument from the verse ‘For in G-d’s image He made man,’ which seemingly alludes to the Seven Commandments of the sons of Noah, he answered that it would have been sufficient for the verse to have said, ‘Whoever sheds a man’s blood, his own blood shall be shed,’ so why is it written ‘man’s’?… It comes to tell us the reason why G-d decreed that one Gentile who kills another is punishable by death, for in reality who cares if a Gentile is killed, and punishment by payment would have been sufficient.Perhaps, however, a righteous man is destined to come out of his lineage…therefore G-d was stringent concerning the killing of a Gentile for, in effect, one who kills a Gentile is actually killing that potential righteous man, and therefore it is written ‘Whoever sheds a man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed,’ he spills the blood of that potential righteous person…and because of this aspect of holiness within a Gentile he is called ‘man,’ for if not, behold it is stated ‘you are called men,’ etc…

I further asked him whether from every Gentile righteous people are destined to emanate. If only there were one righteous Gentile from a city and two from a family!…yet ‘his blood shall be shed’ is part of a general verdict…He answered that a Gentile who murders is put to death only if there are witnesses, as the Targum Onkelos there translated the wordb’sahadia [according to the witnesses], and if there aren’t witnesses, he is exempt. Therefore G-d, Who knows the future, arranges that there would be no witnesses to the killing of a Gentile who does not have the potential of producing a righteous person from his lineage…

I. The Tanya

In the Tanya chapter 1 (page 5b) it is written: “The explanation of this matter is according to what the Rabbi Chaim Vital OBM wrote…that every Jew, whether he is righteous or wicked, has two souls, as it says, ‘And the souls I have made’ — that is, two souls: one soul from the side of the klipa and Satan’s camp… also naturally good character traits that are found in every Jew, such as mercifulness and charitable deeds, stem from it, for in the Jew, the soul of thisklipa comes from klipat noga which also contains good…But it is not the case concerning Gentile souls, for they stem from other impure klipot which contain no good…and the second soul of the Jew is surely part of G-d on high…”

In the end of chapter 6 it is written: “The klipot are divided into two levels…the lower level consists of three impure and completely evil klipot which contain no good whatsoever…from there the souls of the Gentiles are influenced and drawn, as are the bodies and the souls of all impure animals which are forbidden to eat…However, the vital animalistic soul in the Jews, which stems from the klipa…and the souls of pure animals, beasts, birds, and fish which are permitted to eat…are influenced and drawn from the second level of the klipot…which is called klipat noga…and the majority of it is evil, combined with a slight amount of good…”

It is evident that what Ra’avad, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi, the Maharal, the Ramchal, Rav Kook, Rav Charlap, and Rav Tzadok wrote in the language of the Revealed Teaching, each in his own style, has been said by the Ari, Rabbi Chaim Vital, the “Midrash Shmuel,” and the Tanya in the language of the Secret Teaching — and the intention is the same.

J. The “Tosephot Yom Tov”

We have found, however, slight differences in the “Tosephot Yom Tov” commentary on the aforementioned mishnah: “‘Beloved is man for he is created in [G-d's] image’… Rabbi Akiva spoke of all men…and Rabbi Akiva’s intention was all men including the Gentiles. Maimonides stated explicitly in chapter 8 of The Laws of Kings (halacha 10): ‘Moses our teacher was commanded by the Mighty One to force the Gentiles to accept the commandments of the sons of Noah…Anyone who accepts the Seven Commandments and is careful to fulfill them is considered a righteous Gentile and receives a portion in the World to Come. This depends upon him accepting and fulfilling them because G-d had so commanded in the Torah…’ And for Rabbi Akiva came to communicate to the entire world what we have been commanded by Moses our teacher as Maimonides stated…And it is appropriate to say that they were created ‘in an Image’ — however, [the mishnah] did not mention whose image it is –  namely “G-d’s” — as it is mentioned in the verse. These are also is words of rebuke, to reprove and inform them that they are created in an image — but in what type of image? In the image of G-d…however, since they do not fulfill His commandments, and even if they do, it is not out of a knowledge that G-d commanded them – behold, they are lacking the designation of G-d’s image…”

K. The “Tif’eret Yisrael”

On the aforementioned mishnah he wrote: “…since the mishnah ends with the words ‘Beloved are Israel,’ we understand that the beginning is speaking about all mankind, that is to say, even Gentiles. Another consideration is that the Tanna derives his statement from the verse ‘[G-d] made man’ which includes Gentiles, too, for this was said to the sons of Noah…from this we understand that the Gentiles also possess G-d’s image of G-d…”

And in his commentary on this mishnah in “Boaz,” he interpreted the saying “You are called men” in a very surprising fashion:

…therefore, Israel and the other nations each have their own unique levels. The advantage the nations have over Israel is that they have actually made themselves through their own free will and their own might, and this is certainly an advantage over Israel who were completed only through Heavenly intervention…that G-d did wonders to complete them…Nevertheless, Israel also possesses a unique level, for the Gentiles have reached their levels only through their own human intellect. Therefore, there are many commandments in the Torah which are above and beyond the human intellect, as are all the decrees [chukim, that is, laws which have no rationale behind them] of the Torah. The Gentiles do not observe these commandments, since they do not understand them…. Therefore, any of them who is ignorant…is still wallowing in the abominable filth of the earlier generations, as the majority of the inhabitants of Africa do…

Correspondingly, the completion of the level of Israel is similar to that of Adam, for all people are created without knowledge at birth, and with time and learning the intellect develops…but this was not true in the case of Adam, who was created at his full height and stature…with knowledge and intellect, and the realization of all his responsibilities. Therefore he was judged similarly to Israel in that he too was the handiwork of G-d, as Israel were…

Therefore, every place in the Torah where it says ‘man,’ the sole intention is Israel…for the term ‘man’ is not fit for them [the nations], for they gained their status only through difficult efforts and do not resemble Adam at all. However, every place where it is written ‘the sons of man’ includes the Gentiles also.… In conclusion, therefore, the fact that only Jews are called ‘man’ is not particularly praise for them, it only testifies that not they themselves peeled the thick layer from over their closed hearts, but rather it was the result of their being G-d’s handiwork.

The approach presented here is, undoubtedly, entirely different from what we have previously seen. (Attention should be paid to the large differences between the “Tif’eret Yisrael” and “Tosephot Yom Tov”).

L. Rabbi Tzvi Chiut

Rabbi Tzvi Chiut has an opinion similar to that of the “Tif’eret Yisrael.” Thus he wrote in his novellae on Yevamot 61a (printed at the end of the Vilna edition of that tractate): “Incidentally, the intention of Chazal here is not to exclude the other nations from the term ‘man,’ but rather to explain that wherever the word ‘man’ is used on its own in the Torah or Holy Writ, the intention is only the Jews, as in the religious literature and customs of any particular nation wherever it is stated ‘All men are warned or obligated to do such and such,’ the intention is only to those to whom it pertains. Similarly in the Torah and in the Prophets, wherever the term ‘man’ is used on its own, it pertains only to the Jews, for it is only they who are addressed, with the obvious exception of prophecies explicitly directed to the other nations; and the matter is simple.”

M. The Zohar

The opinion of the Zohar on this subject is crystal-clear, unlike the words of the “Tif’eret Yisrael” and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut. In “Raya Mehemna” on the portion of Pinchas, page  238b it is written: “‘And G-d said: let us make man’…that is, ‘let us make mankind in our image, after our likeness,’ and the rabbis established that there is no ‘man’ except for the Jews, as it states: ‘But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, you are men’ — You are men and not the other nations, and because of this ‘let Israel rejoice in Him who made them’.

On the portion of Yitro (page 86a) it is written: “Rabbi Shimon taught: Israel merited that G-d called them ‘men,’ as it is written ‘But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, you are men,’ ‘If any man of you brings an offering.’ Why are they called ‘men’? For it is written ’And you who cling to the Lord your G-d’ — you and not the other nations, and because of this ‘you are men’ — you are called men…” And the Ramak OBM wrote on this in his commentary “Or Yakar” (volume 8, page 214): “…G-d testified for the Jews that they cling to the secret of nobility and the supreme form which is called ‘man,’ as it is said, “If any man of you bring an offering,” which shows that you [the Jews] are ‘men’ and the nations are not ‘men,’ and this explanation is necessarily derived from the verse, ‘But you My flock, the flock of My pasture, you are men,’ the explanation of which apparently is: you are called ‘men’ and not the nations of the world. From there we learn what ‘if any man of you bring an offering’ means — and this is what these two verses teach us. So he testified that this level cannot be achieved by any human being except the Jews alone…”

On the portion of Breishit (page 20b) the Zohar says:

These lights sketch the lower figure to fix the figure of all those who are included in the term “man,” an inner figure — [which is called the "face of man" -- the Sulam commentary]. For all figures are called “men,” and all figures which are included in this expansion are called “men,” as the verse says “you are men,” you are called “men.” You and all the spirits are called “men.” [For all inner figures are thus called -- "the face of man"… for all figures included in this expansion…are called by the name 'men"…and this is what is written "You are 'men"…the souls are also called by the name "men," as they interpret the verse, "You are called men"… and all the spirits are also called by the name "men," that is to say, only an aspect of the light of the spirit, whose dress is the body, is called by this name, "men" -- the Sulam.] The spirit of the holy side, his body is only a dress of the ‘man,’ and this is what is written, “You dressed me in skin and flesh, and covered me with bones and sinews”…The flesh is only the dress of “man,” as is written, “flesh of man” –the “man” is inside, and the flesh is only the dressing of the “man” – his body. The lower aspects, which were blended from this spirit [the "face of man" -- the Sulam], became an essence from which figures were sketched – figures which were covered by different dresses [and not by the dress of "man" -- the Sulam], that is, the figures of pure animals: ”The bovine, the sheep and the goat; The gazelle, the deer and the fallow deer; and the ibex and the addax; and the wild ox and the wild sheep” — and these could be covered by the dress of the “man” [the "face of man" -- the Sulam], that is, by the body of the “man.”

The Ramak wrote in his commentary “Or Yakar,” (volume 2, page 31): “‘His body is only a dress of the “man,” etc.’ — this means that although one may find that the bodily features of the Gentiles and the Jews are the same, the meaning of the word ‘man’ is not the body. For were it so, their saying “‘You are called man’ would not be just. But rather the body is only a dress of what is within him — namely the spirit, and the body is only a dress for the spirit, that is the ‘flesh of man’: ‘man’ — the spirit, ‘flesh of man’ — the garment of man. And for this reason the Jews, who are holy, are called ‘men.’ ’The lower aspects, which were blended, etc.’, they are holy and not impure, but not at the level of man; however they are blended from the holy spirit, which expands increasingly, and reaches the final levels of holiness…”

In continuation of the Zohar there it is written:

…in a similar fashion [as it is with the holy spirit of "man" and pure animals -- the Sulam] it is concerning Satan’s camp, which is impure. The spirit which spreads to the other nations stems from the impure side, and is not the aspect of “man” — and therefore it is not called by this nameand does not have a share in it. [As was mentioned previously, "You are called men, etc. " -- the Sulam]… Its body is the dress of “impure” [the spirit whose name is "impure," and it is not called by the name "man" and has no share in it -- the Sulam], the impure flesh in which the impure spirit is dressed… The lower aspects, which were blended from this spirit, became an essence from which figures were sketched — figures, which were covered by different dresses, that is, the figures of impure animals, and the Torah started describing them with the words, “And these are impure for you” – such as the pig, birds, and animals of Satan’s camp. The spirit which permeates them is called impure, and their bodies are the dress of that spirit, therefore it says, “flesh of pig” — pig is it inside, and the flesh is only the dressing of the “pig.”

Therefore these two sides separated one from another: one is included in the secret of “man” ["the face of man," -- the Sulam], and the other is included in the secret of “impure.”And every genus takes the side of the genera similar to it, and clings to them. [That is, the spirit of "man" represents the general aspect of the side of holiness, and the spirits of pure animals, beasts, and birds represent its particular aspects, derived from the general one. On the other hand, the spirit ofa "wicked man" represents the general aspect of the impure (side), and the spirits of the impure animals, beasts, and birdsrepresent particular aspects derived from it. These are two opposite orders. Animals of every species are attracted to their specific species, without mixing with the opposite side; even if they did mix at one point, finally they will return to their species -- the 'Sulam'.]

These are the the Zohar’s words.

Behold, before us lies the inner, deep explanation of the words of Rashbi, “You are called men,” and also an exalted and faithful source for the aforementioned words of Rabbi Chaim Vital and the Tanya.

Furthermore, in the portion of Bereishit (page 47a) on the verse “Let the waters teem with swarms of creatures that have a living soul” the Zohar writes: “Rabbi Aba said: the verse ‘creatures that have a living soul,’ pertains to the Jews, for they are the sons of G-d, and from Him come their holy souls… And the souls of the other nations, where do they come from? Rabbi Elazar said: they have souls from the impure left side, and therefore they are all impure, defiling anyone who comes near them.”

In the continuation there it is written: Rabbi Elazar said: it supports what we said above, ’that have a living soul’ — these are the Jews, for they have the high and holy living soul. And the verse, ’Animals, creeping things, and beasts of the earth, each to its kind,’ refers to the Gentiles, for they have no living soul, but only the prepuce, as we said above [that they stem from powers of the left side which defile them -- the Sulam].”

In the end of the portion of Vayikra (page 25b) the Zohar says: “Come and see the difference between Israel and the rest of the nations. Even though a man from Israel merited only a nefesh, he remains on his level; [and the higher levels are also open before him -- the Sulam] if he wants to merit ruach or if he wants to merit a neshamah… [in the printed editions it is added: 'he can obtain and merit it' and thus also explains the Sulam]. The Gentiles, however, can never obtain more [than their impure nefesh, -- the Sulam] except if one of them is circumcised, for then he merits ‘nefesh for nefesh’ –  a nefesh from a different source [from the holy side-- the Sulam]. In ‘Or Yakar’ (volume 12, page 100) it is explained: “Can never obtain more; even the righteous Gentiles do not merit holiness, except only from superficial levels…”

The Zohar’s words are very clear, and most definitely cannot conform to the words of the “Tif’eret Yisrael” and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut.

Summary

We have seen two opinions concerning the question of whether or not the Gentiles possess G-d’s image and the interpretation of the saying “You are called men.”:

1. The Ra’avad and the Kuzari, the Maharal and the Ramchal, Rav Kook and Rav Charlap, the Ari and the Ramak, Rav Chaim Vital, the Tanya, Rav Tzadok HaCohen and the Midrash Shmuel all stated in the same manner — the Gentiles are considered similar to beasts, lacking the complete G-dly image, and [the grounds for] their words are explicated in countless places in the Zohar. (The quotes from the Zohar previously brought are just a few examples of statements which appear throughout the Zohar and Tikunim).

2. In contrast, we have seen the opinions of the ”Tif’eret Yisrael” and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut (who apparently never saw the words of the Zohar and the aforementioned great Torah scholars) that the Gentiles are also considered “men” and also possess G-d’s image.

If we had to choose between the two opinions, undoubtedly the weight of the Zohar and the giants of Kabbalistic wisdom and Jewish thought is beyond any comparison greater than of the ‘Tiferet Yisrael’ and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut.Moreover, even the Halachic sources presented in this essay, express a view totally different from that of these two Torah scholars. How, for example, would they consider the words of Midrash HaGadol concerning pouring of the anointing oil: “…if it was poured on an animal or utensils, or on Gentiles who are like animals…”? Or the words of the Tosephta in the beginning of Chulin: “…an animal slaughtered by a Gentile is unfit, and an animal slaughtered by a monkey is unfit…?” Or the words of the Talmud in Bava Kama 49a, that a pregnant maidservant is like a “pregnant ass”? Or the statement of Rav Shila in Berachot 58a: “Are they not called asses”? Furthermore, in the words of the prophet Ezekiel the son of Buzi the Gentiles are also likened to animals.

Additionally, all those Halachic laws that we mentioned, like the ones concerning murder of a Gentile or saving of his life, causing damage to his property and returning his lost item, seem unjust and incomprehensible according to approach of these two scholars. If a Gentile also possess G-d’s image, why isn’t a Jew who murders him for no just reason put to death, as it is written (Genesis 9:6), “Whoever sheds a man’s blood,  through man shall his blood be shed, for in G-d’s image he made the man”? According to the words of the prophet, the sayings of Chazal and almost all of the great Torah scholars, that the Gentiles in truth are not called “men” it is understood; only one who murders a “man” in the full sense of the word is put to death by a Beit Din. However, according to the “Tif’eret Yisrael” and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut, if Gentiles are also “men,” what is there to say? (In an attempt to rationalize and understand how they could have written words so far removed from the words of Chazal, it can be said that the “Tif’eret Yisrael” and Rabbi Tzvi Chiut wrote what they wrote words in the atmosphere of blood libels and pogroms against the Jews. They saw fit, therefore, to explain the matters in a way that would put the minds of the slanderers and censurers at rest. The truth, in any case, remains the same.)

Another example — how can one explain the fact that there were Tanna’im who held that it is permitted to steal from and rob a Gentile according to the Torah’s law? What place is there for such an opinion if indeed G-d’s image is present in Gentiles? How can stealing from another person be permitted? However, according to the view that G-d’s image is present in Gentiles only in an insignificant measure, and that their souls come from an impure source similar to that of unclean animals, the difficulty disappears — just as there is no prohibition against stealing from an animal, so too is it permitted to steal from a Gentile, for the difference is merely quantitative and not qualitative, as is explained in the aforementioned words of Rav Kook. While the view which maintains that stealing from a Gentile is prohibited by the Torah — the view which Halacha follows — is based on the consideration that the difference existing between Gentiles and the beasts is sufficient to prohibit stealing from Gentiles.

Conclusion

From all that mentioned above it is clear that views presented by certain personalities, including [former] Knesset member Professor A. Shaki, Rabbi Lichtenstein and Rabbi Amital, and Mr. Yochanan Ben-Ya’akov, do not represent the truth of the Torah. Simple and clear Halachic laws, whose foundations are in the words of the Living G-d, clearly state the difference “between the two bloods” (in the words of Ms. Huberman) — between Jew and Gentile.

There is no escaping the facts: the Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as “man,” and a Gentile. This distinction is expressed in a long list of Halachic laws, be they monetary laws, the laws of the Temple, capital laws or others. Even one who is not an erudite Torah scholar is obligated to recognize this simple fact; it cannot be erased or obscured.

It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce “compromises” or “renovations” into it. Any attempt to bypass or ignore certain things will not succeed. Perhaps one may view the aforementioned Halachic laws as an expression of racism; another may see in them baseless hate towards any Gentile. However, for the Jew who is devoted to the Torah as it is, this is the reality and the living path which has been set for the Jewish nation by the word of G-d.

One who carefully studies the sources cited previously will realize the abysmal difference between the concepts “Jew” and “Gentile” — and consequently, he will understand why Halacha differentiates between them.

The Torah of Israel is a set of instructions for life, and about those who cling to it as it is, the verse says: “And you who cling to the Lord your G-d, you are all living today.”

In conclusion, there is nothing more appropriate and fitting than the words of Rav Kook in “Orot” (Orot Yisrael 8, paragraph 5, page 169): “The expansiveness of heart which occasionally attempts to consume the entire world, all humanity, into the special love which spreads over Israel, calls for examination. When the recognition of the special, holy excellence of Israel endures in its distinction, and through this clarification, love and affection spreads with good cheer to every nation and person as one, this is the character trait of Abraham our forefather, the father of many nations,  [of whom it is said,] ‘And in you shall all of the families of the earth be blessed — and in your seed.’ Sometimes, though, the foundation of this expansion of affection stems from a dullness of emotions and a dimming of the holy light of recognition of the supreme Jewish uniqueness,and then it is poisonous, and the content of its activation is full of awesome destruction, from which one must distance himself as he would from an ox which has been proven dangerous, [as it is said,] ‘And the gate is battered to ruins,’ ‘I myself have seen it gore as an ox’.”

+ + +

[Jesus Christ:] ”Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city.”

Gospel translation: New King James.

Talmud quotes from The Soncino Babylonian Talmud, trans. Eng. Rabbi DR. I. Epstein, B.A., Ph.D., D. Lit., The Soncino Press, London, 1935-1948.

Maimonides

Hilchot Avodat Cochavim (Idolatry and Idolators) 10.6:

The laws concerning the sale of property and support of the poor, et cetera, mentioned in this chapter apply only when the Jews are exiled amongst the nations, or when they are attacking the Jews, but when we are attacking them it is forbidden to have them in our midst. Concerning temporary residence or moving from one rented house to another; we may not allow a gentile into our land unless he has accepted upon himself the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, for it is written, “They shall not dwell in your land”, even for a single hour. If a gentile accepted upon himself the Seven Commandments then he is classed as a settling stranger. Settling strangers are accepted only at a time when the Jubilee is observed, but a righteous stranger,i.e. a convert, is accepted at all times.

‘Passion’ Follows the Scripture

Gibson’s controversial film coincides closely with ancient Jewish writings

By David Klinghoffer, Los Angeles Times, January 1, 2004

Mel Gibson’s forthcoming movie about the death of Jesus, “The Passion,” has created an angry standoff between the filmmaker and Jewish critics who charge him with anti-Semitism. It’s a controversy that will continue to affect relations between Christians and Jews unless some way to cool it can be found. One possible cooling agent is an honest look at how ancient Jewish sources portrayed the Crucifixion.

According to those who have seen a rough cut, Gibson’s film depicts the death of Christ as occurring at the hands of the Romans but at the instigation of Jewish leaders, the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. The Anti-Defamation League charges that this recklessly stirs anti-Jewish hatred and demands that the film be edited to eliminate any suggestion of Jewish deicide.

But like the Christian Gospels that form the basis of Gibson’s screenplay, Jewish tradition acknowledges that our leaders in 1st century Palestine played a role in Jesus’ execution. If Gibson is an anti-Semite, so is the Talmud and so is the greatest Jewish sage of the past 1,000 years, Maimonides. [No. The greatest Jewish sage of the past 1,000 years would be Franz Kafka.]

We will never know for certain what happened in Roman Palestine around the year 30 [actually, "we" do know; it's recorded in the Gospels], but we do know what Jews who lived soon afterward said about Jesus’ execution.

The Talmud was compiled in about the year 500, drawing on rabbinic material that had been transmitted orally for centuries. From the 16th century on, the text was censored and passages about Jesus and his execution were erased to evade Christian wrath. But the full text was preserved in older manuscripts, and today the censored parts may be found in minuscule type, as an appendix at the back of some Talmud editions.

A relevant example comes from the Talmudic division known as Sanhedrin, which deals with procedures of the Jewish high court: “On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for 40 days [saying, 'Jesus] goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.’ And they found nothing in his favor.”

The passage indicates that Jesus’ fate was entirely in the hands of the Jewish court. The last two of the three items on Jesus’ rap sheet, that he “enticed and led astray” fellow Jews, are terms from Jewish biblical law for an individual who influenced others to serve false gods, a crime punishable by being stoned, then hung on a wooden gallows. In the Mishnah, the rabbinic work on which the Talmud is based, compiled about the year 200, Rabbi Eliezer explains that anyone who was stoned to death would then be hung by his hands from two pieces of wood shaped like a capital letter T in other words, a cross (Sanhedrin 6:4).

These texts convey religious beliefs, not necessarily historical facts. The Talmud elsewhere agrees with the Gospel of John that Jews at the time of the Crucifixion did not have the power to carry out the death penalty. Also, other Talmudic passages place Jesus 100 years before or after his actual lifetime. Some Jewish apologists argue that these must therefore deal with a different Jesus of Nazareth. But this is not how the most authoritative rabbinic interpreters, medieval sages like Nachmanides, Rashi and the Tosaphists, saw the matter.

Maimonides, writing in 12th century Egypt, made clear that the Talmud’s Jesus is the one who founded Christianity. In his great summation of Jewish law and belief, the Mishneh Torah, he wrote of “Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by the court.” In his “Epistle to Yemen,” Maimonides states that “Jesus of Nazareth interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment. [By the way, this is rubbish. This Maomonides character obviously hasn't a clue what he's talking about.] The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.”

It’s unfair of Jewish critics to defame Gibson for saying what the Talmud and Maimonides say, and what many historians say. Oddly, one of the scholars who has most vigorously denounced Gibson Paula Fredriksen, a professor of religious studies at Boston University is the author of a meticulously researched book, Jesus of Nazareth, that suggests it was the high priests who informed on Jesus to the Roman authorities.

Would it have been better if Gibson never undertook to make this movie in exactly the way he did? Maybe, but trying to intimidate him into fundamentally reworking it was never a realistic or worthy goal. The best option now is to acknowledge that other sources besides the Gospels confirm the involvement of Jewish leaders in Jesus’ death and clear the anger from the air. Considering that Gibson’s portrayal coincides closely with traditional Jewish belief, it seems that leaving him alone is the decent as well as the Jewish thing to do.

David Klinghoffer is a columnist for the Jewish Forward and author of theThe Discovery of God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism (Doubleday, 2003) and the upcoming Why the Jews Rejected Christ: In Search of the Turning Point in Western History.

The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 2

When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?” 

Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.”

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is onlythe third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God,
That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh;
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
Your young men shall see visions,
Your old men shall dream dreams.

And on My menservants and on My maidservants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days;
And they shall prophesy.

I will show wonders in heaven above
And signs in the earth beneath:
Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.

The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

And it shall come to pass
That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
Shall be saved.’ [Joel 2:28-–32]

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. For David says concerning Him:

‘ I foresaw the LORD always before my face,
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.

Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad;
Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.

For You will not leave my soul in Hades,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

You have made known to me the ways of life;
You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’ [Psalm 16:8-–11]

Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:

‘The LORD said to my Lord,

” Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”‘ [Psalm 110:1]

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty

By Paul Vallely, The Guardian, 16 April 2004

The news that the bankers Rothschild are to withdraw from the gold market, in which they have been a major player for two centuries, has been hailed as the end of an era.

In one sense, of course, it is. This was the company that smuggled gold coins across the English Channel to finance the Duke of Wellington’s advance through France to his final triumph at Waterloo over Napoleon (who, it turned out, had also borrowed money from the Rothschilds).

But in another way it marks out the continuation of an even older tradition – the ability of the family which has founded one of the world’s largest private banking dynasties to sustain their secretive fortune, which industry insiders count not in billions but in trillions, and keep it within the family.

Secrecy has been a hallmark of the Rothschilds from the outset. Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the son of an itinerant money lender and goldsmith who settled in the Jewish ghetto in Frankfurt-am-Main in 1744, specialised not just in clever accounting practices but also kept secret books and subterranean vaults which he ensured were never the privy of auditor, lawyer or taxman.

As the paterfamilias became more successful he despatched four of his five sons to different European capitals to take advantage of the rise of capitalism and the growth of international trade. Nathan he sent to London, James to Paris, Saloman to Vienna, and Carl to Naples, keeping the eldest, Amschel, at home with him in Prussia. Of these the two most important proved to be London and Paris, where the two main branches of the family developed a friendly rivalry, with the English branch developing the edge in business and the French in philanthropy, the arts and winemaking. But then in 1996 Amschel Rothschild, a 41-year-old man who had lived in the flamboyant style of many of his ancestors, hanged himself in a Paris hotel room. He was the Rothschild who had been groomed to take over as head of the English arm of the dynasty.

So when the bank’s chairman Sir Evelyn de Rothschild retired earlier this year the succession passed to the French side of the family. Baron David de Rothschild, who had been running the family’s Paris-based bank, inherited.

None of the Rothschild enterprises have been banks in the sense as understood by the man or woman in the street. What Mayer Rothschild founded in the 1760s was a business which grew from the humble beginning of selling rare coins to becoming the prime moneylender to greedy and spendthrift governments across Europe. One German contemporary quipped that Mayer was “the pride of Israel … before whose money box kings and emperors humbly bow”. And the novelist Thackeray said of Nathan that he was “not king of the Jews, but the Jew of the kings”. The brothers financed both sides in the Napoleonic wars and in the Austro-Prussian war too.

It has long been supposed that Nathan increased the family fortune 20-fold by speculating on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. The Rothschilds had a network of agents throughout Europe who, using fast boats, coded letters and carrier pigeons, got information to the family ahead of official sources. Victor Rothschild, third baron and former chairman of the London bank, N M Rothschild, always maintained that Nathan had made a killing by encouraging rumours that Wellington had lost when he knew he had won, though the historian Niall Ferguson in his magisterial history of the family recently disputed that.

Certainly, for all the family motto of Concordia, Integritas, Industria (Unity, Integrity, Industry), Nathan’s ability to depress stock prices by using the network of agents to spread rumours, true or false, and then buy the stock up after people panicked, was legendary.

More significant, however, was that in the process the Rothschilds created the world of banking as we know it today. Nathan operated principally as an underwriter and speculator in the early 19th-century bond market. He and his brothers invented, or at any rate popularised, the government bond, which allowed investors, big and small, to buy bits of the debts of sovereign states by purchasing fixed-interest bearer bonds.

Governments liked this because they could use them to raise colossal sums of money. Investors liked them because they could be traded – at prices that fluctuated in relation to the performance of the issuing government – and shrewd investors could make big sums. It brought investment in railways, the industrial revolution and ventures like the Suez Canal. The Rothschilds got a cut of everything.

It was a new kind of power. “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply,” Nathan said. The family developed a lack of awe for the powerful and important. A pompous aristocrat one day called on Nathan who was head down at his desk. Without looking up, the banker said: “Take a chair.” His caller, affronted, said: “You are speaking to the Prince of Thurn and Taxis.” To which Rothschild replied: “Take two chairs.” At one point he even rescued the Bank of England after a run on gold caused the collapse of 145 banks. In 1885 he was given the hereditary title of Baron Rothschild.

Many of the distinct characteristics of the family can be traced back to the will of the founder Mayer Rothschild. It stipulated that no public inventory should be made of his estate; that key positions in the House of Rothschild were to be held by family members; that the eldest son should inherit unless the rest agreed otherwise; that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together; that anyone disputing these terms would be struck from the will. And that all this should apply in perpetuity.

In part this was about preserving not just their Jewish identity but a self-conscious position as role models for their poorer co-religionists. The Rothschilds expended much effort and money pressing for Jewish emancipation and equality across the continent.

Their Jewish solidarity was not heterogeneous. In 1938 Nathan’s great-great-grandson, Victor, shocked an audience by saying that in spite of “the slow murder of 600,000 people” on the continent “we probably all agree that there is something unsatisfactory in refugees encroaching on the privacy of our country, even for relatively short periods of time.” And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world. None of which has allayed the wild fears of anti-Semites who throughout the 20th century branded the Rothschilds as part of a Jewish plot to take over the world.

The world has changed around the Rothschilds. At one point Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in Britain and probably in the world. In today’s terms he was wealthier than Bill Gates. But they never gained the foothold in America they needed. The world became corporate. Private banking got left behind.

Still, the family has moved down only from fabulously rich to enormously wealthy. And they adjusted to the times. They made billions in the 1980s from Margaret Thatcher’s privatisations of state-owned industries on which they advised. In France after their bank was nationalised by the Socialist president Francois Mitterrand they slowly built a new business which, under Baron David de Rothschild, has risen to the top ranks of the merger and acquisition league tables. They have pulled out of retail fund management – into which they went with much fanfare only three years back – and now they are pulling out of oil and gold in favour of the higher-margin areas of private banking and wealth management.

Do not spend too many tears. In 1997 the family’s Swiss holding company increased its profits by 66 per cent. The firm is not called Rothschild Continuation for nothing.

Eugenics in Israel: Did Jews try to improve the human race too?

[This is a disingenuous title, Jews have played a major -- and disproportionate -- part in the Eugenics movement (esp. in the US and Germany), and still do. This article is reproduced since Zionism is inseparable from discussions about racial superiority and purity. In fact, racial purity is a constant Talmudic Jewish obsession.]

By Yotam Feldman, Haaretz

In 1944, psychiatrist Kurt Levinstein gave a lecture at a Tel Aviv conference, where he advocated preventing people with various mental and neurological disorders – such as alcoholism, manic depression and epilepsy – from bringing children into the world.

The means he proposed – prohibition of marriage, contraception, abortion and sterilization – were acceptable in Europe and the United States in the first decades of the 20th century, within the framework of eugenics: the science aimed at improving the human race.

In the 1930s, the Nazis used these same methods in the early stages of their plan to strengthen the Aryan race. Levinstein was aware, of course, of the dubious political connotations implicit in his recommendations, but believed the solid and salutary principles of eugenics could be isolated from their use by the Nazis. [This is true of most of the German Jewish eugenicists, who often argued that Jews and Aryans were the superior races, and felt that the Nazi "misinterpretation" of racial supremecism was an unfortunate and temporary development.]

Recent research by historian Rakefet Zalashik on the history of psychiatry in Palestine during the Mandate period and following the founding of the state shows that Levinstein was far from a lone voice. Indeed, she claims in her 2008 book, “Ad Nefesh: Refugees, Immigrants, Newcomers and the Israeli Psychiatric Establishment” (Hakibbutz Hameuchad; in Hebrew), that the eugenics-based concept of “social engineering” was part of the psychiatric mainstream here from the 1930s through the 1950s.

Jewish psychiatrists in Israel were not the only ones who tried to distinguish between the science of eugenics, which they held to be useful, and the Nazis’ application of it. What set the local experts apart was that they actually studied the foundations of the theory in Germany before immigrating to Palestine, directly from the scientists [including, disproportionately, Jews] who supported using eugenics to forcibly sterilize mentally ill and physically disabled Germans – and subsequently to justify their murder. Within a few years, the German scientists were using the same justification for killing Jews.

Many of the Jewish psychiatrists subscribed to their German colleagues’ conception of the Jews as a race, relying on the theory that was developed in Europe, says Zalashik. However, upon their arrival in Palestine, they encountered Jews of different types and began to distinguish between the race of European Jews, and that of the Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews (of Middle Eastern and North African origin).

Thus, for example, psychiatrist Avraham Rabinovich, who worked in the Ezrat Nashim facility in Jerusalem and later managed a mental institution in Bnei Brak, drew a distinction in his patient reports from 1921-1928 between the general population, and Jews of Bukharan, Georgian and Persian descent, whom he referred to as “primitive races.”

In explaining why the latter were less affected by mental illness, he wrote: “Their consciousness, with its meager content, does not place any special demands on life, and it slavishly submits to the outward conditions, and for this reason, does not enter into confrontation and so gives rise to a relatively very small percentage of functional illnesses in the nervous system and in terms of mental illness in particular.”

The views of these psychiatrists meshed with the goals of the Zionist movement, which at the time propounded a policy of selective immigration.

“Eugenics was a part of the national philosophy of most of [the local] psychiatrists,” says Zalashik. “The theory was that a healthy nation was needed in order to fulfill the Zionist vision in Israel. There was a powerful economic aspect to this view of things – the idea being to prevent people who were perceived as a burden on society from bringing children into the world. And homosexuals and frigid women also fell into this category.”

Psychiatrist Kochinsky, for one, argued in 1938 in the journal Harefuah that the findings of a census of the mentally ill in Palestine should serve primarily as “a basis for methods to improve the race.”

Zalashik maintains that such outlooks, as well as other false and harmful assumptions upon which Israeli psychiatry was based in its early years, led to the adoption of inappropriate and sometimes cruel forms of treatment, whose effects on the mental health system in the country are still being felt today.

In her new book, Zalashik chronicles the history of the psychiatric community, which began to take shape in the 1930s with the arrival of dozens of Jewish psychiatrists from German-speaking countries following the Nazis’ rise to power. According to her research, at the end of 1933, there were only three psychiatrists working in this country; by the end of World War II, that number had grown to 70. These psychiatrists were influenced by the hypotheses and findings of extensive research conducted in the countries of their birth regarding mental disorders unique to Jews, which was part of the Germans’ attempt to explain “the Jewish problem” in biological and medical terms.

“Both Jewish and non-Jewish doctors were wont to think that Jews had a greater tendency to develop mental illness than others,” says Zalashik. “The debate was about whether this was because of race, or environmental factors: The Jews said that Jews suffer from mental illnesses because they endured hardship and pogroms, and live in cities where there is more stress and tension than in rural areas. The non-Jews reached the same conclusion, but based it on the argument that Jews were different biologically and genetically.”

Zalashik contends that the question of whether the basic premise is accurate is irrelevant to historians. “What’s relevant is that the Jewish minority, particularly in Germany, went from being considered a social problem to a medical problem.”

Upon immigrating to Israel, the Jewish psychiatrists did not give up the theories in which they had been educated; instead, they adapted them to the newfound situation.

Zalashik: “If, in Europe, the tendency to develop mental illness was said to attest to the Jews’ inferiority, then in Palestine it showed the superiority of the pioneers over the Jews from the Old Yishuv [pre-state community]: The psychiatrists said the pioneers came from civilization, and that civilized people suffer from more mental illness than people of the Old Yishuv who lived in a rural environment.”

The psychiatrists further maintained that the pioneers tended to develop mental illnesses due to the stress involved in migration and also because of their young age (20-30), known to be a prime period for mental disorders.

One of the main solutions proposed by the psychiatrists was social engineering of the Jewish public in Israel or, as they called it, “mental hygiene.” Up until his immigration to Israel in the 1930s, Martin Pappenheim, who ran the neurological department of the city hospital in Vienna from 1921-1923, represented the Austrian branch of the International League for Mental Hygiene – a movement founded in 1908 with the aim of reducing poverty, crime and morbidity by means of drastic preventive measures. In 1935, Pappenheim, together with Dr. Mordechai Brachiahu, founded the association’s branch in Palestine.

One of the main arguments in favor of eugenics was the economic benefit it would bring. According to Pappenheim, his association’s activity was intended to reduce “the unproductive costs of maintaining the unskilled … which burden the nation’s budget,” and to redirect resources to preserving the health of the working population.

Unwanted pregnancies

The recommendations of Pappenheim and his colleagues were partially implemented in the 1930s. In Tel Aviv and Jaffa, “advice stations” for Jews were set up to provide guidance to couples before and after marriage, so as to prevent unwanted pregnancies by those carrying “unhealthy” genetic baggage.

In 1942, Kochinsky gave a lecture on “population policy and psychopathology” at the second conference of the Neuro-Psychiatric Society. He told his audience that of the 200 people he’d treated at the Beit Strauss hygiene center in Tel Aviv, 48 percent had “mental illnesses” with a genetic component, and that these carriers ought not to bear children. These disorders included a whole spectrum of problems, ranging from suicidal tendencies to frigidity and sexual dysfunction. In wake of these “worrisome findings,” Kochinsky proposed that a nationwide census be conducted to chart the likelihood of the country’s inhabitants to develop mental illnesses, so that measures could be taken to fortify the Jewish race.

Psychiatrists were not the only ones tempted by the allure of eugenics; other doctors in the country, including senior health officials, also tried to adopt its methods. Among the most prominent of these figures during the Mandate was Dr. Yosef Meir, who served for 30 years as chairman of the Clalit health maintenance organization (Kfar Sava’s Meir Hospital is named for him). In 1934, in a front-page article in “Ha’em Vehayeled” (“Mother and Child”), a guide for parents put out by the HMO, Dr. Meir wrote the following:

“Who is entitled to bear children? The search for a correct answer to this question is the concern of eugenics, the science of improving the human race and protecting it from degeneration. This science is still young, but its positive results are already of major importance … Is it not our duty to ensure that our nation shall have sons who are healthy and whole in body and mind?” And he went on to write: “For us, eugenics – in general, and in particular for the sake of guarding against the transmission of hereditary illnesses – has even greater value than it does for other nations! … Doctors, aficionados of sport, and those active on the national scene must spread the idea: Do not have children if you are not certain that they will be healthy in body and mind!”

“There’s a difference between a regular clinic and a eugenic clinic of the kind that were established here,” Zalashik notes. “When you come to a regular clinic, the objective is to heal you or to provide some kind of means to ease your suffering. When you come to a eugenic clinic, there are other considerations at work: The caregiver is seeking to heal the Jewish people, to create people with the physical and emotional stamina to fulfill the national vision. Because prevention is a very important element, when a handicapped child was born, for example, they would try to convince the parents not to conceive again.”

Aside from such counseling for married couples, support was also provided for sterilization procedures for the mentally ill. Zalashik found a letter from Yehuda Nadibi, the Tel Aviv municipal secretary, to the chief medical officer of the Mandate government, asking him to have a mentally ill woman committed to the psychiatric hospital in Bethlehem – or else he would instruct that she be sterilized. The woman was hospitalized, but then left on a furlough and became pregnant. The social services department in the municipality complained about the financial expense that would be caused by the pregnancy, and asked why the hospital hadn’t sterilized her.

Selection committees

The German-Jewish psychiatrists were not unaware of the similarity between their recommendations and the Nazi policy that was implemented at the very same time. Kurt Levinstein even concluded a 1944 lecture with a quote from the German psychiatrist and geneticist Hans Luxenburger, who was involved in legislating eugenic methods in the Third Reich and sought to find scientific proof for the hereditary component of mental illness, in order to promote the government’s sterilization initiatives.

“A person in whom hereditary mental illness has not been prevented or cured,” quoted Levinstein, “presents just as great a danger to the race as a regular patient, at the height of his suffering … Eugenic prophylaxis is the only prophylaxis and the ideal prophylaxis for hereditary illnesses.”

Levinstein stressed that Luxenburger said these things before the Nazis came to power and, like his fellow Jewish psychiatrists, he sought to differentiate between the Nazi usage and the Zionist usage of eugenic theories. “[The Jewish psychiatrists] argued that it was good science of which the Nazis made evil use in creating a hierarchy of races and annihilating entire peoples,” says Zalashik. “They thought of it as an important and effective means of fortifying the nation’s health.”

The attempts to strengthen the Jewish race by means of controlling births continued after the founding of the state and into the 1950s. In August 1952, a decision was passed by the World Congress of Jewish Physicians to establish a scientific institute dedicated to issues of eugenics in Israel. The institute was never established; eugenic theories were beginning to be abandoned by then, once their basic premises had been proven false and perhaps also as a result of the increased growth and diversity of the psychiatric establishment.

Local Zionist institutions also sought to exert control over the Jewish public’s health by means of limitations on immigration. From 1918-1919, offices were opened in various countries, and screened those seeking to move to Palestine. In 1921, an immigration department was founded with the purpose of handling candidates for immigration until their arrival in this country. In the mid-1920s, medical selection committees were established in the immigration offices; in addition, examinations were conducted at the country’s ports and in the quarantine facilities run by the Mandatory health authorities.

This selection continued after the Nazis came to power. In late November 1933, Henrietta Szold, then chairwoman of the Youth Aliya department of the Jewish Agency, wrote to Dr. George Landauer, director of the Agency’s German division, asking him to oversee the medical examinations of immigration candidates at the Berlin office – since some Jews who’d received certificates had subsequently ended up dependent on Palestine’s welfare services due to health problems. Reports about several such cases were circulated among the three organizations involved in emigration from Germany: the Jewish National Committee, the United Committee for the Settlement of German Jews in Palestine (founded in 1932) and the German section of the Jewish Agency.

Selective immigration was officially halted with the enactment of the Law of Return in 1950, which recognized the right of every Jew to immigrate to Israel. But Zalashik asserts that traces of the eugenic viewpoint are still to be found within the Israeli medical system.

“Israel is a superpower in terms of pre-pregnancy tests and abortions,” she says. “Abortions are performed here on the slightest pretext, including [correctable] aesthetic flaws such as a cleft palate. The notion that there are some babies that shouldn’t be born is part of the eugenic philosophy.”

Eugenics wasn’t the only dubious theory the German-Jewish psychiatrists brought with them, Zalashik adds: They also adopted German psychiatry’s conception of trauma and its method of treating victims of emotional shock.

Many psychiatrists in the young state believed that the psyche of Jews was more resilient due to the persecution they endured throughout history. In 1957, Fishel Shneorson published an article in the journal Niv Harofeh, about the emotional fortitude of Holocaust survivors. He argued that there was a lower rate of mental illness among survivors who immigrated to Palestine/Israel than among those who settled elsewhere.

The theory, widely accepted by psychiatrists here at the time, was that the conditions in this country – the absence of anti-Semitism, combined with the survivors’ participation in fighting for and building the nation – had a salutary effect on their mental health. Because of this, psychiatrists tended to attribute a large portion of Holocaust survivors’ complaints to immigration difficulties and inter-familial issues, rather than to diagnose them as emotional problems and treat them accordingly.

The dismissive attitude toward the effect of the Holocaust experience is evident in the case of one Romanian-born Jew, who was admitted in 1955 to Jerusalem’s Talbieh Psychiatric Hospital to see whether he was suffering from a psychiatric problem. He was described as “possessing borderline intelligence, very weak social understanding and an infantile personality,” and diagnosed as suffering from depression, anxiety, insecurity and aggression.

Zalashik: “The therapists devoted three whole pages to the patient’s life history, from his childhood up to his hospitalization, but this was all they had to say about his wartime experience: ‘In 1941, during the war, the patient was taken to the labor camps and was separated from his family. In the camps he did not suffer from any illnesses. After his release from the concentration camps in 1945, he returned to Romania and learned that his entire family had been wiped out.’”

‘Compensation neurosis’

The psychiatrists’ attitude toward the survivors’ trauma took on added significance in 1952, with the signing of the reparations agreement between Germany and Israel. According to the law in Germany, survivors were entitled to seek compensation for damages caused them by the Nazi persecution. Israeli psychiatrists were asked to write professional opinions about the demands for compensation. Survivors who were not former citizens of Germany, or were not part of the German cultural milieu, were entitled to seek a disability pension from the Israeli Finance Ministry and from the National Insurance Institute, and medical opinions were required for this as well.

Zalashik concludes that instead of using this opportunity to take a closer look at the survivors’ psyches and recognize their mental anguish, the psychiatrists primarily saw themselves as the guardians of the state coffers, and were disinclined to acknowledge the psychological harm wrought by the Nazis. And when they did recognize it, they tended to assign the person in question a minimal level of disability.

Psychiatrist Kurt Blumenthal went so far as to claim that many survivors were just pretending to have mental problems, when he wrote in 1953 about “compensation neurosis” or “purposeful neurosis,” which was ostensibly characterized by an attempt to portray oneself as having suffered great damage in order to increase compensation one would receive. Psychiatrist Julius Baumetz, director of a Jerusalem mental health station, implored his colleagues to do their utmost to put an immediate end to such allegedly neurosis-driven demands, lest survivors’ conditions deteriorate to a state of “infantile dependence.”

“The Israeli psychiatrists betrayed their role when they decided to worry more about the state coffers than about their patients,” says Zalashik. “When people came to them complaining about nightmares, they told them they were making it up. One German psychiatrist I interviewed said that he was horrified by the opinions he received from Israeli therapists. He said they were so outdated and non-specific that they were harmful to the patients. The theories upon which they were based – i.e., that trauma does not cause any long-term change in personality – were already considered outmoded in Germany in those years.”

Zalashik says this atmosphere made it easier for the Health Ministry to decide that mentally ill Holocaust survivors should be treated in private psychiatric institutions instead of by the public health care system. Survivors were kept in these institutions for decades. Eventually, these facilities became hostels; to this day, they are home to about 700 Holocaust survivors.

Another reason this approach in treatment was adopted concerns the status of the psychiatrists themselves, Zalashik believes: “The ones who came from Germany had very different outlooks than that of the Eastern European Zionist establishment that controlled the health system. Many of them had not done a residency, and the medical establishment was not keen to absorb them. Instead of integrating them into the public psychiatric institutions, they let them open private institutions. Once the government discovered that keeping a patient in these institutions was cheaper than keeping him in the public health institutions, it encouraged their proliferation and treatment of the mentally disabled in those frameworks.”

Dr. Motti Mark, who headed the Health Ministry’s department of mental health services from 1991-1996 and from 1999-2001, worked to close down the private institutions and to transfer their occupants to appropriate government institutions, hostels or community treatment facilities. He becomes visibly emotional when relating how appalled he was when he first encountered them: “[The authorities] created a separate health system for mental patients. I discovered that there were places that they called hospitals, which were actually just like shelters you would find in the United States. These places sprang up outside the big cities wherever there was an abandoned barracks or prison, and they put the patients with the most severe distress there.

“In every abandoned location, the Health Ministry found external solutions, which were supposed to be like complete hospitals, but with an auxiliary doctor or neurologist, who tried to provide full treatment to people with a whole range of problems – anxiety, loneliness, post-traumatic depression – but also nutritional and intestinal problems. In 1991, in one such institution, I saw 30 or 40 people lying in one big room in very poor conditions. I didn’t know that such things existed in Israel.”

Threat of lobotomy

Zalashik, who today lives in New York, earned a bachelor’s degree in general history and sociology from Tel Aviv University. As a student, she also ran a club affiliated with the Hadash (socialist) movement in Tel Aviv. After completing a master’s degree in German history, she wrote her master’s thesis on the father of German psychiatry, Johann Christian Reil, and began researching the history of psychiatry in the United States. She came to research the subject for her current book after an Israeli friend, a psychiatric social worker, told her that nurses in the hospital where he works often threaten patients who annoy them by saying: “If you don’t behave nicely, we’ll give you a lobotomy.”

A lobotomy is a procedure in which a needle is inserted into the brain via the eye socket and the frontal lobes of the brain are destroyed. The method is based on the presumption that these lobes are the emotional centers of the nervous system, and their neutralizing dulls the emotional response that is troubling the mental patient.

Israeli practitioners continued to recommend insulin therapy for many years after its dangerous effects were documented, including some cases of mortality. While the use of insulin therapy was on the decline in most countries by the first half of the 1950s, it did not start to fade in Israel until the 1960s. In May 1952, for example, a doctor from Talbieh hospital praised insulin therapy, calling it “one of the most effective therapies in the spectrum of modern treatments for schizophrenia.” In 1970, nine private mental health institutions (nearly one-third of all those in Israel), were still using insulin therapy.

“Apparently, it is possible to experiment with electroshock, which costs less than insulin and can be done at the Ezrat Nashim Hospital in Jerusalem,” the woman wrote. “The treatment must last for three months and afterward there are two possibilities: Either we see that the patients are completely cured, or we see there is no remedy for them at all and transfer them to the hospital in Bnei Brak.”

Says Zalashik, “In the early stages, when a new therapy is adopted, there is tremendous enthusiasm and euphoria, and reports of a success rate of 90 percent or higher. Later on, the reports become more reserved, and the question is asked whether the therapy was really helping all the patients or only some. In the third stage, someone declares that these therapies are not working, and at the same time a new therapy arises.

“Some of these therapies were completely unjustified to begin with; the theory upon which insulin therapy was based was nonsense. Part of the justification to use them had to do with the status of the psychiatrists themselves within the medical profession: While doctors in other fields were presenting impressive achievements and discoveries, the psychiatrists were stuck with chronically ill patients who did not respond to any treatment.

Essentially, they knew very little about ‘their’ diseases, and were unable to show proof of success. They felt it was better to do something than to do nothing. Beyond that, some of the therapies raise serious ethical questions: A lobotomy irreversibly changes someone’s personality. This wasn’t just the wrong treatment. It was a radical move that turned people into zombies.”

Anti-God

Zionists are mostly anti-God, but their ideology is derived from Judaic doctrines. As far as I can tell, Zionism is all the worst aspects of Judaism, and contrary to all that is good about Judaism.

Contrary to what Babylonian pseudo-Christian neo-Pharisees will try to shove down your throat, part of Christ’s mission was to correct the Jews (just like the prophets before him had tried to do) and reveal how Satanic the teachings of the Pharisees were (and are).

From the Gospel of St John, Chapter 8:

Jesus talked to the people again, saying,

“I am the light of the world. The person who follows me will never live in darkness but will have the light that gives life.”

The Pharisees said to Jesus,

“…We cannot accept what you say.”

Jesus answered,

“… I know where I came from and where I am going. But you don’t know where I came from or where I am going. You judge by human standards. … The Father who sent me is with me…. You don’t know me or my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father, too.”

…

“You people are from here below, but I am from above. You belong to this world, but I don’t belong to this world. So I told you that you would die in your sins. Yes, you will die in your sins if you don’t believe that I am he.”

…

“I have many things to say and decide about you.” …

Jesus said to the Jews who believed in him,

“If you continue to obey my teaching, you are truly my followers. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

They answered,

“We are Abraham’s children, and we have never been anyone’s slaves. So why do you say we will be free?”

Jesus answered,

“I tell you the truth, everyone who lives in sin is a slave to sin. A slave does not stay with a family forever, but a son belongs to the family forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be truly free. I know you are Abraham’s children, but you want to kill me because you don’t accept my teaching. I am telling you what my Father has shown me, but you do what your father has told you.”

They answered,

“Our father is Abraham.” … “God is our Father; he is the only Father we have.”

Jesus said to them,

“If God were really your Father, you would love me, because I came from God and now I am here. I did not come by my own authority; God sent me. You don’t understand what I say, because you cannot accept my teaching. You belong to your father the devil, and you want to do what he wants. He was a murderer from the beginning and was against the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he shows what he is really like, because he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you don’t believe me.” … “you don’t accept what God says, because you don’t belong to God.”