Thursday, July 07, 2005


#1 - Anti-Semitism - This article describes the development and history of traditional anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hostility towards or prejudice against Jews. This happens on an individual level and goes on to the institutionalized prejudice and persecution once prevalent in European societies.


The new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse. Secular, Leftist, Critical of Israel, ie, Anti-Zionist.

#3- Neturei Karta Members protest against Zionism. They are Ultra-Orthodox Jews who not only reject all forms of Zionism, but also actively oppose the State of Israel. Adherents of Neturei Karta stress the section of classical rabbinic literature which states that the Jewish people were first sent into exile from the land of Israel for their sins. Leaders of the movement hold that the Holocaust was divine punishment for the sins of the Jewish people, namely Zionism.

#4 - Hasidic Judaism, During the Holocaust the Hasidic centers of Eastern Europe were destroyed. Survivors moved to Israel or America, notably Brooklyn, and established new centers of Hasidic Judaism. For years, the two "superpowers" of the Brooklyn Hasidic world were Satmar and Chabad -- based, respectively, in Williamsburg and Crown Heights. Satmar was militantly anti-Zionist, while Chabad was supportive of Israel

#5 - Ten questions to the Zionists by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl - IS IT TRUE that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that: none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and IS IT TRUE that the answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments: ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.

#6 - Quotes: What the Rabbis said about Zionism in the Previous Generations

#7 - JEWS NOT ZIONISTS: Contrary to common perception, Jewish anti-Zionism is not restricted exclusively to the well know Jewish anti-Zionist movements such as Satmar and Neturei Karta. There are in fact many Jewish movements, groups and organizations whose ideology regarding Zionism and the so-called "State of Israel" is that of the unadulterated Torah position that any form of Zionism is heresy and that the existence of the so-called "State of Israel" is illegitimate.

#8 - The Difference Between Judaism and Zionism, by G. Neuburger: ...Jews believe that Adam was created in G-d's image and that he is the common ancestor of all mankind. At this stage in human history, there is no room for privileged people who can do with others as they please. Human life is sacred and human rights are not to be denied by those who would subvert them for "national security" or for any other reason. No one knows this better than the Jews, who have been second-class citizens so often and for so long. Some Zionists, however, may differ. This is understandable because Judaism and Zionism are by no means the same. Indeed they are incompatible and irreconcilable: If one is a good Jew, one cannot be a Zionist; if one is a Zionist, one cannot be a good Jew. For over 60 years I have fought Zionism, as did my father before me, and I am therefore quite familiar with it.

#9 - WHY IS WORLD JEWRY OPPOSED TO THE ZIONIST STATE, 1) What is "The people of Israel" ? The people of Israel have existed for thousands of years. It has its own particular, essential, nature. The Torah is the source of its essential nature. Without Torah and faith there is no people of Israel. Whoever denies the Torah and the Faith is no longer part of the people of Israel.

#10 - JUDAISM AND ZIONISM, 1969 Radio broadcast WBAI-FM, New York, I am a member of the...Jewish Neturei Karta movement... In commenting on Jewish affairs, there is no topic more vital today than a clarification on the differences between Judaism and Zionism. All too many Americans are still under the impression that these terms are more or less synonymous - that being a Jew means automatically to be a Zionist and that this also implies a certain loyalty to the State of Israel. Let me there state right at the beginning that Judaism and Zionism are completely incompatible and are mutually exclusive. If you are a good Jew, you cannot be a Zionist. If you are a Zionist, you cannot be a good Jew.

#11 - Not All Jews Are Zionists - Although there are those who refuse to accept the teachings of our Rabbis and will continue to support the Zionist state, there are also many who are totally unaware of the history of Zionism and its contradiction to the beliefs of Torah-True Jews.

#12 - The History of Zionism & Judaism, This text provides a good historical overview of the history of Zionism and why the Zionist ideology is opposed by religious Orthodox Jews. The Jewish people, from its inception, has been unique by its identity as a religious entity. Our faith demands as the fundamental condition for recognition as a Jew, belief and adherence to the word of G-d, as was revealed to our forefathers on Mount Sinai. This is in itself, according to the tenets of the Jewish religion, sufficient to fulfill the definition of a Jew. Our religious and traditional history bears no aspect of racism. Hence, one of non-Jewish origin is capable of being proselytized and attaining the same status as a born Jew.

#13 - THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST, by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann , Australia, From its' inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive.

#14 - An Old Prejudice With a New Name, On Campus, the Line Between Anti-Israel Sentiments and Anti-Semitism is Blurring, 'Why do so many Jews feel personally threatened by anti-Israel attitudes?' Most Americans, if asked whether anti-Israel sentiment is synonymous with anti-Semitism, would probably say 'no.' I would respond in the negative as well, yet this is too simple a question and too simple an answer. While political critiques of Israel can be completely separate from attitudes toward the Jewish people, the extensive censure of Israel and undue attention given to its activities are largely rooted in anti-Semitic tradition.

#15 - Berkeley Intifada, As students embrace the Palestinian cause, UC Berkeley has lost whatever reputation it may once have had for tolerance. By Anneli Rufus, On the day after September 11, Micki Weinberg walked to the UC Berkeley campus still in shock. At the entrance to campus, facing Telegraph Avenue, huge sheets of blank paper were spread out as an impromptu memorial on which students, faculty, and other passersby were invited to write comments. Glad to have found such a forum, Weinberg scanned the inscriptions. Then he saw one, large and clear, that stopped him dead in his tracks: "It's the Jews, stupid." The slender Weinberg, a year younger than most freshmen, had only just arrived at Cal from Beverly Hills, where he had been president of his high school's Shalom Club. As a young teenager, he had savored heady stories of how Mario Savio and his comrades in the Free Speech Movement danced the hora and sang "Hava Nagila" at sit-ins and peace rallies forty years ago. The son of left-wing, Jewish intellectuals, Weinberg viewed himself as one too, having spent the summer before his senior year of high school in Myanmar, cataloguing the archives of Rangoon's disintegrating and depopulated Jewish synagogue.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This article describes the development and history of traditional anti-Semitism. A separate article exists on the more controversial concept of the New anti-Semitism.

The Eternal Jew: 1937 German poster. In his hands are "Zuckerbrot und Peitsche", or "cookies and knout", an allusion to a saying similar to that of "carrot and stick".

Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility towards or prejudice against Jews (not, in common usage, Semites in general — see the Scope section below). This happens on an individual level and goes on to the institutionalized prejudice and persecution once prevalent in European societies, of which the highly explicit ideology of Adolf Hitler's National Socialism was the most extreme form.

Some forms of anti-Semitism include:

Racist anti-Semitism, a kind of xenophobia. Some people perceive Jews as people of a racially distinct origin from other peoples, and claim that discrimination on the basis of such distinctness is valid.

Religious anti-Judaism. Like other religions, Judaism has faced discrimination and violence from people of competing faiths and in countries that practice state atheism. Unlike anti-Semitism in general, this form of prejudice is directed at the religion itself, and so does not affect those of Jewish ancestry who have converted to another religion. Laws banning Jewish religious practices may be rooted in religious anti-Semitism.

Socio-economic anti-Semitism rooted in the alleged disproportionate success or influence, relative to their numbers within the general population, that individual Jews have achieved in a variety of occupations, including finance, politics, the media, academia, the law, medicine, and science.


1 Etymology and usage

1.1 Scope

2 Historical forms of anti-Judaism

3 Anti-Judaism in the New Testament

4 Anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages

4.1 The demonizing of the Jews

4.2 Blood libels

4.3 Badges

4.4 Host desecration

5 The Crusades

6 The expulsions from England, France, Germany, and Spain

7 Anti-Judaism and the Reformation

8 The Enlightenment and the rise of racial anti-Semitism

9 Anti-Semitism and modernity

10 Anti-Semitism in France

11 Modern passion plays

12 Anti-Semitism in Poland

13 Anti-Semitism in Imperial Russia and in the Soviet Union

14 Anti-Semitism and Islam

15 Anti-Semitism in the 20th century

15.1 United States

15.2 Germany

15.3 The Holocaust and Holocaust denial

15.4 Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism

15.5 Anti-Semitism in the 21st century

15.6 New anti-Semitism

16 See also

16.1 Anti-Semitic websites

17 References

18 External links

Etymology and usage

Cover page of Marr's The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism, 1880 edition

The word antisemitic or antisemitisch was probably first used in 1860 by the Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider in the phrase "antisemitic prejudices" ("antisemitischen Vorurtheile"). Steinschneider used this phrase to characterize Ernest Renan's ideas about Semitic racial traits. These ideas about "Semitic races" , and how they were inferior to "Aryan races", became quite widespread in Europe in the second half of the 19th century. Especially the Prussian nationalistic historian Heinrich von Treitschke did much to promote this form of racism. In Treitschke's writings Semitic was practically synonomous with Jewish. When the political writer Wilhelm Marr coined the German word Antisemitismus in 1879, its meaning was identical to Jew-hatred or Judenhass. The new word antisemitism was used merely to make Jew-hatred seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge. However, it was never intended to eliminate the concept of hatred towards Jews based on the Christian conspiracies and legends so popular with the general population. In his book, "The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism" (1879), Marr took up secular racist ideas of Arthur de Gobineau's "An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races" (1853, though direct influence is debatable). Marr's book became very popular, and in the same year he founded the "League of Anti-Semites" ("Antisemiten-Liga"), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews, and advocating their forced removal from the country.

So far as can be ascertained, the word was first printed in 1881. In that year Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the "Neue Freie Presse" of January. The related word semitism was coined around 1885. See also the coinage of the term "Palestinian" by Germans to refer to the nation or people known as Jews, as distinct from the religion of Judaism.



The term anti-Semitism has normally referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and this was formerly the only use of this word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice toward other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis says that "Anti-Semitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews."[1]

In recent decades some have argued that the term should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, since Arabic is a Semitic language; these arguments are commonly made in the context of accusations of Arab anti-Semitism. This usage has not been widely adopted, one example is October 16/17, 2004 statement by Ralph Nader in Counterpunch: "There is, as you always ignore, aggressive anti-Semitism against defenseless Arabs in many places in the world..."[2]

Some question the usefulness of applying the term more generally to all Semitic groups on the basis that there are few instances of prejudice against both Arabs and Jews to the exclusion of other races or nationalities, and in fact many more instances of antagonism between Jews and Arabs than of a specific bias against both groups together. Lewis writes "the term Semite has no meaning as applied to groups as heterogeneous as the Arabs or Jews." And, as has been pointed out by Neil J. Kressel, "In any event, nothing is gained from applying the anti-Semitism label to anti-Arab discrimination, abhorrent in its own right, except to confuse matters and take attention away from anti-Jewish hostility" [3].

However, James Zogby argues that both Arabs and Jews have been subject to the same prejudice and uniformly treated by Western society as alien and hostile, viewed as prone to conspiracy, and seen as usurpers of Western wealth and threats to Western civilization. Zogby draws parallels between political cartoons depicting Jews as the fat grotesque banker and Arabs as the obese oil sheik. He argues that efforts to counter anti-Semitism must be broadened to include the "other anti-Semitism" so that the same outrage displayed toward anti-Jewish bigotry will occur for anti-Arab and anti-Muslim stereotypes. [4]

In March 2005, European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) came up with working definition: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for "why things go wrong." [5]

Despite the use of the prefix "anti," the terms Semitic and Anti-Semitic are not antonyms. To avoid the confusion of the misnomer, many scholars on the subject (such as Emil Fackenheim of the Hebrew University) now favor the unhyphenated term antisemitism. Yehuda Bauer articulated this view in his writings and lectures: (the term) "Antisemitism, especially in its hyphenated spelling, is inane nonsense, because there is no Semitism that you can be anti to." [6], also in his A History of the Holocaust, p.52)

An alternative term, "Judeophobia", stands for fear or irrational hatred of Jews. It was invented by Leon Pinsker and first appeared in his 1882 pamphlet Autoemancipation (text). As a professional physician, Pinsker preferred the medical term because he was convinced that pathological, irrational phobia may explain this ancient hatred:

"Judeophobia is a variety of demonopathy... this ghost is not disembodied like other ghosts but partakes of flesh and blood, must endure pain inflicted by the fearful mob who imagines itself endangered... To sum up then, to the living the Jew is a corpse, to the native a foreigner, to the homesteader a vagrant, to the proprietary a beggar, to the poor an exploiter and a millionaire, to the patriot a man without a country, for all a hated rival."


Historical forms of anti-Judaism

Prejudice against Jews can be traced back to the Graeco-Roman period and the rise of Hellenistic culture. Most Jews rejected efforts to assimilate them into the dominant Greek (and later Roman) culture, and their religious practices, which conflicted with established norms, were perceived as being backward and primitive. Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, for example, writes disparagingly of many real and imagined practices of the Jews, while there are numerous accounts of circumcision being described as barbarous.

Throughout their diaspora, Jews tended to live in separate communities, in which they could practice their religion. This led to charges of elitism, as appear in the writings of Cicero. As a minority, Jews were also dependent on the goodwill of the authorities, though this was considered irksome to the indigenous population, which regarded any vestiges of autonomy among the local Jewish communities as reminders of their subject status to a foreign empire. Nevertheless, this did not always mean that opposition to Jewish involvement in local affairs was anti-Semitic. In 411 BCE, an Egyptian mob destroyed the Jewish temple at Elephantine in Egypt, but many historians argue that this was provoked by anti-Persian sentiment, rather than by anti-Semitism per se — the Jews, who were protected by the imperial power, were perceived as being its representatives.

The enormous and influential Jewish community in the ancient Egyptian port city of Alexandria saw manifestations of an unusual brand of anti-Semitism in which the local pagan populace rejected the biblical narrative of the Exodus as being anti-Egyptian. Accordingly, a number of works were produced to provide an "Egyptian version" of what "really happened": the Jews were a group of sickly lepers that was expelled from Egypt (see Manetho, Apion). This was also used to account for Jewish practices — they were so sickly that they could not even wander in the desert for more than six days at a time, requiring a seventh day to rest, hence the origin of the Sabbath. It was these charges that led to Philo's apologetic account of Judaism and Jewish history, which was so influential in the development of early church doctrine. Ancient anti-semitic tales were also picked apart in Josephus Flavius' pamphlet Against Apion.

Prejudice against Jews in the Roman Empire was formalized in 438, when the Code of Theodosius II established Christianity as the only legal religion in the Roman Empire, although already as early as 305, in Elvira, a Spanish town in Andalusia, the first known laws of any church council against Jews appeared. Christian women were forbidden to marry Jews unless the Jew first converted to Christianity. Jews were forbidden to extend hospitality to Christians. Jews could not keep Christian concubines and were forbidden to bless the fields of Christians. In 589, in Christian Spain, the Third Council of Toledo ordered that children born of marriage between Jews and Christians be baptized by force. A policy of forced conversion of all Jews was initiated. Thousands fled, and thousands of others converted. [7]

Judaic traditions extend for centuries BCE, and are the historical predecessor for the religions of Christianity and Islam, both of whom hold some Judaic traditions and texts as sacred, though differ in aspects that are central to each distinct branch of religion.

Hence Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, each took different course in terms of beliefs, as well as traditional customs; each creating a separate and distinct culture, from the parent Judaism. Those who held to traditional Judaic belief were considered "deniers" of the newer beliefs and traditions, in much the same way that some religions consider people of other religions to be denying the truth.


Anti-Judaism in the New Testament

Christian theological anti-Semitism was stimulated by the New Testament's replacement theology (or supersessionism), which taught that with the coming of Jesus a new covenant has rendered obsolete and has superseded the religion of Judaism. It was believed that "the perfidious Jews", as a people, were responsible for the death of Jesus. A number of Christian preachers, particularly in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, additionally taught that religious Jews choose to follow a faith that they actually know is false out of a desire to offend God.

Examples of passages in the New Testament that are seen as anti-Semitic, or have been used for anti-Semitic purposes:

Jesus said to them [i.e., the "Jews"], "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. . . . He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God." (John 8:44-47)

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it. (Acts 7:51-53)

Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie -- behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you. (Revelation 2:9).

Most biblical scholars hold that verses like these reflect the Jewish / Christian tensions that were emerging in the late first or early second century, and do not originate with Jesus (for whom such a distinction would have been incomprehensible). A similar relic within Jewish tradition would be the Eighteen Benedictions, which include disguised curses against Christianity. Today, the major Christian denominations de-emphasize verses such as these, and reject their use by anti-Semites.


Anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages

In the Middle Ages there were many reasons for prejudice against Jews in Europe. The most obvious reason is religious persecution. However, this does not explain why violence increased greatly during the High Middle Ages, so other more complex reasons have been put forth by scholars.

In the Middle Ages a main source of prejudice against Jews in Europe was religious. The Catholic Church taught that the Jewish people were collectively and permanently responsible for killing Jesus (see Deicide). The power of Christianity was very strong in the Middle Ages, and Jews were a direct affront to Christian beliefs.

Among socio-economic factors were restrictions by the authorities, local rulers and frequently church officials who closed many professions to the Jews, pushing them into marginal occupations considered socially inferior, such as local tax and rent collecting or moneylending, a necessary evil due to the increasing population and urbanization during the High Middle Ages. This provided support for claims that Jews are insolent, greedy, engaged in usury, and in itself contributed to a negative image. Natural tensions between creditors (typically Jews) and debtors (typically Christians) were added to social, political, religious and economic strains. Peasants who were forced to pay their taxes to Jews could personify them as the people taking their earnings while remaining loyal to the lords on whose behalf the Jews worked.


The demonizing of the Jews

From around the 12th century through the 19th there were Christians who believed that some (or all) Jews possessed magical powers; some believed that they had gained these magical powers from making a deal with the devil. See also Judensau, Judeophobia.


Blood libels

Main articles: blood libel, list of blood libels against Jews

On many occasions, Jews were accused of a blood libel, the supposed drinking of blood of Christian children in mockery of the Christian Eucharist. According to the authors of these blood libels, the 'procedure' for the alleged sacrifice was something like this: a child who had not yet reached puberty was kidnapped and taken to a hidden place. The child would be tortured by Jews, and a crowd would gather at the place of execution (in some accounts the synagogue itself) and engage in a mock tribunal to try the child. The child would be presented to the tribunal naked and tied and eventually be condemned to death. In the end, the child would be crowned with thorns and tied or nailed to a wooden cross. The cross would be raised, and the blood dripping from the child's wounds would be caught in bowls or glasses. Finally, the child would be killed with a thrust through the heart from a spear, sword, or dagger. Its dead body would be removed from the cross and concealed or disposed of, but in some instances rituals of black magic would be performed on it. This method, with some variations, can be found in all the alleged descriptions of ritual murder by Jews.

The story of William of Norwich (d. 1144) is the first known case of ritual murder being alleged by a Christian monk. It does not mention the collection of William's blood for any purpose. The story of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (d. 1255) said that after the boy was dead, his body was removed from the cross and laid on a table. His belly was cut open and his entrails removed for some occult purpose, such as a divination ritual. The story of Simon of Trent (d. 1475) emphasized how the boy was held over a large bowl so all his blood could be collected. Simon was regarded as a saint, and was canonized by Pope Sixtus V in 1588. The cult of Simon was disbanded in 1965 by Pope Paul VI, and the shrine erected to him was dismantled. He was removed from the calendar, and his future veneration was forbidden, though a handful of extremists still promote the narrative as a fact. In the 20th century, blood libel stories have appeared a number of times in the state-sponsored media of a number of Arab nations, in Arab television shows, and on websites.



Main article: yellow badge

The yellow badge Jews were forced to wear can be seen in this marginal illustration from an English manuscript.

The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 was the first to proclaim the requirement for Jews to wear something that distinguished them as Jews. It could be a colored piece of cloth in the shape of a star or circle or square, a hat, or a robe. This practice has its origins in the Islamic world where it was common for various religions to wear badges of faith. In many localities, members of the medieval society wore badges to distinguish their social status. Some badges (such as guild members) were prestigious, while others ostracized outcasts such as lepers, reformed heretics and prostitutes. Jews sought to evade the badges by paying what amounted to bribes in the form of temporary "exemptions" to kings, which were revoked and re-paid for whenever the king needed to raise funds.


Host desecration

Jews were falsely accused of torturing consecrated host wafers in a reenactment of the Crucifixion; this accusation was known as host desecration.


The Crusades

The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns sanctioned by the Papacy that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. They began as Catholic endeavours to capture Jerusalem from the Muslims but developed into territorial wars. The initial conquest of Palestine by the forces of Islam in the 7th century did not interfere much with pilgrimage to Christian holy sites or the security of monasteries and Christian communities in the Holy Land. However, in the year 1009 the Fatimid caliph of Cairo, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed. His successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it, and pilgrimage was permitted again. The decisive loss of the Byzantine army to the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 brought the beginning of Byzantine pleas for troops and support from the West.

The mobs accompanying the first three Crusades attacked the Jewish communities in Germany, France, and England, and put many Jews to death; this left behind for centuries strong feelings of ill will on both sides. The social position of the Jews in western Europe was already in a bad state, for one thing because of the writing of bishop Amulo published in 846, called Contra Judaeos (Against the Jews). But things distinctly worsened by the Crusades, and legal restrictions became frequent during and after them. They prepared the way for the anti-Jewish legislation of Pope Innocent III, and formed the turning-point in the medieval history of the Jews.


The expulsions from England, France, Germany, and Spain

As many European localities and entire countries expelled their Jewish citizens after robbing them and others denied them entrance, the legend of the Wandering Jew, a condemned harbinger of calamity, gained popularity. Only a few such expulsions are described in this section, for a more extended list see History of anti-Semitism.

The practice of expelling the Jews accompanied by confiscation of their property, followed by temporary readmissions for ransom, was utilized to enrich the French crown during 12th-14th centuries. The most notable such expulsions were: from Paris by Philip Augustus in 1182, from entire France by Louis IX in 1254, by Charles IV in 1322, by Charles V in 1359, by Charles VI in 1394.

To finance his war to conquer Wales, Edward I of England taxed the Jewish moneylenders. When the Jews could no longer pay, they were accused of disloyalty. Already restricted to a limited number of occupations, the Jews saw Edward abolish their "privilege" to lend money, choke their movements and activities and were forced to wear a yellow patch. The heads of Jewish households were then arrested, over 300 of them taken to the Tower of London and executed, while others killed in their homes. The complete banishment of all Jews from the country in 1290 led to thousands killed and drowned while fleeing and the absence of Jews from England for three and a half centuries, until 1655, when Oliver Cromwell reversed the policy.

In 1492, Ferdinand_II_of_Aragon and Isabella_of_Castile issued General Edict on the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (see also Inquisition) and many Sephardi Jews fled to the Ottoman Empire, some to the Land of Israel.

In 1744, Frederick II of Prussia limited Breslau to only ten so-called "protected" Jewish families and encouraged similar practice in other Prussian cities. In 1750 he issued Revidiertes General Privilegium und Reglement vor die Judenschaft: the "protected" Jews had an alternative to "either abstain from marriage or leave Berlin" (quoting Simon Dubnow). In the same year, Archduchess of Austria Maria Theresa ordered Jews out of Bohemia but soon reversed her position, on condition that Jews pay for readmission every ten years. This extortion was known as malke-geld (queen's money). In 1752 she introduced the law limiting each Jewish family to one son. In 1782, Joseph II abolished most of persecution practices in his Toleranzpatent, on the condition that Yiddish and Hebrew are eliminated from public records and judicial autonomy is annulled. Moses Mendelssohn wrote that "Such a tolerance... is even more dangerous play in tolerance than open persecution".


Anti-Judaism and the Reformation

(to be written) Main article: Christianity and anti-Semitism


The Enlightenment and the rise of racial anti-Semitism

Racial anti-Semitism, the most modern form of anti-Semitism, is a type of racism mixed with religious persecution. Racial anti-Semites believe that Jews are a distinct race and inherently inferior to people of other races.

Modern European anti-Semitism has its origin in 19th century pseudo-scientific theories that the Jewish people are a sub-group of Semitic peoples; Semitic people were thought by many Europeans to be entirely different from the Aryan, or Indo-European, populations, and that they can never be amalgamated with them. In this view, Jews are not opposed on account of their religion, but on account of their supposed hereditary or genetic racial characteristics: greed, a special aptitude for money-making, aversion to hard work, clannishness and obtrusiveness, lack of social tact, low cunning, and especially lack of patriotism.

Ironically, while enlightened European intellectual society of that period viewed prejudice against people on account of their religion to be declasse and a sign of ignorance, because of this supposed 'scientific' connection to genetics they felt fully justified in prejudice based on nationality or 'race'. In order to differentiate between the two practices, the term anti-Semitism was developed to refer to this 'acceptable' bias against Jews as a nationality, as distinct from the 'undesirable' prejudice against Judaism as a religion. Concurrently with this usage, some authors in Germany began to use the term 'Palestinians' when referring to Jews as a people, rather than as a religious group.

Equally ironic, and further proof of its pseudo-scientific nature, it is questionable whether Jews in general looked significantly different from the populations conducting "racial" anti-Semitism. This was especially true in places like Germany, France and Austria where the Jewish population tended to be more secular (or at least less Orthodox) than that of Eastern Europe, and did not wear clothing (such as a yarmulke) that would particularly distinguish their appearance from the non-Jewish population. Many anthropologists of the time such as Franz Boas tried to use complex physical measurements like the cephalic index and visual surveys of hair/eye color and skin tone of Jewish vs. non-Jewish European populations to prove that the notion of a separate "Jewish race" was a myth. In the 1990's, although this idea was long removed from any public thought or discourse in the Western world, more advanced technologies in DNA analysis allowed for curious anthropologists such as Michael Hammer to revisit it, with very complex results. Some studies (focusing on the Y-chromosome, which is carried by males only, and therefore should in Cohanim theoretically link directly back to Aaron), suggest a significant genetic kinship with the historic population of the eastern Mediterranean; while others, (focusing on mitochondrial-dNA, which is inherited from the mother only), give more ambiguous results as they do not appear to be related to one another or to those of present-day Middle Eastern populations.

See also eugenics.


Anti-Semitism and modernity

Many analysts of modern anti-Semitism have pointed out that its essence is scapegoating: features of modernity felt by some group to be undesirable (e.g. materialism, the power of money, economic fluctuations, war, secularism, socialism, Communism, movements for racial equality, social welfare policies, etc., etc.) are believed to be caused by the machinations of a conspiratorial people whose full loyalties are not to the national group. Traditionalists anguished at the supposedly decadent or defective nature of the modern world have sometimes been inclined to embrace such views. Indeed, it is a matter of historical record that many of the conservative members of the WASP establishment of the United States as well as other comparable Western elites (e.g. the British Foreign Office) have harbored such attitudes, and in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, some xenophobic anti-Semites have imagined world Communism to be a Jewish conspiracy (Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups [1980], p. 590).

The modern form of anti-Semitism is identified in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica as a conspiracy theory serving the self-understanding of the European aristocracy, whose social power waned with the rise of bourgeois society. The Jews of Europe, then recently emancipated, were relatively literate, entrepreneurial and unentangled in aristocratic patronage systems, and were therefore disproportionately represented in the ascendant bourgeois class. As the aristocracy (and its hangers-on) lost out to this new center of power in society, they found their scapegoat - exemplified in the work of Arthur de Gobineau. That the Jews were singled out to embody the 'problem' was, by this theory, no more than a symptom of the nobility's own prejudices concerning the importance of breeding (on which its own legitimacy was founded).

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church adhered to a distinction between "good anti-Semitism" and "bad anti-Semitism". The "bad" kind promoted hatred of Jews because of their descent. This was considered un-Christian because the Christian message was intended for all of humanity regardless of ethnicity; anyone could become a Christian. The "good" kind criticized alleged Jewish conspiracies to control newspapers, banks, and other institutions, to care only about accumulation of wealth, etc. Many Catholic bishops wrote articles criticizing Jews on such grounds, and, when accused of promoting hatred of Jews, would remind people that they condemned the "bad" kind of anti-Semitism. A detailed account is found in historian David Kertzer's book The Popes Against the Jews.


Anti-Semitism in France

The Dreyfus affair was a political scandal which divided France for many years during the late 19th century. It centered on the 1894 treason conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army. Dreyfus was, in fact, innocent: the conviction rested on false documents, and when high-ranking officers realised this they attempted to cover up the mistakes. The writer Émile Zola exposed the affair to the general public in the literary newspaper L'Aurore (The Dawn) in a famous open letter to the Président de la République Félix Faure, titled J'accuse ! (I Accuse!) on January 13, 1898.

The Dreyfus Affair split France between the Dreyfusards (those supporting Alfred Dreyfus) and the Antidreyfusards (those against him). The quarrel was especially violent since it involved many issues then highly controversial in a heated political climate.

Dreyfus was pardoned in 1899, readmitted into the army, and made a knight in the Legion of Honour. An Austrian Jewish journalist named Theodor Herzl was assigned to report on the trial and its aftermath. The injustice of the trial and the anti-Semitic passions it aroused in France and elsewhere turned him into a determined Zionist; ultimately turning the movement into an international one. Also see Alfred Dreyfus and Dreyfus affair.

Anti-semitism was particularly virulant in Vichy France during WWII (1939 - 1945). The French populace openly collaborated with the Nazi occupiers to identify Jews for deportation and transportation to the death camps. Anti-semitism remains strong in France with frequent vandalism and desecration of Jewish cemeteries and temples.


Modern passion plays

Passion plays, dramatic stagings representing the trial and death of Jesus, have historically been used in Christian communities to arouse hatred of local Jews; the plays usually depict the entire Jewish people as condemning Jesus to crucifixion and being collectively guilty of deicide, murdering God.

In 2003 and 2004 some have compared Mel Gibson's recent film The Passion of the Christ to these kinds of passion plays, but this characterization is hotly disputed; an analysis of that topic is in the article on The Passion of the Christ.


Anti-Semitism in Poland

See also: History of the Jews in Poland

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please view the article's talk page.

Desiring to emerge from the Dark Ages as a prominent European power, Poland took notice of the typically advanced education of Jews (particularly their literacy) and their competence in financial management. In 1264, King Boleslaus V of Poland legislated a charter for Jewish residence and protection, hoping that Jewish settlement would contribute to the development of the Polish economy. This charter, which encouraged money-lending, was a slight variation of the 1244 charter granted by the King of Austria to the Jews. This charter was also adopted (with variations) in Hungary, Lithuania, Bohemia, and Silesia [8]. While Jews were not granted the same degree of protection as other citizens, and while Jews were excluded from privileges afforded Christian merchants and burghers, the charter decreed by Boleslaus V precipitated a major improvement for Jews over conditions in twelfth century Europe [9]. The charter included recognition of legal testimony of Jews, fines for harming Jews or Jewish property, prohibition of blood libels, and equal commercial rights. (However, the Polish population and the Church did not always respect the charter. One such incident occurred in Poznań in 1399, when the local rabbi and thirteen other members of the Jewish community were tortured and burned at the stake after being accused of "Host desecration" [10]). Due to the attractive opportunities Poland offered for Jews at the time, as well as extreme persecution in much of western Europe, a burgeoning Jewish population developed in Poland. Jews were allowed to open Yeshivas and had a measure of independence regarding judging religious legal cases. By the sixteenth century, Poland had become the center of European Jewry and one of most tolerant of all European countries regarding the matters of faith. It was the only country where Catholics, Protestands, Orthodox, Jews and even Muslims coexisted peacefully.

At the onset of the seventeenth century, however, tolerance began to give way to increased anti-Semitism. King Sigismund III of the Swedish House of Vasa, elected to the Polish throne, a strong supporter of the counter-reformation, began to undermine the principles of the Warsaw Confederation and the religious tolerance in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, revoking and limiting priviliges of all non-Catholic faiths. In 1628 he banned publication of Hebrew books, including the Talmud [11]. Acclaimed twentieth century historian Simon Dubnow, in his magnum-opus History of the Jews in Poland and Russia, detailed:

"At the end of the 16th century and thereafter, not one year passed without a blood libel trial against Jews in Poland, trials which always ended with the execution of Jewish victims in a heinous manner..." (ibid., volume 6, chapter 4; "thereafter," in the above quote, refers to no later than 1918, when Dubnow's work was published).

In the 1650s the Swedish invasion of the Commonwealth (The Deluge) and the Chmielnicki Uprising of the Cossacks resulted in vast depopulation of the Commonwealth, as over 30% of the ~10 million population has perished or emigrated. In the related 1648-55 pogroms led by the Ukrainian Haidamaks uprising against Polish nobility (szlachta), during which approximately 100,000 Jews were slaughtered, Polish and Ruthenian peasants often participated in killing Jews (The Jews in Poland, Ken Spiro, 2001). The besieged szlachta, who were also decimated in the territories where the uprising happened, typically abandoned the loyal peasantry, townsfolk, and the Jews renting their land, in violation of "rental" contracts. The Jewish Encyclopedia explains why Jews were targeted in the Cossack massacres:

"The Jews increased rapidly in the Little Russian territories at the beginning of the seventeenth century. They farmed not only the taxes, but even the revenues of the Greek Orthodox Church. At every christening or funeral the peasants had to pay a fee to the Jew. The lords were the absolute rulers of their estates, and the peasants their dependent subjects. When a lord or any other member of the nobility leased his villages or estates to a Jew, his authority also was delegated to the latter, who even had the power to administer justice among the peasants ("Yewen Mezulah," p. 2a). The extravagant life of the Polish landlords, who spent most of their fortunes abroad, frequently placed them in pecuniary difficulties, and their Jewish tax-farmers were often forced into exactions against the advice and warnings of the wise leaders of the Council of Four Lands, and the Jews of the Ukraine often suffered grievously for the sins of individuals of their race. The uprising of the peasants in the Ukraine has been ascribed by most historians to their oppression by Jewish leaseholders, as well as to the privileges granted to the latter by the kings and nobles of Poland. Recent historical research, however, indicates that the Jews living in the cities, particularly in those of the Ukraine, were not afforded the protection enjoyed by other citizens, and moreover were excluded from the privileges granted to the Christian merchants and burghers (Antonovich, "Monografii po Istorii Zapadnoi i Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii," i. 188). Notwithstanding this, the Jews managed to gain control of the commerce of the country, as is evidenced by the complaints of the Christian merchants of Lemberg, Kamenetz, Kiev, and many other cities, shortly before the Cossack uprising ("Archiv Yugo-Zapadnoi Rossii," v., part i., xxxiv. 134, xl. 156, cxxi. 323; "Starożytna Polska," 11, 1023, 1369; "Sbornik Mukhanova," p. 192; Antonovich, l.c. p. 189). It was the combined opposition to the Jews of the urban and the peasant populations that made it possible for Chmielnicki to arm the entire country against them within so short a time. [12]"

Historian Jacob Rader Marcus summarizes the situation as follows:

"In 1654 neighboring Russia turned against Poland, a year later the Swedes poured in from the north, and all these groups, including the native Poles, ravaged and massacred defenseless Jewish victims throughout the land" (The Jew in the Medieval World, 1896).

The Eyewitness Chronicle detailes:

"Wherever they found the szlachta, royal officials or Jews, they [Cossacks] killed them all, sparing neither women nor children. They pillaged the estates of the Jews and nobles, burned churches and killed their priests, leaving nothing whole." (Eyewitness Chronicle) [13]

The deathtolls of Chmielnicki uprising, as many others from the times of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, vary. Historian Subtelny, in his acclaimed Ukraine: A History (p.127–128), notes:

"Jewish losses were especially heavy because they were the most numerous and accessible representatives of the szlachta regime. Between 1648 and 1656, tens of thousands of Jews—given the lack of reliable data, it is impossible to establish more accurate figures—were killed by the rebels, and to this day the Khmelnytsky uprising is considered by Jews to be one of the most traumatic events in their history. Estimates of Jews killed in the uprising have been greatly exaggerated in the historiography of the event. According to B. Weinryb, the total of losses reported in Jewish sources is 2.4 million to 3.3 million deaths, clearly a fantastic figure. Weinryb cites the calculations of S. Ettinger indicating that about 50,000 Jews lived in the area where the uprising occurred. See B. Weinryb, "The Hebrew Chronicles on Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Cossack-Polish War," Harvard Ukrainian Studies 1 (1977): 153-77. While many of them were killed, Jewish losses did not reach the hair-raising figures that are often associated with the uprising. In the words of Weinryb (The Jews of Poland, 193-4), "The fragmentary information of the period—and to a great extent information from subsequent years, including reports of recovery—clearly indicate that the catastrophe may have not been as great as has been assumed."

At the other extreme, some modern academic sources place the Jewish death toll in the hundreds of thousands. One source, The Jew in the Modern World (Oxford University Press), states that the uprising "left in its wake hundreds of thousands of of Jewish dead, and, according to one witness, 744 Jewish communities destroyed." While the Jewish Encyclopedia considers the figure of 744 destroyed communities "unreliable," it views authoritatively "chronicles" which state that approximately 500,000 Jews were killed [14].

In the aftermath of the Deluge and Chmielnicki Uprising, many Jews fled to the less turbulent Netherlands, which had granted the Jews a protective charter in 1619. From then until the Nazi deportations in 1942, the Netherlands remained a remarkably tolerant haven for Jews in Europe, excedeeing the tolerance extant in all other European countries at the time, and becoming one of the few Jewish havens until nineteenth century social and political reforms throughout much of Europe. Many Jews also fled to England, open to Jews since the mid-seventeenth century, in which Jews were fundamentally ignored and not typically persecuted. Historian Berel Wein notes:

"In a reversal of roles that is common in Jewish history, the victorious Poles now vented their wrath upon the hapless Jews of the area, accusing them of collaborating with the Cossack invader!... The Jews, reeling from almost five years of constant hell, abandoned their Polish communities and institutions..." (Triumph of Survival, 1990).

Throughout the sixteenth to eighteenth century, many of the szlachta mistreated peasantry, townsfolk and Jews. One rabbinic responsum from the 1680's details an account of a Polish suzerain taking hostage the community rabbi and Jewish council for the sake of capturing a Jewish girl. A Polish peasant had claimed that the girl had agreed to marry him, despite her vehement denials (Beit Hillel, Rabbi Hillel ben Naftali Hertz). Threat of mob violence was a specter over the Jewish communities in Poland at the time. On one occasion in 1696, a mob threatened to massacre the Jewish community of Posin, Vitebsk. The mob accused the Jews of murdering a Pole. At the last moment, a peasant woman emerged with the victim's clothes and confessed to the murder. One notable example of actualized riots against Polish Jews is the rioting of 1716, during which many Jews lost their lives. Later, in 1723, the Bishop of Gdańsk instigated the massacre of hundreds of Jews. John Toland, a prominent Enlightenment figure in Ireland, wrote in 1714 that Polish Jews "are often exposed... to unspeakable Calamities."

The legendary Walentyn Potocki, a Polish nobleman who converted to Judaism, is said to have been burned by auto da fe on May 24, 1749. In 1757, at the instigation of Jacob Frank and his followers, the Bishop of Kamianets-Podilskyi forced the Jewish rabbis to participate in religious dispute with the quasi-Christian Frankists. Among the other charges, the Frankists claimed that the Talmud was full of heresy against Catholicism. The Catholic judges determined that the Frankists had won the debate, whereupon the Bishop levied heavy fines against the Jewish community and confiscated and burned all Jewish Talmuds. Polish anti-Semitism during the seventeenth and eighteenth century was summed up by Issac de Pinto as follows: "Polish Jews... who are deprived of all the privilages of society... who are despised and reviled on all sides, who are often persecuted, always insulted.... That contempt which is heaped on them chokes up all the seeds of virtue and honour...." (Issac de Pinto, philosopher and economist, in a 1762 letter to Voltaire). On the other hand, it should be noted that despite mentioned incidents, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a relative haven for Jews when compared to the period of the partitions of Poland and the PLC's destruction in 1795. (Regarding primary sources documenting 18th-century Poland, some historians have raised concerns about the existence of 18th-century accounts that were spread by partitioners, who these historians claim used propaganda in an attempt to create what these historians see as a false image of the PLC as a backward, anarchical, and dangerous country. This was ostensibly done to justify dissolution of a major European country and change in the European balance of power. It should be noted, however, that this section contains no primary source accounts from partitioners).


Anti-Semitism in Imperial Russia and in the Soviet Union

"Judaism Without Embellishments" by Trofim Kichko, published by the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR in 1963: "It is in the teachings of Judaism, in the Old Testament, and in the Talmud, that the Israeli militarists find inspiration for their inhuman deeds, racist theories, and expansionist designs..."

Main articles: History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union, Pogrom

The Pale of Settlement was the Western region of Imperial Russia to which Jews were restricted by the Tsarist Ukase of 1792. It consisted of the territories of former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, annexed with the existing numerous Jewish population, and the Crimea (which was later cut out from the Pale).

During 1881-1884, 1903-1906 and 1914-1921, waves of anti-Semitic pogroms swept Russian Jewish communities. At least some pogroms are believed to have been organized or supported by the Russian okhranka; although there is no hard evidence for this, the Russian police and army generally displayed indifference to the pogroms (e.g. during the three-day First Kishinev pogrom of 1903), as well as to anti-Jewish articles in newspapers which often instigated the pogroms.

During this period the May Laws policy was also put into effect, banning Jews from rural areas and towns, and placing strict quotas on the number of Jews allowed into higher education and many professions. The combination of the May Laws and pogroms propelled mass Jewish emigration, and by 1920 some 2 million Russian Jews had emigrated, most to the United States.

One of the most infamous anti-Semitic tractates was the Russian okhranka literary hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, created in order to blame the Jews for Russia's problems during the period of revolutionary activity.

Even though many Old Bolsheviks were ethnically Jewish, they sought to uproot Judaism and Zionism and established the Yevsektsiya to achieve this goal. By the end of the 1940s the Communist leadership of the former USSR had liquidated almost all Jewish organizations including Yevsektsiya.

The anti-Semitic campaign of 1948-1953 against so-called "rootless cosmopolitans," destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, the fabrication of the "Doctors' plot," the rise of "Zionology" and subsequent activities of official organizations such as the Anti-Zionist committee of the Soviet public were officially carried out under the banner of "anti-Zionism," but the use of this term could not obscure the anti-Semitic content of these campaigns, and by the mid-1950s the state persecution of Soviet Jews emerged as a major human rights issue in the West and domestically. See also: Jackson-Vanik amendment, Refusenik, Pamyat.


Anti-Semitism and Islam

Anti-Semitism within Islam is discussed in the article on Islam and anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism in the Arab World is discussed in the article on Arabs and anti-Semitism.

The Qur'an, Islam's holy book, criticizes the Jews for corrupting the Hebrew Bible. Muslims refer to Jews and Christians as a "People of the book"; Islamic law demands that when under Muslim rule they should be tolerated as dhimmis - from the Arab term ahl adh-dhimma. The writer Bat Ye'or introduced the modern word Dhimmitude as a generic indication of this Islamic attitude. Dhimmis were granted protection of life (even against other muslim states), wealth and honor, the right to residence, worship, and work or trade, and were exempted from military service, the zakah tax, and Muslim religious duties and personal law. They were obligated to pay other taxes (jizyah and land tax), and subject to various other restrictions regarding blaspheming Islam, the Qur'an or Muhammed, prosleytizing, and at times a number of other restrictions on dress, riding horses or camels, carrying arms, holding public office, building places of worship higher than mosques, mourning loudly, wearing shoes outside the mellah, etc. Anti-Semitism in the Muslim world increased in the twentieth century, as anti-Semitic motives and blood libels were imported from Europe. Some suggest this phenomenon is a reaction to the Arab-Israeli conflict.


Anti-Semitism in the 20th century


United States

In the USA, in the years leading up to America's entry into World War II, Father Charles Coughlin, an anti-Semitic radio preacher, as well as many other prominent public figures, condemned "the Jews" because they were leading America into war. While most Jews in America supported the interventionist camp, not all did. Jews were often condemned by populist politicians alternately for their left-wing politics, or their perceived wealth, at the turn of the century.

To limit the growing number of Jewish students Yale University in 1925 introduced the legacy system, which favoured the children of alumni.

American anti-Semitism underwent a modest revival in the late 20th century; some Black Muslims claimed that Jews were responsible for the exploitation of black labor, bringing alcohol and drugs into their communities, and unfair domination of the economy. These claims are generally considered spurious by impartial observers.



Nazi propaganda for German children from Julius Streicher's publication Der Giftpilz (Toadstool), 1938. The caption reads: "The God of the Jews is Money. And to gain money, he will commit the greatest crimes..."

Der Sturmer: "Satan"

With the rise of the Nazis and their explicity anti-Semitic program, hate speech referring to Jewish citizens as "dirty Jews" became common in anti-semitic pamplets and newspapers, such as Völkischer Beobachter and Der Stürmer. Judging by information available to researchers of Jewish history, its origins can possibly be traced to the Middle Ages, where isolated Jewish communities observed a strict dress code. Since Jewish clothing seemed strange to the hostile surrounding Christian populations of Europe, and also due to religious bigotry of some Christians, the expression was very widely used.

Nazi cartoons depicting "dirty Jews" frequently portrayed a dirty, physically unattractive and badly dressed "talmudic" Jew in traditional religious garments similar to those worn by Hassidic Jews. Articles attacking Jewish Germans, while concentrating on commercial and political activities of prominent Jewish individuals, also frequently attacked them based on religious dogmas. Accusations of responsibility of "killing our savior Jesus Christ" and refusal by Jews to "accept the savior" and convert to Christianity that fueled the hatred in the Middle Ages were also repeated by Nazi propagandists.

Hatred against Jews manifested itself in such measures as the Nuremberg Laws which banned "race-mixing" and in the Kristallnacht riots which targeted Jewish homes, businesses and places of worship.


The Holocaust and Holocaust denial

The most horrific manifestation of anti-Semitism was the Holocaust during World War II, in which about 6 million European Jews, 1.5 million of them children, were systematically murdered.

Holocaust deniers and revisionists often claim that "the Jews" or "Zionist conspiracy" are responsible for the exaggeration or wholesale fabrication of the events of the Holocaust. Critics of such revisionism point to an overwhelming amount of physical and historical evidence that supports the mainstream historical view of the Holocaust. Most academics agree that there is no credible evidence for any such conspiracy.

1941 "Ž" metal plate for Jewish houses (from Židov=Jew), removed from post office in Osijek.

The KKK: Nazi salute and Holocaust denial


Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism

Anti-Zionism is a term that has been used to describe several very different political and religious points of view (both historically and in current debates) all expressing some form of opposition to Zionism. A large variety of commentators - politicians, journalists, academics and others - believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to anti-Semitism. In turn, critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticism, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. This subject is discussed in the main article on Anti-Zionism. In addition to a conventional definition ("hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination), Webster's Dictionary gives a controversial second and third definition to anti-Semitism, defining the word as "opposition to Zionism" and "sympathy for the opponents of Israel". [15]


Anti-Semitism in the 21st century

Cartoon from the Syrian Arab daily newspaper Tishreen (Apr 30, 2000). Negative zoomorphism is commonly used in anti-Semitic discourse.

Although not at the levels seen in previous centuries, there are still attacks on Jews and Jewish culture today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has given rise to increased levels of anti-Semitism in the Middle East, and there are still neo-Nazi groups who threaten all ethnic minorities and commit anti-Semitic acts. These are sources of concern of many who fear a resurgence of hate.


New anti-Semitism

Defacement of a Jewish cemetery in France, 2004.

Main article: New anti-Semitism

In recent years some scholars of history, psychology, religion and representatives of Jewish groups, have noted what they describe as the new anti-Semitism, which is a twenty-first–century term which proposes a new form of anti-Semitism that differs from the cruder and more brutal manifestations seen in, for example, Nazi Germany.


See also

History of anti-Semitism


Jewish self-hatred.

List of anti-Semites

Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

Bohdan Chmielnicki

Arab anti-Semitism

Islam and anti-Semitism

Edgardo Mortara

New anti-Semitism

Saudi Arabia and anti-Semitism

Kevin B. MacDonald


Anti-Semitic websites

Jew Watch Radio Islam Institute for Historical Review



The Destruction of the European Jews Raul Hilberg. Holmes & Meier, 1985. 3 volumes

Hollywood and anti-semitism : a cultural history up to World War II, Steven Alan Carr, Cambridge University Press 2001

Michael Selzer (ed), "Kike!" : A documentary history of anti-semitism in America, New York 1972

Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory Deborah Lipstadt, 1994, Penguin.

Antisemitism in the New Testament, Lillian C. Freudmann, University Press of America, 1994.

Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political Instrument, Yossef Bodansky, Freeman Center For Strategic Studies, 1999

Warrant for Genocide Norman Cohn, 1967 (Eyre & Spottiswoode), 1996 (Serif)


External links

Why the Jews? A study of the causes of anti-Semitism

Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism (with up to date calendar of anti-semitism today)

Annotated bibliography of anti-Semitism hosted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Center for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA)

Anti-Semitism and responses

The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary anti-Semitism and Racism hosted by the Tel Aviv University - (includes an annual report)

Anti-Semitism and the Palestinian Leaders

Jews, the End of the Vertical Alliance, and Contemporary Antisemitism

An Israeli point of view on antisemitism, by Steve Plaut

The Anti-Semitic Disease - an analysis of Anti-Semitism by Paul Johnson in Commentary Magazine.

Example of anti-Semitism

church of the sons of yhvh


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The new anti-Semitism refers to the contemporary international resurgence of anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-Semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

The term "new anti-Semitism" first came into general use in the early 1970s. Sometimes the term is used in a generic sense to denote all contemporary forms of anti-Semitism, but it is also used to distinguish an allegedly new kind of anti-Semitism from traditional forms.

In the latter sense, the new anti-Semitism is seen as distinct — in its rhetoric, its pretexts, and its locus on the political spectrum — from the old anti-Semitism that still exists alongside it. Critics contend that such a concept of "new anti-Semitism" only serves to equate legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Main article: Anti-Semitism



1 The nature of the new anti-Semitism

2 State of the controversy

2.1 Opponents

2.2 Proponents

2.3 Examples cited

2.4 Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism

3 Manifestations of the new anti-Semitism

3.1 False allegations

3.2 Straw-man anti-Semitism

3.3 Cartoons described as Anti-Semitic

3.4 Incidents in the United Kingdom

3.5 Incidents in France

3.6 Incidents in the United States

4 Reactions and responses

4.1 Position of the United States

4.2 Position of the European Union

4.3 Position of the United Nations

4.4 Jewish reactions

4.4.1 Natan Sharansky

5 Criticism

5.1 Noam Chomsky

5.2 Brian Klug

5.3 Michael Neumann

5.4 Jewish Voice for Peace

6 See also

7 References

8 Further reading

8.1 Books

8.2 Articles

9 External links

9.1 Reports

9.2 Organizations and forums whose stated aim is to fight anti-Semitism

9.3 Articles about the new anti-Semitism

9.4 Miscellaneous

The nature of the new anti-Semitism

Whereas old anti-Semitism was associated with the political Right, the charge of new anti-Semitism is also applied to groups on the Left. The new anti-Semitism is often described as drawing its vocabulary and arguments from an opposition to Zionism, to the state of Israel, or to Israel's government, rather than from an overt hatred of Jews, though the latter may arise out of, or be otherwise associated with, the former.

Proponents of this model argue that some forms of anti-Zionism function as proxies for traditional anti-Semitism, thereby allowing anti-Semites to espouse a socially acceptable opposition to the Israeli state and its ideology, rather than a socially unacceptable religious or ethnic hatred. Proponents further argue that some grievances against Israel, stemming from the Arab-Israeli conflict, have become anti-Semitic in character, as manifested by hostility toward Jews in general.

Britain's Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks expressed this view when he said:

[T]he new antisemitism — and it is new — is a global phenomenon conveyed by Internet, e-mail, television and video, and we do not yet know how the new communications media will affect its spread. … It is coming simultaneously from three different directions: first, a radicalized Islamist youth inflamed by extremist rhetoric; second, a left-wing anti-American cognitive élite with strong representation in the European media; third, a resurgent far right, as anti-Muslim as it is anti-Jewish. [1]

Most descriptions of specific political groups as examples of the new anti-Semitism have been challenged by critics. Although it is usually conceded that right-wing anti-Semites have latched onto aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Arab anti-Zionism has led to a growth of anti-Jewish as well as anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world, critics argue that claims of a new anti-Semitism have largely, or even primarily, been used to deflect legitimate criticism of Zionism, of Israel, or of the Israeli government. Some have questioned whether any large portion of opposition to Israel is actually rooted in anti-Semitism; some have argued that the increase in anti-Semitism among Arabs and other Muslims, while lamentable, is a nearly inevitable outgrowth of the hostility between Israel and much of the Arab world, and is strictly an epiphenomenon of that conflict.

Often the "New anti-Semitism" is seen as distinct from classical anti-Semitism and defined by its link to anti-Zionism. This view is controversial. In his article "Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness", Irwin Cotler, the Minister of Justice for Canada, writes:

In a word, classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; the new anti-Semitism — incompletely, or incorrectly, [referred to] as "anti-Zionism"... — involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intrinsic to each form of anti-Semitism — and common to both — is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has moved from discrimination against Jews as individuals — a classical anti-Semitism for which there are indices of measurement (e.g., discrimination against Jews in education, housing, or employment) — to discrimination against Jews as people — a new anti-Semitism — for which one has yet to develop indices of measurement. [2]

Cotler outlines six categories and thirteen indices that illustrate the scope, character, and specific instances new anti-Semitism:
Genocidal anti-Semitism
• The public call for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people
Political anti-Semitism
• The discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the Jewish people's right to self-determination

• Discrimination against the Jews as a people

• The demonizing of Israel
Theological anti-Semitism
• The convergence of state-sanctioned Islamic anti-Semitism, which characterizes Jews, Judaism, let alone Israel, as the perfidious enemy of Islam
Cultural anti-Semitism
European hierarchical anti-Semitism
Denying Israel equality before the law
• The singling out of Israel for differential, if not discriminatory, treatment amongst the family of nations

• The disenfranchisement of Israel in the international arena
Economic anti-Semitism
• The extra-territorial application by Arab countries of an international restrictive covenant against corporations conditioning their trade with Arab countries on their agreement not to do business with Israel (secondary boycott)

• Not doing business with another corporation which may be doing business with Israel (tertiary boycott)

• Conditioning the trade with such corporations on neither hiring nor promoting Jews within the corporation
State-sanctioned anti-Semitism
• The state-sanctioned "culture of hate".

State of the controversy

For detailed contentions, see section Criticism.



Opponents of the concept of New anti-Semitism assert that:

Antipathy toward Israel's policies, its character as a Jewish state, or even its existence, does not necessarily amount to anti-Semitism.

People may have legitimate reasons to criticize or condemn the actions of any state, and Israel is as subject to this as any other.

There are Jewish groups and Jewish individuals who hold views critical of Israeli policy; some of these (though far fewer) even question the legitimacy of Israel's character as a Jewish state. Some Haredi groups regard the state of Israel and Zionism as secularist heresies, and a few fringe organizations, most notably Neturei Karta, have called for the creation of a unitary state of Palestine in the region. A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the state of Israel and Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism. Former Knesset member Tamar Gozansky is one such figure, while prominent Jewish intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber articulated similar views in the mid-twentieth century.

Many left-wing groups within mainstream Israeli politics hold views regarding some Israeli government policies similar to those criticized as anti-Semitic when expressed by left-wing groups outside Israel.

A frequent target for accusations of new anti-Semitism — the socialist Left — maintains a principled stand against any form of bigotry.

Accusations of anti-Semitism may be used to discredit those who criticize the actions of the Israeli government.

Comparing Israel with regimes known for repressive policies is commonplace within Israeli politics as well, with right-wing Zionists comparing Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler.

Palestinians and their sympathizers have reasons to oppose Israel independently of its connection to the Jewish people. Some of these sympathizers bear ill will toward the Jewish people, while others do not.

Frivolous accusations of anti-Semitism could undermine the struggle against more serious examples of it.



Proponents of the concept of the new anti-Semitism respond to these objections as follows:

It is no coincidence that criticism against Israel is:

Out of any proportion to the size of the conflict, whether measured in number of individuals affected, the size of the territory in dispute, or by the magnitude of alleged transgressions;

Characterized by a double standard, in which Israel is held to a higher standard than any other state in a comparable situation;

Replete with persistent exaggerations, distortions and outright falsehoods.

While it is certainly possible to criticize Israel without harboring anti-Semitic motivations, it is reasonable to assume that those who hate Jews also hate Israel.

Whether or not anti-Zionists harbor anti-Semitic attitudes, they should still be held responsible for promoting anti-Semitic prejudice.

The fact that some Jews are anti-Zionists does not provide immunity against anti-Semitism.

Religious anti-Zionists base their opposition on convictions that ultimately call for the return of Jews to Eretz Israel.

Just as all those who are critical of Israel aren't anti-Semitic, Jews who are critical of Israel have different reasons for their views.

Even so, Jews are not exempt from misguided attitudes and self-loathing neuroses.

It is patently apparent that vocal elements both within the secular and religious Arab world employ anti-Semitic images, canards, and stereotypes for political purposes.

The left wing is no more immune from bigotry than any other group.

There is ample evidence that the hostile popular opinion against Israel is correlated with blatant anti-Semitic acts.


Examples cited

The following have been identified by proponents of the term as specific examples that reflect New anti-Semitism:

Attacking Jews as a reaction to events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or as a means to terrorize Israel;

Misrepresenting Zionism or singling it out for obloquy;

Denying the State of Israel's right to exist as an equal member of the world community;

Equating Jews with Nazis;

Straw-man attacks, wherein Jews are alleged to claim that any and all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. This allegation is then used to condemn Jewish groups as unreasonable. According to Thomas Friedman, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction — out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East — is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." (The New York Times: "Campus Hypocrisy", October 16, 2002).


Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism

Related articles: anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism

Anti-Zionism is a term that has been used to describe several very different political and religious points of view (both historically and in current debates), all expressing some form of opposition to Zionism. Many commentators, particularly those supportive of Israel, believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to anti-Semitism. In turn, critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. They point out that, during debate over the establishment of the State of Israel, most notably, many Hassidic Jews considered this manifestation of Zionism heretical. Today, the number of anti-Zionist Jewish groups worldwide is small.

There are examples of leading Zionists, while stating that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism, conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League is on the record saying "The harsh but un-deniable truth is this: what some like to call anti-Zionism is, in reality, anti-Semitism — always, everywhere, and for all time... Therefore, anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hatred." [3] The World Union of Jewish Students looks at the dictionary definitions of anti-Semitism and Zionism and concludes that "According to these definitions it seems that anti-Zionism is Antisemitism" [4]. Nevertheless, it distinguishes between opposition to Israel and anti-Zionism: "Can a person oppose the actions of the State of Israel, without denying its right to exist? The answer appears to be clearly yes."


Manifestations of the new anti-Semitism


False allegations

Proponents of the new anti-Semitism say that one of its manifestations involves false allegations made about Israel and Jews, with the intent of stirring up hatred against them. This section lists examples used to support that claim.

Perhaps the most notable case was the so called "Jenin massacre" allegation, in which it was claimed that in Jenin, Israeli Defense Forces committed atrocities "horrific beyond belief," according to United Nations special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen [5], and "massacred" 500–3000 innocent Palestinians during Operation Defensive Shield. Two weeks after the press promoted the Jenin massacre allegation, international reporters uncovered that no massacre had taken place in Jenin. Fatah lowered its estimate of the death toll to 56 people, the majority of whom were combatants, as were the 23 IDF soldiers killed during the battle. The "Jenin massacre" story sparked waves of anti-Israeli protests and violent attacks against Jews in Europe, and was regarded by many Jews as a modern blood libel.

The role of the media in reporting these events was highly controversial. Many Western media outlets were criticized as having deliberately misled their readers, and some reporters were accused of fabricating information to demonize Israel. However, reports by the Western media of a "massacre" in Jenin were generally presented as eyewitness accounts, and not as undisputed facts. The BBC, for instance, conveyed reports of a "massacre" from some international observers, but did not take a position as to whether or not such events had occurred.[6] Some reporters noted that it was difficult to ascertain what had actually happened in Jenin following the end of Israeli military operations there, as foreign observers were not initially given access to the city.

In the Arab media, conspiracy theories involving Jews abound: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a text debunked many years ago as a fraud perpetrated by Czarist intelligence agents, continued to appear in the Middle East media, not as a hoax, but as established fact. Government-sponsored television in Syria ran lengthy serials based on the Protocols. The presentations emphasized blood libel and the alleged control by the Jewish community of international finance. The clear purpose of the programs was to incite hatred of Jews and of Israel. Copies of the Protocols and other similar anti-Semitic forgeries were readily available in Middle Eastern countries, former Soviet republics and elsewhere. Similarly, allegations that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks were widely disseminated."1 (See also 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel)

Such media channels often broadcast globally and incite attacks against Jews. On December 2004, the French court banned Hizbullah's TV channel Al-Manar after repeated anti-Semitic attacks and allegations such as "Zionist attempts to transmit AIDS to Arab countries." [7]


Straw-man anti-Semitism

One claim made by some opponents of Israel and/or the notion of a new anti-Semitism is that defenders of Israel describe any criticism of the State of Israel as anti-Semitism. This claim is then used to criticise defenders of Israel as unreasonable, or attempting to stifle legitimate debate.

However, proponents of the view that there is a New anti-Semitism point out that no groups supportive of Israel officially hold, or have ever held, such a position. One popular understanding of this issue can be found in a statement by the Anti-Defamation League:

"Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly the sovereign State of Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world. However, it is undeniable that there are those whose criticism of Israel or of "Zionism" is used to mask anti-Semitism." (Anti-Defamation League website.)

In his speech given at Berkeley University on April 29, 2004, Law Professor at Harvard University Law School Alan Dershowitz said, in particular: "Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies."


Cartoons described as Anti-Semitic

The U.S. State Department report on Global Anti-Semitism1 describes the rise of anti-Semitic cartoons in Western media as a symptom of growing antisemitism:

Graphic art-work created by Carlos Latuff, a cartoonist associated with left-wing groups such as Indymedia and Gush Shalom. This work, published in one of Indymedia's websites, depicts a Jewish religious soldier as eager to "kill Palestinian kids for fun in the name of God".

Critics of Israel frequently use anti-Semitic cartoons depicting anti-Jewish images and caricatures to attack the State of Israel and its policies, as well as Jewish communities and others who support Israel. These media attacks can lack any pretext of balance or even factual basis and focus on the demonization of Israel. The United States is frequently included as a target of such attacks, which often assert that U.S. foreign policy is made in Israel or that Jews control the media and financial markets in the United States and the rest of the world. During the 2004 United States presidential campaign, the Arab press ran numerous cartoons closely identifying both of the major American political parties with Israel and with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon.

In one case, British daily, The Independent, depicted the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon eating a child. The cartoon, drawn by Dave Brown and based on the painting Saturn Devouring one of his children by Goya, appeared whilst Sharon was seeking re-election in Israel and sparked a wave of protests from the Israeli embassy and Jewish human rights group. Critics accused the cartoonist of incitement and anti-Semitism. "This cartoon conjures up the horrific medieval antisemitic 'Blood Libel' and is more in keeping with the tradition of the Nazi paper 'Der Stürmer'," lamented Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center ([8]). Despite the protests, the cartoon was selected as "Cartoon of the year of 2003" [9]. The Independent's editor and the cartoonist denied that the cartoon was anti-Semitic and claimed it was just "anti-Sharon", and the British Press Complaints Commission ruled against the complaints, pointing to the fact that the same Goya painting had also been adapted to attack non-Jewish politicians [10].


Incidents in the United Kingdom

Since 2001, the Community Security Trust, an organisation whic records anti-semitic attaacks in Britain, has recorded a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents [11]. The incidents recorded include verbal abuse, vandalism, desecration of property, abusive literature, threats and physical violence. Attacks on Jews and Israeli students were also recorded, and Jewish organisations assert that Islamist groups are active on university campuses, where militant Muslim students arranged conferences and protests against Israel and Jewish organisations.

There are concerns that the support for Palestine within some left-wing students and academic unions may enable anti-Semitism to pass unchallenged. Luciana Berger, a Jewish student, former National Union of Students (NUS) National Executive Committee member, and co-convener of the NUS Anti-Racism/ Anti-Fascism Campaign, resigned from her post after NUS conferences turned into a stage of anti-Semitic slurs, with the NUS refusing to condemn it. She told The Guardian:

Almost half a year ago, serious complaints were lodged about anti-semitic comments made by an NUS member in a public meeting. These complaints were ignored, with no official response or action. A few months ago, when it was (incorrectly) rumoured that I, a Jewish student, was standing for the NUS presidency, anti-semitic whispers rocked the NUS. And NEC members failed to condemn a comment made recently at the Soas Student Union in London that burning down a synagogue is a rational act. [12]

Journalists and Jewish groups also protested against London's controversial mayor Ken Livingstone for endorsing Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim scholar and preacher who supports and advocates suicide bombings against Jews. [13]

On April 29, 2003, Asif Hania and Omar Sharif, two British Muslim citizens, blew themselves up in Mike's Place Pub in Tel Aviv, killing three and wounding over 50. [14]

Also, during the 2005 UK General election, the election for the riding of Bethnal Green & Bow in London's most heavily Muslim district was tainted by incidents of tire-slashing and vicious verbal assaults on the incumbent Labour candidate Oona King, who is half African-American (from a US emigrant) and half-Jewish. King's support for the war in Iraq, which was unpopular with many British voters and with Muslims in particular, may also have been intrumental in her unseating by George Galloway, candidate for the new, anti-war RESPECT Party. Galloway, who won by a narrow margin, was blamed by some for exacerbating the problem of anti-Semitism with his rhetoric against US and Israeli policy in the Middle East, despite his official denounciation of such attacks.


Incidents in France

During 2002 there was a dramatic increase of antisemitic attacks and incitement against Israel and Jews in France, ostensibly on the grounds of the then-upcoming United States war in Iraq (and its then-current campaign in Afghanistan) and the events of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, most notably the eruption of violence during the al-Aqsa Intifada and the later refuted allegation of the Jenin massacre in April 2002.

Manifestions of hatred toward Israelis and Jews could be found in Anti-war rallies in France, which were often used as a stage for burning Israeli flags and chanting anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish slogans. In one event, serveral activists from the Zionist-socialist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair were attacked by the protesters, promoting harsh criticism from Aurélie Filipetti,

I felt we should stop putting our head in the sand, saying that these are only fringe effects and therefore 'none of our concern', which leads us to just condemn them and do nothing more... They explained to me that the slogan 'Bush and Sharon are murderers' is not antisemitism but anti-Zionism. But for me, when you burn the flag of Israel, it is antisemitism. The meaning is the delegitimation of Israel's right to exist.

she said to Maariv [15]. She later wrote an article to Libération, blaming the French left-wing for turning a blind eye to antisemitism that seem to plague their own camp. [16]

Though the French authorities vocally condemned antisemitism and took measures to combat the phenomenon, the number of attacks only increased. According to the National Consultative Commission of Human Rights, there were 970 antisemitic incidents in 2004, as compared to 601 incidents in 2003. [17]

In May 2005, the Versailles court found three writers for Le Monde, as well as the newspaper's publisher, guilty of "racist defamation" against Israel and the Jewish people. The writers of the article "Israel-Palestine: The Cancer" (published in 2002) Edgar Morin (a well-known Jewish sociologist), Danièle Sallenave (a senior lecturer at Nanterre University) and Sami Nair (a member of the European parliament), as well as Le Monde's publisher, Jean-Marie Colombani, were ordered to pay symbolic damages of one Euro to the Franco-Israeli association and to Avocats sans frontières. This last association in the past provided justice assistance for french activists of Jewish Defense League. [18][19]

List of antisemitic attack in France (2000-2005)


Incidents in the United States

Poster displayed on the campus of SFSU

Incidents described as representative of the new anti-Semitism, where the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism has been blurred, have been recorded by the Anti-Defamation League on college campuses across the U.S. [20]. The organisation asserts that an April 9, 2002 rally by the Muslim Student Association at San Francisco State University ressurected the blood libel myth. The pro-Palestinian rally featured posters bearing a picture of soup cans reading "Made in Israel" on the label and listing the contents as "Palestinian Children Meat," and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as the manufacturer. A photo of a baby, with its stomach sliced open, was also on the can, following the words "slaughtered according to Jewish Rites under American license." A month later, on May 7 SFSU-authorized pro-Israel rally was held by 30 Jewish students. During the rally, the pro-Israeli demonstrators clashed with about 60 pro-Palestinian students, who are alleged by the Jewish students to have screamed racist insults and used physical violence against them. The conflict continued for about 20 minutes until campus police arrived. Soon after, a cinder block was thrown through the glass doors of UC Berkeley's Hillel building on Passover. Around the same time, two Orthodox Jews were beaten one block from the UC Berkeley campus, and anti-Zionist graffiti appeared on the sidewalks, garbage cans and buildings near the school. [21] In covering the story about the campus unrest at SFSU, journalist Camille T. Taiara, a writer for the San Francisco Bay Guardian, disputed these reports of the attacks and blamed pro-Israeli demonstrators for trying to suppress opposition to the policies of the Israeli government. [22]


Reactions and responses


Position of the United States

On December 30, 2004, the US Department of State published its annual Report on Global Anti-Semitism1, in accordance with Section 4 of PL 108-332. The report's summary says: "The increasing frequency and severity of anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the 21st century, particularly in Europe, has compelled the international community to focus on anti-Semitism with renewed vigor." "Four main sources" of the phenomenon were identified:

"Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice that has pervaded Europe and some countries in other parts of the world for centuries. This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world."

"Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism."

"Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq."

"Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both."

The report contains major incidents, trends and actions taken around the world in the period between July 1, 2003 and December 15, 2004.

On April 28, 2004, at the OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism in Berlin, then United States Secretary of State Colin Powell explained, "It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel, but the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures." [23]


Position of the European Union

Groups monitoring hate speech and violence in the European Union have noted an upswing in attacks on Jewish people and Jewish institutions in many European countries. The Interior Minister of France has announced that the number of anti-Semitic attacks in France in 2004 is more than double that of the same period in 2003 ([24]).

In September 2004, The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a part of the Council of Europe, called on its member nations to "ensure that criminal law in the field of combating racism covers anti-Semitism" and to penalize intentional acts of public incitement to violence, hatred or discrimination, public insults and defamation, threats against a person or group, and the expression of anti-Semitic ideologies. It urged member nations to "prosecute people who deny, trivialize or justify the Holocaust". The report said it was Europe's "duty to remember the past by remaining vigilant and actively opposing any manifestations of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance... Anti-Semitism is not a phenomenon of the past and... the slogan 'never again' is as relevant today as it was 60 years ago." ([25])

According to a study by Pew Research Center, in some European countries there has been a recent decrease in some forms of anti-Semitism.


Position of the United Nations

Many Jewish groups have been disappointed with the role of the United Nations in regards to the treatment of Jews; many Jewish groups and writers have stated that the actions of the United Nations have often implicitly condoned, or encouraged, anti-Semitism.

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated on June 21, 2004: "It is hard to believe that 60 years after the tragedy of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is once again rearing its head. But it is clear that we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of these phenomena in new forms and manifestations. This time the world must not, cannot, be silent." Annan then asked UN member states to adopt a resolution to fight anti-Semitism, and stated that the UN's Commission on Human Rights must study and expose anti-Semitism in the same way that it fights bias against Muslims. Annan stated "Are not Jews entitled to the same degree of concern and protection?" [26], [27]

Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian human rights activist, addressed the UN specifically on this matter on the same day:

At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target. More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40 years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation of right hand and left foot. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state.... [28]

According to Lawrence H. Summers, the current president of Harvard University, "The United Nations-sponsored World Conference on Racism - while failing to mention human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, or anyplace in the Arab world - spoke of Israel's policies prior to recent struggles under the Barak government as constituting ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The NGO declaration at the same conference was even more virulent." [29]


Jewish reactions

The Anti-Defamation League stated that: "The events of September 11, the American campaign against terrorism and the Palestinian intifada against Israel have created a dangerous atmosphere in the Middle East and Europe, one that 'gives anti-Semitism and hate and incitement a strength and power of seduction that it has never before had in history.'"


Natan Sharansky

Natan Sharansky has suggested that anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism can be distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel if it fails the "3D" test, as follows:

The first D is the test of demonization... Jews were demonized for centuries as the embodiment of evil. Therefore, today we must be wary of whether the Jewish state is being demonized by having its actions blown out of all sensible proportion. For example, the comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of the Palestinian refugee camps to Auschwitz... can only be considered anti-Semitic.

The second D is the test of double standards. For thousands of years a clear sign of anti-Semitism was treating Jews differently than other peoples, from the discriminatory laws many nations enacted against them to the tendency to judge their behavior by a different yardstick. Similarly, today we must ask whether criticism of Israel is being applied selectively... It is anti-Semitism, for instance, when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while tried and true abusers like China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria are ignored. Likewise, it is anti-Semitism when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross.

The third D is the test of delegitimation. In the past, anti-Semites tried to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish religion, the Jewish people, or both. Today, they are trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state, presenting it, among other things, as the last vestige of colonialism. While criticism of an Israeli policy may not be anti-Semitic, the denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic. If other peoples have a right to live securely in their homelands, then the Jewish people have a right to live securely in their homeland.[30]



Many writers have questioned whether there really is any new anti-Semitism. They see the talk of the new anti-Semitism as merely a ploy to delegitimize pro-Palestian viewpoints.


Noam Chomsky

Perhaps the best known proponent of such views is the Jewish anarchist Noam Chomsky. He maintains that the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups see legitimate criticism of Israeli policies as examples of new anti-Semitism while turning a blind eye to blatant examples of traditional anti-Semitism.

In 1988, there was much publicity when it was discovered that there were several known anti-Semites in high positions in the Republican Party. The New Republic argued in an editorial that the discovery of "seven aging Eastern European fascists in the Republican apparatus" really wasn't the threat it was made out to be. Their form of anti-Semitism was merely traditional bigotry without an agenda. The New Republic saw a greater threat in the anti-Semitism of the left, which had a salient agenda: "the delegimitization of the Jewish national movement". In his book Necessary Illusions and subsequent writings, Chomsky saw this as an example of how the real anti-Semitism was ignored while criticism of Israel was vilified. This was his conclusion:

Thus for The New Republic, the discovery of unreconstructed Nazis in high places in a Republican Party that was then considered to "support Israel" was a minor matter; Nazism, Holocaust denial, hatred of Jews are only "antique and anemic forms of anti-Semitism," The New Republic explained, in contrast to the serious stuff: the "Jew-hatred" in the Democratic Party [...].[31]


Brian Klug

Brian Klug, in an article written for The Nation in 2004 [32], argues that while we should be concerned with the recent rise in anti-Semitic events including violence against Jews, anti-Jewish graffiti, and talk of Jewish led conspiracy plots, these do not as a whole represent some new or more virulent form of anti-Semitism but simply a revival of the old anti-Semitism. He believes that in reality, the claim of there being a new anti-Semitism is really a code-word for including anti-Zionism in anti-Semitism; he argues that anti-Zionism is not necessarily anti-Semitic. He notes that Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League has stated "The harsh but undeniable truth is this: what some like to call anti-Zionism is, in reality, anti-Semitism—always, everywhere, and for all time....Therefore, anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hatred", and argues that supporters of this comparison, such as Foxman and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, are making a false claim that all Jews are Zionists and thus unfairly linking all forms of anti-Zionism as automatically anti-Semitic. He goes on to suggests that the concept of new anti-Semitism is being used by some to unfairly silence many legitimate critics of Israel. He suggest that line between legitimate and anti-Semitic criticism of Israel is being drawn by many supporters of Israel in such a way as to rule out any criticism beyond a rap across the Israeli government's knuckles or a finger wagging at the laws of its land. Thus, in his view, criticisms of Israel are too often labeled anti-Semitic without regard to the true motivations of the critic or whether the facts support the critics claims. He says that to argue that hostility towards Israel and hostility towards Jews as being one and the same is equating Israel with Jewry, an equation he rejects. He does not claim there is never a connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism but that it is usually only one potential ingredient in a complex situation and not the engine that drives most anti-Zionism. He takes issue with the claim by some supporters of Israel that criticism of Israel that is unbalanced and intemperate is automatically anti-Semitic. He argues that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bitter struggle with complex issues, inflamed passions, and suffering on both sides. Thus, partisans on both sides are liable to cross the line at times. He says that one cannot assume that when either side crosses the line that it is necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism, racism, or Islamophobia, though for some that may indeed be the case.


Michael Neumann

Michael Neumann, a Jewish professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, shared similar views in his Counterpunch article "Criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitism." [33]. He is critical of how the term anti-Semitism is being applied these days. He says that too often criticism of Israel is being wrongly labeled anti-Semitic. He believes anti-Semitism should be defined as hatred of Jews for what they are and not what they do. Thus criticizing Jews for simply being a Jew or applying anti-Semitic stereotypes to them would be anti-Semitic but not, say, criticizing the Jewish community for failing to hold Israel accountable for its actions. He believes it is important to separate the Israeli government from the Israeli people and the Jewish Israelis from Jews as a whole, since Israel does not represent all Jews and the Israeli government does not represent the views of all Israelis. Thus criticism of the Israeli government and its actions is never the same as criticizing all Jews or even simply all Israelis.


Jewish Voice for Peace

Another area of activity condemned as anti-Semitic is the boycotting of Israeli companies or companies that profit from dealing with Israel. Pro-Palestinian Jews such as Jewish Voice for Peace say that they:

...absolutely reject the accusation that general divestment or boycott campaigns are inherently anti-Semitic. The Israeli government is a government like any other, and condemning its abuse of state power, as many of its own citizens do quite vigorously, is in no way the same as attacking the Jewish people. [34]


See also

History of anti-Semitism

Holocaust denial, Holocaust revisionism

Post-Zionism, Anti-Zionism

Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism

Allegation of antisemitism within the European anti-war movement (section of Post-September 11 anti-war movement).



The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, Phyllis Chessler, Jossey-Bass, 2003

Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism by Abraham Foxman, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003

A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st Century Britain, Ed. Paul Iganski and Barry Kosmin. Profile Books, 2003

Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory Deborah Lipstadt, 1994, Penguin

The Return of Anti-Semitism, Gabriel Schoenfeld, Encounter Books, 2003

Why the Jews? The Reasons for Antisemitism Revised Edition.Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, Simon & Schuster, 2003

Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred, Robert S. Wistrich. Pantheon Books, 1992.


Further reading



Rosenbaum, Ron. Editor. (2004). Those Who Forget the Past: The Question of Anti-Semitism. Random House. ISBN 0812972031

Taguieff, Pierre-André. (2002). La nouvelle judéophobie (Editions mille et une nuits) ISBN 2842056507. Translated in English as:Rising From the Muck : The New Anti-Semitism in Europe. Ivan R. Dee. ISBN 1566635713

Taguieff, Pierre-André. (2001). The force of prejudice: on racism and its doubles. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0816623724



Greenspan, Miriam. (Nov-Dec 2003). "The New Anti-Semitism". Tikkun 18:6. p. 33.


External links



1 The U.S. State Department report on Global Antisemitism, covering the peroid of July 1, 2003 - December 15, 2004

"Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the European Union" (pdf) Unpublished EU report from 2003

The New Anti-Semitism in Europe and The Middle East: Threat is "Potent and Very Real" ADL Leader Says in Major Address

The New Anti-Semitism in Western Europe: American Jewish Committee

The New Anti-Semitism in Europe and The Middle East: Anti-Defamation League


Organizations and forums whose stated aim is to fight anti-Semitism

The Anti-Defamation League

The Simon Wiesenthal Center (Jewish Human Right organization which combat antisemitism, founded by Simon Wiesenthal)

The American Jewish Committee

The American Jewish Congress

Tribuna Israelita, Mexican Jewish Centre

International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee

The Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism


Articles about the new anti-Semitism

Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness by Irwin Cotler, Minister of Justice for Canada

The New Anti-Semitism, article by Daniel Pipes

The New Anti-Semitism in Europe and The Middle East: Threat is "Potent and Very Real" ADL Leader Says in Major Address

Applying the Lessons of the Holocaust: from Particularism to Universalism and Back, by Dr. Shimon Samuels, Director for International Liaison, Simon Wiesenthal Center-Paris

The New Anti-Semitism: Christian Action for Israel

Anti-Globalization and the New Anti-Semitism.By David Arenson and Simon Grynberg

On Hating the Jews, by Natan Sharansky, originally published in Commentary, November 2003

The New Antisemitism, Natan Sharansky (January 1, 2002)

Anti-Semitism in the United Nations by Morris B. Abram

A New Antisemitism? by Professor Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, June 2002

"Anti-Semitism in the Church?"

Phyllis Chesler on the New anti-Semitism

Audit finds anti-Semitism rising across Canada

The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism by Brian Klug

Criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitism By Michael Neumann

The Return of Anti-Semitism By Craig Horowitz. New York Magazine

"The 'new' anti-semitism: is Europe in grip of worst bout of hatred since the Holocaust?" by Chris McGreal, The Guardian, November 25, 2003

"The new anti-semitism?" by Peter Beaumont, The Observer, February 17, 2002

"The hate that shames us" by Julie Burchill, The Guardian, December 6, 2003

"Symposium: Leftist Anti-Semitism" by Jamie Glazov,, September 19, 2003

"Antiglobalism's Jewish Problem" by Mark Strauss, Foreign Policy, November-December 2003, on YaleGlobal Online, Yale University

"Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the European Union" (pdf) by Werner Bergmann and Juliane Wetzel, Berlin Research Centre on Anti-Semitism, Berlin Technical University

Collection of articles about left-wing antisemitism, Ben Dror Yemini, Maariv writer (some in Hebrew and some in English)

"Following Mosley's East End footsteps" by Nick Cohen, The Observer, April 17, 2005

"Dons' boycott raises Jewish student fear" by Maurice Chittenden, The Sunday Times, April 17, 2005

"Labour should have fought back on immigration, says Euan Blair's girlfriend" Melissa Kite, The Telegraph, April 17, 2005

"Jews criticise lecturer boycott" Lewis Smith, The Times, April 18, 2005

"Why I had to resign" by Lucian Berger, The Guardian , April 15, 2005

"Anti-Semitism: She was a hardworking wife who saved for a decent grave. Now it lies shattered" by Terri Judd, The Independent, June 17, 2005



Anti-Semitism: A Practical Manual, Uri Avneri (Gush Shalom)

Antisemitic and anti-Israeli slogans in anti-war protests in the USA, Anti-Defamation League

"Deceptive Web Site Attempts to Lure Anti-Globalization Activists to Neo-Nazi Movement", Anti-Defamation League, July 11, 2002

Retrieved from ""

#3- Neturei Karta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Members of the Neturei Karta protesting against Zionism.

Neturei Karta (Aramaic: "Guardians of the City") is a group of Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Jews who not only reject all forms of Zionism, but also actively oppose the State of Israel. Other Orthodox Jewish communities, including some who oppose Zionism, have denounced Neturei Karta's anti-Israel activities; according to The Guardian, "[e]ven among Charedi, or ultra-Orthodox circles, the Neturei Karta are regarded as a wild fringe".[1]

They number some 5,000 and are concentrated in Jerusalem. Other, larger groups associated with Neturei Karta but not members of the group, can be found in Israel, London, New York City, and other parts of New York state.


1 Ideology

2 Condemnations

2.1 Palestinian funding

3 History

3.1 Early history

3.2 Before the partition of Palestine

3.3 1947 - 1967

3.4 1967 - present

4 References

5 External links


Adherents of Neturei Karta stress the section of classical rabbinic literature which states that the Jewish people were first sent into exile from the land of Israel for their sins. Additionally, they maintain that any form of forceful recapture of Israel is a violation of Divine will (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Ketuboth 111).

Leaders of the movement hold that the Holocaust was divine punishment for the sins of the Jewish people, namely Zionism. In their view, Zionism is a presumptuous affront against God; Neturei Karta teaches that Jews must wait for God to end the exile of the Jews, and that human attempts to do so are sinful. Their websites claims that the Zionists deliberately condemned thousands of Jews to die in Nazi gas chambers, rather than allow them to emigrate to destinations other than Palestine, in order for the Zionists to claim a Zionist State.

They hold that the mass media deliberately downplays their viewpoint and makes them out to be just a few, while there are a large number of Jews with the same or similar beliefs.

They believe that the true Israel can only be reestablished with the coming of the Messiah.



Because members of Neturei Karta participated in a prayer vigil for Yasser Arafat outside the Percy Military Hospital in Paris France where he lay on his death bed, the group was condemned by many Orthodox and Hasidic Jewish organizations and Hasidic dynasties, including:

Anshei Sfard, Satmar, Bobov, Emunas Yisroel, Ger, Belz, Bnei Yehuda, Nitra, Vizhnitz, Munkacz, Vien, Klausenburg, Torah Vodaas, Novominsk, Torah Temimah, Chasam Sofer, Kiryas Joel - Monroe, Puppa, Young Israel of Brooklyn, Cong. Shomrei Shabbos, United Lubavitch Organizations of Crown Heights, Kamenitz, Agudath Israel 14th Avenue, United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, Boro Park Jewish Council, Debrecin, US Friends of the Eida Charedis, Lakewood Yeshiva.

In their joint press release, the critics stated:

Their joining in vigils and 'prayers' for the arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat [may his name be blotted out] with Jew-haters of all manner, is an outrage that we cannot ignore and will not forgive. We again demand that rabbis and community leaders of all communities ensure that members of this group are refused entry to all houses of prayer.

These nefarious associates of Jewry's enemies have unfortunately again succeeded in their crazed hunger for publicity and are being depicted in local and international media — outfitted in their religious attire — bewailing the impending demise of a mass-murderer — side-by-side with Palestinian Jew-haters. The shame and embarrassment to decent religious Jews worldwide is unbearable. [2]

Although there has been previous criticism from Orthodox circles, this was one of the most forceful condemnations. Particularly notable was the condemnation by the much larger Satmar Hasidic movement, which had been thought to be allied with Neturei Karta, as there were some ideological parallels in their beliefs vis à vis Zionism.


Palestinian funding

Neturei Karta has infuriated other Jewish groups by aligning themselves with Yasser Arafat, the Palestine Liberation Organization and later, the Palestinian Authority. These groups are widely seen as terrorist organizations by Jewish groups.

In 2002, during Israel's "Operation Defensive Shield", the Israeli military claimed to have captured numerous documents from the headquarters of Arafat which proved that Rabbi Moshe Hirsch was on Arafat's payroll. Rabbi Hirsch's son, however, denied that any payment was accepted (Rappaport 2002).




Early history

For the most part, the members of Neturei Karta are descended from Hungarian Jews that settled in Jerusalem's Old City in the early nineteenth century. In the late nineteenth century, they participated in the creation of new neighborhoods outside the city walls to alleviate overcrowding in the Old City, and most are now concentrated in the neighborhood of Batei Ungarin and the larger Meah Shearim neighborhood.

At the time, they were vocal opponents to the new political ideology of Zionism that was attempting to assert Jewish sovereignty in Ottoman-controlled Palestine. They resented the new arrivals, who were predominantly secular, and claimed that Jewish redemption could only be brought about by the Jewish messiah.

Among the proofs they brought for this argument was a Talmudic statement that God, the Jewish people, and the nations of the world made a divine pact, when the Jews were sent into exile by the Roman Empire. One provision of the pact was that the Jews would not rebel against the non-Jewish world that gave them sanctuary; a second was that they would not immigrate en masse to the Land of Israel. In return, the legend states, the gentile nations promised not to persecute the Jews too harshly.

By rebelling against this pact, they argued, the Jewish People were engaging in open rebellion against God.

In fact, this position was adopted by the bulk of the Orthodox world before and even after World War II.


Before the partition of Palestine

Tensions were at their highest between the Zionist and non-Zionist Jewish communities in Palestine in the 1920s, following the assassination of Jacob Israël de Haan, a Dutch poet, former Zionist, and spokesman for Agudat Israel against the creation of a Jewish State. De Haan was assassinated by the Haganah, the Zionist paramilitary group operating in the country.

In November 1970 (and eventually rebroadcast November 21, 1971), a program on Israel radio "zarkor" broadcast a program, that had Yehuda Slutski, editor of Kitsur Toldoth ha-Haganah, Avraham Tehomi, and police officer David Tidhar discussing their foreknowledge and role in the assassination. Slutski wrote:

"... [T]he old yishuv refused to surrender and submit to secular domination... when they broke away and formed an independent community... no one disturbed them. Were it not for De Haan, they would have organized their small community devoid of any communal or political significance. De Haan used his connections to move the struggle into the realm of international politics. He aspired to establish a political organization to rival the Zionist movement, which was still then in its infancy and not yet fully established-- this was the danger of de Haan... Yosef Hecht, commander of the Haganah received instructions to eliminate the traitor. He relayed orders to Zechariah Urieli, Haganah commander of Jerusalem, .....I do not want to enter into details, it is extremely unpleasant, but this was an order--- they could not allow him to remain."

Avraham Tehomi said: "This was not Hecht's decision alone. Someone very important in the country was involved in this... this was a very high level decision ( I hope this does not appear in the broadcast...) He received permission....the time has still not come to reveal the truth...". At which point, interviewer Chaninah Amotz, the producer, piped in "Who ordered this? Can't it be told after 50 years?" Tehomi said, "I do not want to say".

Later in the broadcast police officer David Tidhar said: "I regret I was not chosen to liquidate him, my job was to protect those who did..." I moved into the area and waited for the shots... Naturally I appeared on the scene immediately. Since I knew in which direction the gunman had to escape... I directed the police to pursue them [ in the opposite direction]..."

The struggle between secular Zionist and religious non-Zionist Jewish communities was gradually won by the secular forces.


1947 - 1967

The small faction of Orthodox Zionists were the most prominent representatives of Jewish religious communities when the United Nations voted to partition Palestine on November 29 - 1947.

However, representatives of another Orthodox party, Agudat Israel, actually asked the General Assembly to vote against partition.

Nevertheless, Agudat Israel reevaluated its position upon the establishment of Israel and has been a participant in most governments since that time (though it still will not accept a ministerial portfolio as a result).

This switch of allegiance by Agudat Israel caused a radical shift in the ideology of Neturei Karta, which felt betrayed by their Orthodox allies.

Their opposition to Israel and Zionism became all the more extreme, especially under the leadership of Rabbi Amram Blau and his wife, a convert and former member of the French Resistance, who had rescued Blau during the Holocaust.

The community became more insular, while forming alliances with other sects that rejected the support given by Agudat Israel to Israel's secular government after independence. Among their allies were the large and affluent Hasidic group Satmar, under the leadership of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, formerly of Hungary and later of New York City, as well as other Hasidic groups, some in Israel and others in the Diaspora.

With their help, Neturei Karta was able to withstand paying taxes to the state that they did not recognize and conversely, to avoid obtaining any benefits from that state by revitalizing the halukah distribution of funds that characterized earlier generations. As such they became a self-contained community within Israel with few formal ties to the surrounding political infrastructure.

Some elements of their rejection make clear the depth of their opposition - most will not touch paper money or coins with pictures of Zionists on them - Einstein and Montefiore are acceptable, Herzl and Weizmann are not. They view these items as heretical, and in some cases the men make their wives use these items when their usage is unavoidable.

Many will not approach the Western Wall of the Temple in Jerusalem, feeling it has been befouled by secular interests and those professing Zionism, which they see as an abomination.


1967 - present

While many in Neturei Karta chose to simply ignore the State of Israel, this became more difficult as Jerusalem was taken over and began to be dominated by Zionist interests and debates.

A fringe element took proactive steps to condemn Israel and bring about its eventual dismantling until the coming of the Messiah. Chief among these is Rabbi Moshe Hirsch, Neturei Karta's self-proclaimed "Foreign Minister", who served in Yasser Arafat's cabinet as Minister for Jewish Affairs.

Hirsch and his followers oppose Israel on religious grounds. Devoutly committed to their faith, they reject Jews who promote the agenda of Zionism and the State of Israel as heretics. They also maintain that an Orthodox community of Jews can and should be a viable minority in an Arab-dominated Palestinian state.

Hirsch notes that there is a striking accord between the views of Neturei Karta and those of Fatah, which is the dominant party in the present Palestinian Authority: both seek to distinguish Judaism from Zionism, both favour a secular and nonsectarian government in Palestine. He has also sought refugee status at the UN for Neturei Karta; There is in his view no difference between a people that was "pushed out of its land and one like ourselves whose land is being wrenched from under it by the Zionists."



Amir Rappaport. Arafat transferred funds to Neturei Karta: Captured PA documents reveal that $55,000 given to leader of the anti-Zionist sect. Maariv International, 2 April 2004.

Photocopies of documents and receipts


External links

Neturei Karta official home page -

Jews not Zionists FAQ's, ten questions -

Jews Against Zionism -

Mitchell Kaidy. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. "Neturei Karta, Shunned by Media, Makes Jewish Anti-Zionism Known"

In a state over Israel, The Guardian.

"The unorthodox orthodox", The Guardian.

#4 - Hasidic Judaism, EXCERPT FROM

Hasidic Judaism in the 20th century

During the Holocaust the Hasidic centers of Eastern Europe were destroyed. Survivors moved to Israel or America, notably Brooklyn, and established new centers of Hasidic Judaism. Some of the larger and more well-known Hasidic sects still extant include Breslov, Lubavitch (Chabad), Satmar, Ger, and Bobov Hasidim.

For years, the two "superpowers" of the Brooklyn Hasidic world were Satmar and Chabad -- based, respectively, in Williamsburg and Crown Heights. Despite being so similar in the eyes of other Jews, the two groups had a hostile relationship. Satmar was militantly anti-Zionist, while Chabad was supportive of Israel, though the Lubavitcher rebbe never visited Israel. Satmar also disdained Chabad's tendency to do outreach among non-observant Jews. Satmars were especially offended by Chabad's sending of "mitzvah tank" caravans into their neighborhood, as if they needed prodding to be observant. In recent years the tension has cooled, as has Satmar's overt opposition to Zionism, though it still opposes the current form of Israeli government as a secular democracy.

There has been significant revival of interest in Hasidic Judaism on the part of non-Orthodox Jews due to the writings of non-Orthodox Hasidic Jewish authors like Martin Buber, Arthur Green and Abraham Joshua Heschel. As such, one now finds some minor Hasidic influences in the siddurim (prayer books) of Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism.

#5 - Ten questions to the Zionists

by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl

Ten questions to the Zionists by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl ZT"LDean of Nitra Yeshiva

1. IS IT TRUE that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; andb) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; andc) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

2. IS IT TRUE that the Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

3. IS IT TRUE that the answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.c) No ransom will be paid

4. IS IT TRUE that this response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

5. IS IT TRUE that in 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved.

6. IS IT TRUE that the same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).

7. IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.

8. IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation "Only to Palestine!"

9. IS IT TRUE that the British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.

10. IS IT TRUE that during the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weitzman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weitzman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".

There are additional similar questions to be asked of these atheist degenerates known as "Jewish statesmen", but for the time being let them respond to the ten questions.

These Zionist "statesmen" with their great foresight, sought to bring an end two two-thousand years of Divinely ordained Jewish subservience and political tractability. With their offensive militancy, they fanned the fires of anti-Semitism in Europe, and succeeded in forging a bond of Jew-hatred between Nazi-Germany and the surrounding countries.

These are the "statesmen" who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist "statesmen" forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist "statesmen" lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.

The Zionist "statesmen" have incited and continue to incite an embittered Jewish youth to futile wars against world powers like England, and against masses of hundreds of millions of Arabs.


What may befall the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, of the Arab crescent, Europe, or the USA; is of no concern to these Zionist leaders. The rising anti-Semitism in the Western World is the product of their "statesmanship".

Under the guise of "love of Israel", the Zionist "statesmen" seduced many Jews to replace devotion to the Torah and its Sages with devotion to the scoundrel who founded Zionism. It is of no little significance that Herzl originally sought conversion of the Jews as a solution to the problems of the Diaspora. When he realized that this was not acceptable to the Jewish masses, he contrived Zionism as a satisfactory alternative!

A look into history reveals that this very same type of "statesmen" opposed the call of Jeremiah the prophet to yield to the minions of Nebuchadnezzar at the destruction of the first Temple. Five centuries later, Rabbi Yochonon Ben Zakai appealed to the people to surrender to Titus the Roman to avoid bloodshed. The "statesmen" rejected this appeal, and the second Temple was destroyed by the Romans. --- And now for the past fifty years, the Zionist "statesmen" rebuff the leadership of our Sages; and continue in their policy of fomenting anti-Semitism. When will they stop?? Must every Jew in America also suffer?? - Even the Nazi monsters had more sense, and gave up their war before all Germany was destroyed. The Zionist "statesmen" ridicule the sacred oath which the Creator placed upon the Jews in the Diaspora. Our Torah, in Tractate Ksubos, folio 111, specifies that the Creator, blessed be He, swore the Jews not to occupy the Holy Land by force, even if it appears that they have the force to do so; and not rebel against the Nations. And the Creator warned that if His oath be desecrated, Jewish flesh would be "open property", like the animals in the forest!! These are words of our Torah; and these concepts have been cited in Maimonides' "Igeres Teimon", "Be'er HaGola", "Ahavas Yehonosson", and in "Toras Moshe" of the Chasam Sofer.


Yidden - merciful sons of merciful fathers - how much longer must holy Jewish blood continue to be shed??

The only solution is:

1. The Jewish people must reject, outright, a "Jewish State".

2. The Jewish people should accept the US compromise.

3. We must depose the atheist-Zionist "statesmen" from their role as Jewish leaders, and return to the faithful leadership of our sages.

4. We beseech the Nations to open all doors to immigration - not only the doors of Palestine.

5. Peaceful, non-Zionist religious personalities in Palestine, (particularly from the native population) and their counterparts in the Diaspora, should engage in responsible, face-to face negotiations on behalf of the Jewish people, with the British and the Arabs; with an aim of amicable settlement of the Palestine issue.

Every Jew is obliged to pray to the Blessed creator, for in Him lies all our strength. Let us bear in mind that our prayers be forthright. One should not entreat the Creator to provide a banquet on Yom Kippur, and one can not perform a ritual ablution with a dead bug in his hand. Similarly, we should avoid the untenable position of the robber who prays for Divine help in carrying out his crime. We should pray that Zionism and its fruits vanish from the Earth, and that we be redeemed by the Messiah with dispatch.

A prisoner is released only when he has served his time, or if he is pardoned by the President for good behavior. If he attempts escape and is apprehended, his term is lengthened, besides the beating he receives when he is caught.

Faithful Jews- for over three and one-half thousand years, in all parts of the world, through all trials, our grandfathers and grandmothers marched through seas of blood and tears in order to keep the Faith of the Torah unswervingly. If we have compassion for ourselves, for our women and children, and for the Jewish people, we will maintain our golden legacy today. We have been sentenced to exile by the King of Kings because of our sins. The eternal blessed be He, has decreed that we accept the exile with humble gratitude until the time comes, or until we merit His pardon through repentance if we seek to end the exile with force, G-d will catch us, as our sages have forewarned, and our sentence becomes longer and more difficult.

Many times in the past have segments of our people been defrauded by false messiahs - but none of the false messiahs has been as fallacious and delusory as the lie of Zionism. With our historical experience as our guide, no retribution has been or will be greater than the retribution for giving credence to Zionism. If we wish our exile-sentence commuted, we must appeal through repentance; and through total physical and spiritual observance of the Sabbath, laws of family purity, and study of Torah.

Let it be clearly understood that never in Jewish history (even in the time of Jeroboam or Achav) have such hostile atheists stood at the helm of the Jewish people as today.

How can we plead to the Almighty for mercy while we tolerate these vile, "wicked" leaders as spokesmen! Beloved brothers - let us cleanse our ranks and cleanse our midst; let us entreat the Almighty through prayer, repentance, and fulfillment of mitzvos that He alone redeem us, immediately.

What the Rabbis said about Zionism in the Previous Generations

Once before the Neila prayer on Yom Kippur Rabbi Avraham Yoshe Freund of Mansod said:

"It is not because they are Zionists that they are evildoers. It is because they are evildoers that they are Zionists."

Rabbi Aharon Roth once said:

"It is a miracle that these evildoers don't command everyone to put on tefillin. It is possible that were they to do it, G-d forbid, it may be forbidden to put them on."

The Chazon Ish once said:

"If it is hard to understand the whole matter of the Golden Calf, by seeing the matter of the State, one can understand it. The matter of the State is similar to the Golden Calf"

Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman once said:

"It is certain as the sun shines that the Land will vomit the Zionists out, because the Land is the Palace of the King....I don't say this either to curse or to bless, but because these are things which are written in the Torah and which will take place."

Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik once said:

"The Zionists aren't taking Jews away from Judaism in order to have a State, THEY NEED A STATE IN ORDER TO TAKE JEWS AWAY FROM JUDAISM"

Rabbi Yechezkel Shraga Halberstam once said: "When a Jew recites 'Hear O Israel, the Lord your G-d, the Lord is One' he should have in mind rejecting all idolatry in the world, including Zionism, which is also idolatry."

Rabbi Yissachar Dov of Belz once said: " There could be, before the arrival of Mashiach, that the Satan should succeed, and the evildoers should get a State in the Land of Israel. Their state would be a big danger for every Jew in material and spiritual matters."

The Chafetz Chaim, Rabbi Israel Meir Hakohen once said: "In my opinion it is clear that the Zionists are from the offspring of AMALEK."

Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (Reb Velvel) once said:

"How can the little rabbis and heads of yeshivas take upon themselves the determination of things dealing with life and death? It is obvious that the partition will bring with it the anger and hostility of the Arabs and other nations of the world. This whole thing touches on the shedding of blood. HOW DO THEY HAVE THE ARROGANCE TO MAKE JUDGEMENTS DEALING WITH LIFE AND DEATH?

He also said: ]

"The Agudah is nothing, just money." Rabbi Moshe Leib Diskin once said: "The rabbis of the generation should gather together and issue a writ of excommunication against the Zionists and eject them from the Jewish People, and make decrees against their bread and wine, and to forbid marrying with them, JUST LIKE OUR SAGES DID WITH THE SAMARITANS."

Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Eherenreich once said:

"The Zionists brought us to the Holocaust. It is well known that it was possible to redeem Jews from the Nazis with money, and save many hundreds of thousands of Jews in Hungary from the fire. THE ZIONIST LEADERS WHO NOW SIT IN GOVERNMENT PREVENTED IT!"

Rabbi Shaul Brach of Kashoa once said:

"Before thinking up the idea of Zionism, Herzl wanted all Jews to convert to Christianity. When he was laughed at, he developed the second idea which was able to have more effect, since thousands of Jews began to believe they could be Jews without the Torah of Judaism."

"I am also surprised at the leaders of the Agudah who want thousands of Jews to move to Eretz Israel. How can they ignore the welfare of their children, since there is no other place on earth where there is so much heresy and sectarianism as in the Holy Land in our day."

Satmar Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum:

…the entire existence of the tumei regime [the Zionist "State"] is in opposition to our holy Torah in a manner that has not been precedent…

Al Ha'Geula V'Al Ha'Temura p. 10

…and anyone who possesses even a thought that there is necessity for [the existence of] their "State", this constitutes acquiescence to idol worship without a doubt…

Al Ha'Geula V'Al Ha'Temura p. 86

…and there is no doubt in my mind that we would already be in the period after the Messiah's arrival if not for this tzureh [Zionism] prevalent in the world…

Al Ha'Geula V'Al Ha'Temura p. 238

It would be out of the question to publish all the utterances of Gedolei Yisroel [Torah authorities] during the last century, the period of the emergence of Zionism on the Jewish horizon, because all the Gedolei Yisroel sternly opposed the movement aimed at undermining the Jewish religion and the Jewish essence

[The Torah] forbids us to strive for the reunion or possession of the land by any but spiritual means

Rabbi S. R. Hirsch

Not via our desire did we leave the land of Israel, and not via our power will we come back to the land of Israel.

Rabbi S.D. Schneerson

[Zionists] want a state in order to make Jews into heretics.

Rabbi C. Soloveichik

The Zionists have attacked the center point of Judaism.

Rabbi V. Soloveichik

The root of Zionism is heresy and its branches can hardly be otherwise.


Contrary to common perception, Jewish anti-Zionism is not restricted exclusively to the well know Jewish anti-Zionist movements such as Satmar and Neturei Karta.

There are in fact many Jewish movements, groups and organizations whose ideology regarding Zionism and the so-called "State of Israel" is that of the unadulterated Torah position that any form of Zionism is heresy and that the existence of the so-called "State of Israel" is illegitimate.

No one has had to create any antagonism between our Torah and Zionism because such antagonism exists by virtue of the essence of Judaism itself, which can never tolerate the heresy of Zionism.

Zionism is wrong from the Torah viewpoint, not because many of its adherents are lax in practice or even anti-religious, but because its fundamental principle conflicts with the Torah.

Unfortunately, due to many undesirable factors, the view of Torah-true Jewry has been concealed from the general public.

We, the staff at are delighted that with the advance in media technology a substantial benefit to researchers, students, and the general public has been made available. We are elated at the advantage which the internet provides for the presentation of and accessibility to a position so widely held yet so deliberately ignored by many a Zionist-inclined medium.

It is our hope that the information presented on this site will be of benefit to all and that we soon merit the peaceful dismantlement of the so-called "State of Israel" and that Jewish-Muslim brotherhood be restored as prior to the arrival of the Zionist scheme on the global scene.

#8 - The Difference Between Judaism and Zionism, by G. Neuburger:

The Difference Between Judaism and ZionismG. Neuburger

Where the Torah tells about the creation of the first human being, the most prominent Jewish commentator, Rashi, explains that the earth from which Adam was formed was not taken from one spot but from various parts of the globe. Thus human dignity does not depend on the place of one's birth nor is it limited to one region.

The greatness or worth of a person is not measured by his or her outward appearance. Jews believe that Adam was created in G-d's image and that he is the common ancestor of all mankind. At this stage in human history, there is no room for privileged people who can do with others as they please. Human life is sacred and human rights are not to be denied by those who would subvert them for "national security" or for any other reason. No one knows this better than the Jews, who have been second-class citizens so often and for so long. Some Zionists, however, may differ. This is understandable because Judaism and Zionism are by no means the same. Indeed they are incompatible and irreconcilable: If one is a good Jew, one cannot be a Zionist; if one is a Zionist, one cannot be a good Jew.

For over 60 years I have fought Zionism, as did my father before me, and I am therefore quite familiar with it. For those who have been in this fight for only the last ten or twenty years, what I have to say may be surprising or even shocking. Nevertheless these matters must be stated clearly and openly, because unless the disease of Zionism is diagnosed accurately, it cannot be cured. Too long have those opposed to Zionism engaged in daydreaming and wishful thinking. In order to recognize Zionism for what it is, one has to know about Judaism, about Zionism -- the opposite and negation of Judaism, and about Jewish history. In the time allotted to me, I am not going to talk about the actions of the Zionists; they will be adequately dealt with by others. As a Jew, I plan to discuss Zionism, which is rebellion against G-d and treason to the Jewish people.

To begin with, a few definitions: Who is a Jew? A Jew is anyone who has a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in conformity with Halacha, Jewish religious law. This definition alone excludes racism. Judaism does not seek converts, but those who do convert are accepted on a basis of equality. Let us see how far this goes. Some of the most eminent and respected rabbis were converts to Judaism. Jewish parents throughout the world bless their children every Sabbath and holiday eve, and they have done it in the same way for millennia. If the children are girls, the blessing is, "May G-d let you be like Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah." Not one of these matriarchs was born a Jewess; they were all converts to Judaism. If the children are boys, the blessing is, "May G-d let you be like Ephraim and Menashe." The mother of these two was an Egyptian woman who became Jewish and had married Joseph. Moses himself, the greatest Jew who ever lived, married a Midianite woman who became Jewish. Finally, the Tenach, the holy writings of the Jew, contains the book of Ruth. This woman was not only not Jewish by birth, but she came from the Moabites, traditional enemies of the Jewish people. This book describes Ruth's conversion to Judaism and is read annually on the holiday commemorating the giving of the Torah, the "Law," i.e. the Pentateuch. At its very end, the book of Ruth traces the ancestry of King David, the greatest king the Jews ever had, to Ruth, his great-grandmother.

Apart from the Zionists, the only ones who consistently considered the Jews a race were the Nazis. And they only served to prove the stupidity and irrationality of racism. There was no way to prove racially whether a Mrs. Muller or a Mr. Meyer were Jews or Aryans (the Nazi term for non-Jewish Germans. The only way to decide whether a person was Jewish was to trace the religious affiliation of the parents or grandparents. So much for the this racial nonsense.

Racial pride has been the downfall of those Jews in the past who were blinded by their own narrow-minded chauvinism. This brings us to a second definition. Is there a Jewish people? If so, what is its mission? Let us make this completely clear: The Jewish nation was not born or reconstituted a generation ago by some Zionist politicians. The Jewish nation was born on Mount Sinai when the Jews by their response, "let us do and let us hear," adopted the Torah given to them by G-d for all future generations. `This day you become a people," though valid still today, was spoken thousands of years ago.

According to Jewish tradition, there are seven Noachide laws which apply to all human beings. Then there are the Ten Commandments which form basic standard of morality and conduct for adherents of all monotheistic religions. In addition to these, there are 613 laws obligatory for Jews, and every Jew has to observe those which are applicable to him or her according to Halacha. It is the carrying out of these mitzvoth, "commandments," which constitutes the essence of being Jewish, and therefore of the Jewish people and their covenant with G-d.

In what way are the Jews a "chosen people"? Every Jewish man anywhere and at any time when called to the reading of the Torah says, "Who has chosen us from all the peoples and gave us His Torah." This is the way in which the Jews are chosen. The Jewish people are chosen not for domination over others, not for conquest or warfare, but to serve G-d and thus to serve mankind. "And the hands are the hands of Esau," has been traditionally interpreted to mean that while "the voice is Jacob's," the hands- - symbolizing violence - are Esau's. Thus physical violence is not a tradition or a value of the Jews. The task for which the Jewish people were chosen is not to set an example of military superiority or technical achievements, but to seek perfection in moral behavior and spiritual purity. Of all the crimes of political Zionism, the worst and most basic, and which explains all its other misdeeds, is that from its beginning Zionism has sought to separate the Jewish people from their G-d, to render the divine covenant null and void, and to substitute a "modern" statehood and fraudulent sovereignty for the lofty ideals of the Jewish people.

One means of misleading many Jews and all too many non-Jews is the Zionist misuse of names and symbols sacred in Judaism. They use the holy name Israel for their Zionist state. They have named their land acquisition fund with a term that traditionally implies the reward for piety, good deeds, and charitable work. They have adopted as a state symbol the menorah (candlebrum). What hypocrisy, what perversion it is to have the Israeli army fight under an emblem, the meaning of which is explained in the Tenach (on the occasion of a previous return to the Holy Land) as, "not with armed force and not with power, but in My spirit says the Lord of Hosts."

The infamous founder of political Zionism, may his name be cursed, who only discovered his own Jewishness because of anti-Semitism displayed at the Dreyfus trial in France, proposed various solutions to what he called the "Jewish problem." At one point he proposed to resettle the Jews in Uganda. At another he proposed to convert them to Catholicism. He finally hit on the idea of a Judenstaat, an exclusive Jewish state. Thus from its very beginning Zionism was a result of Anti-Semitism and indeed is completely compatible with it, because Zionists and anti-Semites had (and have) a common goal: To bring all Jews from their places of domicile to the Zionist state, thus uprooting Jewish communities that had existed for hundreds and even thousands of years. Loyalty to the Zionist state was substituted for loyalty to G-d, and the state was made into the modern "golden calf". Belief in the Torah and fulfillment of religious obligations in Zionist eyes became a private matter and not a duty for every Jew or for the Jewish people. The Zionists made divine law subject to party or parliamentary votes, and they set their own standards of conduct and ethics.

Neither the founder of political Zionism nor any of the prime ministers of the Zionist state believed in the divine origin of the Torah nor even in the existence of G-d. All prime ministers were members of a party that opposed religion in principle and that considered the Bible a document of ancient folklore, devoid of any religious meaning. And yet these same Zionists base their claim to the Holy Land on this same Bible, the divine origin of which they deny. At the same time they conveniently forget the Jewish holiday prayer "and for our sins have we been exiled from our land," and ignore the fact that the present exile of the Jewish people is divinely decreed and that the Jewish people are neither commanded nor permitted to conquer or rule the Holy Land before the coming of the Messiah. The Jewish people do, of course, recognize special spiritual ties to that land they call it Eretz Yisrael. Every morning, afternoon, and evening, and night they mention it and Zion and Jerusalem in their prayers, and indeed a Jew does not sit down to a meal without doing likewise. To the Jew, the very soil of the Holy Land is different from that of any other spot on this globe, and wherever he is he turns his face toward Jerusalem during prayers. To live in the Holy Land or even to be buried there was always considered to be of high merit.

This love of the land and the Jewish longing for a return to it and for the coming of the Messiah have been exploited innumerable times during the past 2,000 years. Zionism has had many precursors and each has been a curse for the Jews. Individuals who proclaimed themselves the Messiah and messianic movements have sprung up from time to time, from the Roman era through the Middle Ages and down to the modern Zionists. Many of these pseudo-Messiahs posed as rabbis or as national leaders, though some of them eventually professed other faiths; many temporarily - some for longer periods - succeeded in misleading Jews, rabbis, and entire Jewish communities. All were in due course exposed and recognized as frauds, and those who had set their hope on them found only disappointment and all too often disaster.

In the early stages of the development of modern Zionism, the Mizrachi was founded, an organization of so-called religious Zionists who tried to combine their faith with political Zionism. This led to constant conflict between the dictates of divine law and the demands of Jewish nationalism. Most of the time, the Mizrachi was outvoted at Zionist congresses and served only to give the Zionist movement a false religious aura. Whenever expediency called for it, these "religious" Zionist fellow-travelers have been used by the Zionist government to underpin national claims with "religious" authority. The National Religious Party in the Zionist state has been well rewarded for giving its stamp of approval to nationalistic measures and enactments, whether these rewards were of financial nature or in the form of cabinet or other government posts. The chauvinism of these religious Zionists frequently exceeded that of other Zionists, and it was always couched in religious terms - a prime example of the abuse of religion. The fraudulence of these "religious" Zionists was demonstrated during the past year when it was revealed that two of their world leaders had committed million-dollar thefts.

A Jewish world organization was founded in 1912 on the German-Polish border with the specific purpose of fighting Zionism. This organization, Agudath Israel, "Union of Israel," was to represent the true Jewish people in the world and to unmask the unwarranted and unjust claims of the Zionists. Rabbis everywhere joined Agudath Israel, as did masses of observant Jews. Anti-Zionist congresses were convened in Vienna and in Marienbad. In countries such as Poland, Agudists were members of parliament. Under Agudah leadership more than 50 years ago, Jews in the Holy Land opposed to Zionism obtained permission from Britain, the mandatory power in Palestine, to declare in writing that they did not wish to be represented by the Zionists or any of their groups, particularly not by the Zionist quasi-governmental organizations such as the Va'ad Leumi, "National Council."

Shortly thereafter, Jacob de Haan, a former distinguished Dutch diplomat who was then leader of Agudath Israel in Palestine, initiated talks with Arab leaders with a view toward the eventual establishments of a state there in which Jews and Arabs would have equal rights. In this way he hoped to forestall the creation of a Zionist state. Despite threats to his life, de Haan, fully aware of the ultimate dangers of a Zionist state, continued his talks and negotiations. On the eve of his departure in 1924 for Britain to meet with authorities there, he was assassinated by the Haganah, the Zionist paramilitary force, in the center of Jerusalem as he came from evening prayers. More than a half a century ago, this devout and visionary Jew gave his life in a fight that he considered paramount, at a time when the world at large was still blind and deaf to the difficulties and problems that a future Zionist state would entail.

As a result of such terrorism and increasing Zionist pressure, Agudath Israel gradually began to weaken and to compromise. During the Nazi period, it entered indo deals and arrangements with the Zionists, despite the fact that its fundamental aim had been to combat Zionism. After the Zionist state was established, Agudath Israel broke off with its past, participated in the Zionist government on the cabinet level and elected Agudists to the Zionist parliament. Still professing a nominal anti-Zionism, Agudath Israel established a network of "independent" schools in the Holy Land, but today the overwhelming part of the budget of these schools comes from the Zionist government.

In view of these developments, those Jews who wanted to continue the fight against Zionism without any compromise left Agudath Israel and constituted themselves as the Neturei Karta, an Aramaic phrase meaning "Guardians of the City," i.e. the city of Jerusalem. The Neturei Karta in turn became a worldwide movement, known in some places as "Friends of Jerusalem."

The greatest leader of the Neturei Karta was Rabbi Amram Blau, an inspired and dedicated leader whose compassion equaled his courage. He could not keep silent in the face of injustice, immorality, or hypocrisy. He was beloved by Jews and respected by Christians and Muslims. Born in Jerusalem, he never left the Holy Land during his entire life. In his writings he stressed many times that Jews and Arabs had lived in harmony until the advent of political Zionism. Rabbi Blau was imprisoned in Jerusalem, not by the Ottoman authorities, not by the British, and not by the Arabs, but by the Zionists. What was his crime? He defended with vigor and honesty, without regard for his own safety, the holy character of Jerusalem against the "innovations" and encroachments of the Zionists. He fought for the sanctity of the Sabbath and actively opposed the inroads of indecency and immorality made under the Zionist regime. Unceasingly he denounced the establishment of a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah as an acct of infamy and blasphemy. Under his leadership, the Neturei Karta declared year after year that they did not recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist state or the validity of its laws.

During the first period of fighting between the Zionist state and the Arabs, the rabbis of the Neturei Karta went toward the combat lines, carrying a white flag, and stated that they wanted no part in this war and that they were absolutely opposed to the creation of a Zionist state. In his last proclamation, Rabbi Blau deplored the actions of the Zionists against the Muslim and Christian Palestinians and the grievous harm done by the Zionists to the Jewish people in endeavoring to change them from "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" to a modern state, devoid of spiritual foundation, based on chauvinism, built on conquest, and relying on military prowess. "The number of your cities constitute your gods," the prophet Jeremiah had thundered to the chauvinist and idolatrous Jewish government of this day. Like it, the Zionists are now establishing a new status quo and expanding their position by founding new settlements in he territories occupied since 1967.

Rabbi Blau in his last statement severely condemned the UN for recognizing and accepting as a member the Zionist state, thus giving the Zionists unprecedented prestige and power. It is high time that the anti-Zionist nations listen to him, heed his plea, and undo this great wrong and correct this fatal error. It is well known that no action was taken concerning the expulsion of the Zionist state because of the fear that financial support for the UN would be withdrawn. Let those states, opposed to Zionism, who have become affluent during the past generation, show that they mean what they say by offering to replace any financial loss the UN may suffer as a consequence, and let the member states vote their conscience without fear and regardless of any intimidation.

There has been times before in Jewish history, as related in the Bible, when the masses were misled and only a minority of Jews clung to the true mission of the Jewish people. One of the first such of the occasions was the worship of the golden calf; today we unfortunately see a repetition of this, with the Zionist state now being the object of worship. Until the appearance and growing influence of political Zionism, Jewish leaders were chosen on the basis of their piety, decency, learning, and their love of justice and mercy. Today only too often so-called Jewish leaders, completely unqualified under Jewish law and traditional concepts, make pronouncements and decisions in the name and on behalf of the Jewish people. This is particularly true in the USA where there is the largest Jewish community in our time. I can never forget the remark of a woman in Oklahoma: "Isn't today's Judaism wonderful! All you have to do is give money."

Even at his death Rabbi Blau refuted the Zionists who had often claimed that the Neturei Karta was nothing but an insignificant sect of a few hundred souls. Yet when Rabbi Blau died in Jerusalem on a Friday morning two years ago, a few hours later no fewer than 22,000 men attended his funeral.

At all times in the past, the misleaders of the Jews have sooner or later fallen by the wayside, and only those who upheld the validity of the Torah and the Talmud (the written and oral law) and of Halachah, and who resisted the demagogues, prevailed. The Neturei Karta follow in this tradition. They continue as a living rebuke to Zionism and speak in our time for the true Jewish people, those who have not been misled by Zionism.

During the Roman conquest of the Holy Land, there were Jews who on the basis of nationalism and racial pride were sure that they could not lose a war. They, like the Zionists of our day, were opposed to any compromise or settlement; there were determined to fight to the end. At that time, however almost 2,000 years ago, the fore most rabbi, Rabbi Yochanan ben Sakkai, chose a different way. The military adventurers prevented him from leaving beleaguered Jerusalem to negotiate with the Romans, so the rabbi had himself carried out in a coffin by his disciples to the Roman headquarters. He said to the Romans that the Jews need neither an army nor weapons and asked for permission to establish a yeshiva, a Jewish religious school, at Yavneh. It was this religious school, and not the militarists or generals of the time, that helped to perpetuate Judaism and the identity of the Jewish people.

It must be stated explicitly that while not all Jews are Zionists, not all Zionists are Jews. The motives of some of these non-Jewish Zionists, e.g. Lord Balfour and General Smuts, are at least open to question. From the beginning of the Zionist movement, some of the most articulate and fervent Zionists have been Christian clergymen, especially "fundamentalists," who hail Zionism as an important "religious" movement and welcome it as a fulfillment of prophecy. They also, and significantly, serve the cause of Zionism.

One of the basic aims of Zionism is aliyah, the immigration to the Zionist state of Jews from all countries. Nevertheless, during the past few years hundreds of thousands of Israelis have outgathered themselves from the Zionist paradise, and American Jews have "voted with their feet" and have chosen not to be ingathered. These Jews recognize that the Zionist state is in fact nothing but a giant ghetto.

Instead of being able to render assistance to Jewish communities in other countries, American Jews have been mobilized to concentrate on helping the Zionist state, making the USA the real and major source of Zionist power and influence. The Zionists, true to the nature of their movement, rely on technical superiority and on a forbidding military deterrent - provided largely by the USA - for their security.

Nothing could be farther from the true ideals of the Jewish people. The Jewish people were chosen in the first place "for you are the leas of all nations." As the Psalm says, "they rely on vehicles and horsepower, but we invoke the name of the Eternal, our G-d."

One most vital point deserves mention. A former president of the World Zionist Organization has stated explicitly that a Zionist owes unqualified loyalty to the Zionist state and that, in the case of a conflict, the first loyalty of a Zionist must be to the Zionist state. According to Jewish law, however, a Jew owes allegiance and loyalty to the country of which he is a citizen, and, of course, no faithful Jews owes any loyalty or allegiance to the Zionist state which has been condemned by the foremost rabbis of our age.

It is not my purpose to detail how Zionism should be dealt with. Let me state, however, that isolated or spontaneous acts against individuals or the mere adoption of resolutions in the UN or elsewhere are not effective means of bringing an end to Zionism. Let me state also that the battle against Zionism must be waged first, not on the shores of the Mediterranean, but in Zionism's most powerful bastion -- the USA>

As an American citizen, I deplore that our government and our politicians have adopted an attitude that is in complete contradiction to the advice of the father of our country George Washington. Instead of shying away from foreign entanglements and permanent alliances with foreign powers, the establishment in Washington has embraced Zionism so wholeheartedly that in the eyes any criticism of the Zionist state and any opposition to political Zionism in the UN by any nation has become a punishable offense. And the docile American media do not dare to speak out against such an absurdity.

Unfortunately, thus far, each year sees still further gains in influence by American Zionists. This fact has made possible events and developments that were unthinkable even ten years ago. It takes a lot of courage to be opposed to Zionism in the USA today. It also took a lot of courage during the Second World War to be anti-Fascist in Italy or anti-Nazi in Germany. In the long run Zionism is nothing but a passing aberration in the long history of the Jewish people and of the world.

Let us take faith and hope in the certainty that eventually prejudice, hatred, and injustice will disappear, and that the prophecy will come true that all nations of the world will participate in the pilgrimage to Jerusalem "for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations."



1) What is "The people of Israel" ?

-The people of Israel have existed for thousands of years.-It has its own particular, essential, nature.-The Torah is the source of its essential nature.-Without Torah and faith there is no people of Israel.-Whoever denies the Torah and the Faith is no longer part of the people of Israel.-The purpose of the People of Israel in this world is Divine service.-Their salvation is occupation in Divine Service.
2) What is Zionism ?

-Zionism is a new thing.-It has only existed for a century.-Zionism redefines the true essential nature of the people of Israel, and substitutes for it a completely contradictory and opposite character.- a materialistic worldly nation.-Their misfortune is lack of what other nations have. i.e. a state and army.-Their salvation is possession of a state and army etc.- This is clearly speed out in the circles of Zionist though, and among the leaders of the Zionist state, That through changing the nature and character of the people of Israel and by changing their way of thinking they can set before the People of Israel "their salvation." -- a state and an army.
3) The People of Israel Oppose This For 4 Reasons

FIRST - Because this is diametrically opposed and completely contradictory to the true essence and foundation of the people of Israel, as it explained above. Because the only time that the people of Israel where permitted to have a state were two thousand years ago when the Glory of the Creator was upon us. And likewise in the future when the Glory of the Creator will once more be revealed, and the whole world will serve Him. Then He Himself (without any human effort or force of arms) will grant us a kingdom founded on Divine Service.

However, a wordily state, like those possessed by other peoples, is contradictory to the true essence of the People of Israel. Whoever calls this the salvation of Israel shows that he denies the essence of the People of Israel, and substituted another nature, a worldly materialistic nature, and therefore sets before them, a worldly materialistic "salvation." And the means of achieving this "salvation" is also worldly and materialistic i.e. to organize land and army.

However, the true salvation of the People of Israel is to draw close to the Creator. And this is not done by organization and force of arms. Rather, it is done by occupation to Torah and good deeds.

SECOND - Because of all of this and other reasons Torah forbids us to end the exile and establish a state and army until the Holy One, blessed be He, in His Glory and Essence redeems us. This is forbidden even if the state is conducted according to the law of the Torah. Because arising from the exile itself is forbidden, and we are required to remain under the rule of the nations of the world, as it explained in the book VAYOEL MOSHE. And the Holy One, blessed be He, has warned us that if we transgress this injunction, He will bring upon us (may we be spared) terrible punishment.

THIRD - Aside from arising from exile, all the deeds of the Zionists are diametrically opposed to the Faith and the Torah. Because the foundation of the Faith and Torah of Israel, is that the Torah was revealed from heaven, and there is reward for those who obey it and punishment for those who transgress it. The entire People of Israel are required to obey the Torah, and whoever doesn't want to, ceases to be part of the Congregation of Israel.

FOURTH - Aside from the fact that they themselves do not obey the Torah, they do everything they can to prevent anyone they get under their power, from fulfilling the commands of the Torah. They do this both with force and with trickery. Their claims to freedom of religion are lies. They fight will all of their strength to destroy the Faith of Israel.

4) The Zionists claim that they are the savers of Israel, but this is refuted by twelve things.

FIRST - If one contemplates the two thousand years of our exile, take any hundred years even the hardest, one will not find as much suffering, bloodshed, and catastrophes for the People of Israel as in the period of the Zionists. And it is known that most of the suffering of this century was caused by the Zionists as our Rabbis warned us would be the case.

SECOND - It is openly stated in the books written by the founders of Zionism that the means by which they planned to establish a state was by instigating anti-Semitism, and undermining the security of the Jews in all the lands of the world, until they would be forced to flee to their state. And thus they did. They intentionally infuriated the German people and fanned the flames of Nazi hatred, and then helped the Nazis, with trickery and deceit, to take whole Jewish communities off to the concentration camps, and the Zionists themselves admit this. (See books Perfidy, Min Ha Meitsor, etc.). The Zionists continue to practice this strategy today, they incite anti-Semitism and then they present themselves as the "saviors". Here are two replies given by leaders of the Zionists during World War II, when they were asked for money to help ransom Jews from the Nazis. Greenbaum said "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland." (G-d Forbid). Weitzman said, The most important part of the Jewish people is already in the land (of Israel) and those who are left, are unimportant (May we be spared).

THIRD - We see that most of the world Jewry, lives in security under good physical conditions, and have no desire to go live in the Zionist state. Whereas many people have left the Zionist state to live under better conditions in other lands.

FOURTH - The Zionists make a great deal of propaganda to induce people to immigrate too their state. If their state is so beneficial why do they have to make so much propaganda.

FIFTH - Because nobody wants the Zionists to "Save them". The only way they can get immigrants is by promising poor people material benefits. And even then very few people respond.

SIXTH - The Zionist state is always threatened by the dangers of war. Whereas the rest of world Jewry lives in peace and security. (Except in a few places where the Zionists have undermined their security and fanned the flames of hatred)

SEVENTH - The Zionist state could not continue to exist without economic support from Jews living outside of the Zionist state.

EIGHTH - The Zionist state is on the verge of economic collapse, and their money is nearly worthless.

NINTH - The Zionist state persecutes all Jews who are loyal to their faith.

TENTH - They start wars that endanger the Jewish People, for the sake of their own political interests.

ELEVENTH - According to the Torah the path of safety is following ways of peace not starting fights with other nations, as the Zionists do.

TWELFTH - Even if the Zionists could and would provide physical security it would be at the expense of our Faith and Our Torah. And the true People of Israel prefer death rather than life at such a cost. It is therefore clear that Zionism is not the savior of the people of Israel. Rather it is their greatest misfortune.

5. Even though there are observant Jews and Rabbis, who approve of the Zionists, this is not the opinion of the Torah.

- The people of Israel has existed for thousands of years.- It has its own particular, essential, nature. - The Torah is the source of its essential nature. - Without Torah and faith there is no people of Israel.- Whoever denies the Torah and the Faith is no longer part of the people of Israel. - The purpose of the People of Israel in this world is Divine service. - Their salvation is occupation in Divine Service. - They make it look like all Jewry and their Rabbis are Zionists, but this is false propaganda. - The most important Rabbis and the majority of religiousJewry are opposed to Zionism, but their voice is not heard because of Zionist control of American News media. - The Zionists terrorize everyone who speaks out againstthem.- That part of the Jewish masses which is fooled by Zionist propaganda puts pressure on their Rabbis not to speak out. - Between the terror and the pressure of the masses most of the Rabbis are prevented from speaking out.

6) We bring three testimonies of the true opinion of the Torah.

1) In the past two thousand years of the dangers and sufferings of exile not once did any of the Sages of Israel suggest that we make a state to protect ourselves. And in every generation we had thousands of Sages well versed in the Torah.

2) We have thousands of legal work of Torah law that have been handed down to us by the Sages of all generations. Not once do we see a word suggesting the establishment of a state. What we do find is warnings against it.

3) The founders of Zionism where all atheists who denied the Torah. And all the Torah Sages of that time opposed them and opposed Zionism, saying that Zionism would lead only to destruction.

However the true People of Israel will never change their nature or give up their faith. They are the strongest of the strong. Because of their strength the Creator gives them. Zionism is a foreign growth in the body of the Jewish People. The end will be that it will rid itself of this foreign growth and remain pure. Zionism has overcome the Jewish people by force. With fraud and terror, but none of this will help them because the truth will always remain with the help of the Creator. Zionism will not replace the Jewish People. The Jewish People will remain strong in their faith and the Zionist state will cease to exist.

4) It is therefore, our demand that the State that calls itself ISRAEL should cease to exist. Since this won't be done, we demand that they cease to call themselves "Israel", because the entire being is in complete opposition to the true People of Israel. The true People of Israel deny them permission to call themselves by that Name. The Zionist leaders have no right to set themselves up as the representatives and spokesmen of the true People of ISRAEL.

5) Since we know they will not fulfill this demand either we feel that at least we cry out the truth. And the truth will always remain the truth. By no means or force can the truth be changed. Even if all the world would say that one and one are three, the truth will remain that one and one is two.

6) Let the truth be declared. The use of the Name "ISRAEL" by that state is a complete falsification. The people of Israel have nothing to do with the state. Zionism and its state have no share and no part in the true ISRAEL.

#10 - JUDAISM AND ZIONISM, 1969 Radio broadcast


A broadcast by one of our members over Station WBAI-FM, New York (8/27/69)

I am a member of the Friends of Jerusalem, an American affiliate of the world wide Jewish Neturei Karta movement, the leadership of which is in Jerusalem. In commenting on Jewish affairs, there is no topic more vital today than a clarification on the differences between Judaism and Zionism. All too many Americans are still under the impression that these terms are more or less synonymous - that being a Jew means automatically to be a Zionist and that this also implies a certain loyalty to the State of Israel. Let me there state right at the beginning that Judaism and Zionism are completely incompatible and are mutually exclusive. If you are a good Jew, you cannot be a Zionist. If you are a Zionist, you cannot be a good Jew. The reason for this is fairly simple to explain. The Jews are not a race, such as Caucausians or Negroes, as Hitler contended. The Jews are not a nation, like France, Great Britain, the United States, or any other of the nations. And they are not just a religion, like Catholicism, Buddhism, or any of the Protestant denominations. They are, rather, a unique combination, unlike any other. It is true that Jews are, according to the Bible and their own belief, the Chosen People. But they are not chosen for domination; they are not elected to rule over other people; but they are chosen for one purpose only: for service - to serve the Creator of the Universe and the Father of us all in a very special way, and thereby to serve all mankind.

While, according to the Jewish faith, there are only seven laws that are automatically binding and valid for each human being and while there are the Ten Commandments which have been accepted by the civilized world and particularly by the monotheistic faiths as appropriate basic rules for human behavior, the Jews are subject to 613 commandments which are in one way or another mentioned in the Five Books of Moses. These laws, which have been codified and spelled out and commented on throughout the centuries in an immense number of books, constituting the Rabbinic and Halachic literature, are obligatory for everyone born of a Jewish mother or one who has voluntarily accepted the Jewish faith.

Political Zionism started in Europe more then seventy years ago under the impact of anti-semitism. It is a complete departure from this ancient and holy tradition. The leading figures in Zionism from the very beginning have always been men and women who rejceted the obligatory nature of these Jewish religious laws, who have never lived by this code and who indeed deny categoricallyeven that the Bible is of divine origin, there by reducing the Five Books of Moses, the writing of the Prophets, and the other books which together make up the Tenach - the Hebrew Bible - to mere foklore and ancient sagas and tales [heaven forfend].

The aims of Zionism are: to give the Jewish people a country of their own, to revive Hebrew as its everyday language, to give it a government of its own, a plariament, an army, navy and air force - and all the other paraphernalia and characteristics of a nation like all others. The Jews, who in the words of the Bible are to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, are supposed to lose their special character.

Zionists consider it a great day when they declared the State of Israel to be in existence and again when the flag of their state was raised on a flagstaff in front of the United Nations among the banners of all other countries.

This creation of a secular, so-called Jewish state is treason to the Jewish people, as constituted on Mount Sinai. It is not only a crass degradation from a lofty and singular level, but in thus changing the character and mission of the Jewish people, it would also do the following:

1. Free the Jews as a people from their religious obligation as outlined above.

2. Subject the Jewish people to the ordinary laws of national existence, thus ending the unique and extraordinary qualities that let the Jews, as a people, survive through the milennia, and make these people (G-d forbid) vanish like all the other nations that have apperared on the surface of the earth and long since have been relegated to history.

3. It would automatically and inevitably - the State of Israel now being a nation like the others, but claiming a special relationship to Jews everywhere - force these Jews, in case of conflict, to face and decide questions of their primary loyalty. It is hardly necessary to add that this problem of loyalty has already been posed in a number of countries during the past twenty years.

In this short presentation, it is impossible to deal with the impact of Zionism on the United States, although this would be a very interesting topic, or with the danger that it creates for other countries. We are tonight concerned only with the difference between Zionists - and Jews who are loyal to their faith.

It might be mentioned that there are minority groups and parties in Israel and elsewhere who try to combine the traditional practice of Jewish faith with Zionist activity, but by its very nature, this is a hopeless cause. By accepting the leadership of irreligious or anti-religious Jews, who under Jewish law are not qualified to exercise any leadership or occupy a position of trust within the Jewish community, and also by subjecting matters of faith and religious law to parliamentary and other majority votes, they actually admit the priority of the secular national Jewish state over the divinely instituted special nationhood of the Jewish people.

After these basic considerations, the remaining minutes will be used to answer some obvious questions, such as:

1. Isn't it very beneficial for the self-respect of the Jews that they now have a country of their own and a highly efficient and dependable army?

2. If Zionism is so absolutely contrary to Judaism, how is that so many Jews are sympathetic toward Zionism?

3. If there were no State of Israel, where would persecuted Jews find a place of refuge?

4. Who is going to speak in the name of those Jews who are helpless and who is going to defend them?

Let us answer these questions in order:

1. The Holy Land is and always has been beloved by religious Jews and that land, and the city of Jerusalem, are mentioned innumerable times every single day in prayers said by Jews everywhere. These prayers have been said for thousands of years, but they have nothing to do with the atheists who founded the State of Israel or with their state. On the contrary, these prayers also state [that] the Jews' exile from Eretz Yisroel is willed by the Ruler and Father of us all; and as to self-respect because of victitious army and bombers, the Bible states that the Jews have been chosen because they are the most humble and self-demeaning of all nations, not because of their worldly or military power. And the fact, that during the past twenty years more Jews have been killed in the Israeli wars than anywhere else on earth and that more non-Jews have been killed there by Jews than anywhere else, is not a source of pride, but one of the deepest regret to all Jews who have not been infected by the poison of Zionism.

2. It is not all suprising that so many Jews have been swayed by Zionism. Anyone who is suprised by this fact reveals an abysmal ignorance of Jewish history. Right from the start of Jewish peoplehood - and it is significant that the Bible tells us that the Jews became a nation in the wilderness, not in the land of Israel - it happened all too often that the vast majority of Jews were misled and followed false prophets and false gods - from the Golden Calf and the Baal, to the fake messianic movements of all ages down to today's Zionism. But any student of Jewish history knows that in the long run, all these movements failed and that only that Judaism and those Jews survived as Jews who accepted the primacy and totality of the Jewish Written and Oral Law.

3. As to the State of Israel as a place of refuge, this is perhaps the greatest fallacy of them all. Anyone who has read such books as Min Hametzar by the late Rabbi Weissmandl or Perfidy by the late Ben Hecht is aware of Zionist treachery during the most critical time of the Nazi persecution. In fact, Zionism is most interested in undermining the position of Jews in other countries so as to make them emigrate to the State of Israel and this plan has already been systematically carried out in a number of countries. One prime example is the burning of the synagogues in Iraq sixteen years ago, not by anti-Jewish enemies but admittedly by Zionist emissaries, who actually succeeded thereby in uprooting a Jewish community that had endured literally for thousands of years. The Zionist giant ghetto, far from being able to support Jewish communities elsewhere, has its hands full and needs support from abroad just to defend itself!

And finally, as to the Zionists as the legitimate spokesmen for all Jews, they have been neither appointed nor elected by a majority of Jews to speak or act for them.* From a religious point of view, they are completely and utterly disqualified from exercising any function, even within a local Jewish community, let alone being authorized to act on a national or international basis, except, of course, for Zionist party members.

Let me sum up by repeating what I said initially. A good Jew cannot be a Zionist. A Zionist cannot be a good Jew.

*Note: During the convention of the Zionist Organization of America in August 1969 it was announced that their membership decreased from 250,000 members to 100,000.

#11 - Not All Jews Are Zionists

Not All Jews Are Zionists

Although there are those who refuse to accept the teachings of our Rabbis and will continue to support the Zionist state, there are also many who are totally unaware of the history of Zionism and its contradiction to the beliefs of Torah-True Jews.

Words of the Rabbis Opposing Zionism - Today's Quote

Reb Avraham Yeshaye Karelitz (Chazon Ish) Reb Avraham Yeshaye Karelitz (Chazon Ish) In 1946 a disciple of the Chazon Ish, very distressed, mentioned that a day does not go by without a Jew being killed by an Arab; the Chazon Ish, admonished him and said, "Why aren't you at all worried that tens of thousands of Jewish children receive an education on non-belief, which is as burning the soul and the body. Is not this mass murder worse than the killings of the Arabs? Our sages have clearly expressed that he who makes someone sin is worse than he who kills him."

Do these words of the Zionists represent YOU? Read the words of the Zionists and decide for yourself if Zionism represents your interests and beliefs.

Words of the Zionists - Today's Quote

David Ben Gurion Ben Gurion is considered one of the three founding figures of Zionism beside Chaim Weizmann and Herzl.

A month after the Nazi pogrom against Germany's Jews, famously known as Kristallnacht, he stated on December 7, 1938: "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."

Righteous Victims, p. 162)

#12 - The History of Zionism & Judaism

The History of Zionism & Judaism

This text is from an article called "An Open Letter" published in the Jewish magazine, "Hachoma". We think it provides a good historical overview of the history of Zionism and why the Zionist ideology is opposed by religious Orthodox Jews.

The Jewish people, from its inception, has been unique by its identity as a religious entity. Through the centuries its religious character had been a premise agreed upon by Jews and non-Jews alike. Our faith demands as the fundamental condition for recognition as a Jew, belief and adherence to the word of G-d, as was revealed to our forefathers on Mount Sinai. This is in itself, according to the tenets of the Jewish religion, sufficient to fulfill the definition of a Jew. Our religious and traditional history bears no aspect of racism. Hence, one of non-Jewish origin is capable of being proselytized and attaining the same status as a born Jew. Conversely, one of Jewish birth who does not recognize his being bound to the Jewish Torah, is by Jewish law a heretic, and therefore forfeits his spiritual birthrights as a Jew.

The purpose of the Jew is to bear witness to the existence of G-d, through his adherence to the Torah. The Al-mighty granted the Jews the land of Israel as the particular setting which would serve as the most conducive atmosphere to their performance of their duties to G-d.

The Jews in ancient times were banished from the land of Israel because they had failed to fulfill their obligations to the Al-mighty. Every Jew acknowledges this in his prayers (Umipnei Chatoeinu Golinu Meiartzeinu). They accepted the penalty of exile and were at that time expressed sworn by the Al-mighty not to accelerate their redemption on their own, and especially not to rebel against the nations under whose rule they were found. To the contrary, every Jew is commanded to pray for the peace and well being of the government of which he is the subject.

Through all the years of exile, pious Jews as individuals were attracted to reside in the Holy Land because of its innate holy character and the opportunity it offered for the observance of various precepts bound in the land. Jews as a whole continue to pray that the Al-mighty return his Divine presence to the Land of Israel, by the coming of the Messiah, who will build His Temple, from whence will emanate Divine Wisdom and ultimate spiritual fulfillment of the entire human race.

Through the many years that Jews resided in the Holy Land for this purpose, they enjoyed tranquil and cordial relations with the non-Jewish population there.

The Zionist movement which was formed at the latter part of the last century, sought to endow the Jews with a nationalistic character which was heretofore strange to them. It sought to deprive them of their historically religious character and offered in substitution of faith in G-d and adherence to the Torah, and belief in their ultimate redemption by the coming of the Messiah, a nationalistic ideology and the possibility of establishing through political media, a Jewish national homeland.

During the period of the British Mandate, the Balfour Declaration, which recognized the eventual possibility of founding a Jewish national homeland, in Palestine, was affirmed to be the British government. The Jewish Agency, who then was the Chief representative of Zionist interests in the Holy Land, was entrusted with the issuance of visas to the Holy Land, thus resulting in an increased Zionist immigration from various parts of the world, which ultimately succeeded in superceding in numbers, the veteran Orthodox dwellers.

Orthodox Jewry all over the world and the Orthodox Community in the Holy Land in particular, immediately sensed in this stage of Zionist success, the threat of grave danger for the religious future of Jews. The Arab inhabitants began to exhibit open hostility to their Jewish neighbors. The British government failed to distinguish between the Orthodox community, who for generations in habited the Holy Land, and the newly arrived Zionist immigrants.

With the acquisition by the Zionist nationalists of the power to organize communities in Palestine, they formed the Vaad Haleumi Leknesset Yisroel (National Jewish Council Committee). This committee ignored the rights of the Orthodox veteran dwellers who did not recognize this validity of Jewish nationality, and whose identification as Jews was solely with their loyalty to their religious heritage. The religious inhabitants, on the other hand, shuddered at the prospects of spiritual disintegration of World Jewry, with the new rise to power of the Zionist nationalists.

The Orthodox inhabitants actively objected to being subject to the authority of the secularists. They appealed their cause to the League of Nations, who consequently granted them a "Right of exclusion" to the subjugation to the Vaad Haleumi, which rights provided that any Jew wishing not to be incorporated into the Vaad Haleumi, may remain lawfully independent if he so stated his wish in writing. Thousands of Jews did so.

Such was the case until November 1948, when the United Nations finally sanctioned the establishment of a Zionist State. We do not doubt that their success in finally realizing their goal was due in great measure to their having misled the world into viewing the Zionist cause as the Jewish cause. The formation of the Zionist state resulted in the automatic deprivation of the autonomy heretofore possessed by the Orthodox inhabitants of the Holy Land.

The Zionists grasped in the acquisition of their new powers, the opportunity to openly disassociate themselves from any identification with Jews as a religion. They systematically began to orient the minds of their generations according to the tenets of Zionist nationalism. Through the Ministry of Religions they employed part of the Rabbinate to assist them in their aims.

The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, and who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors for generations, became unwillingly identified with the Zionist cause and their struggle with the Arabs. They requested the United Nations that Jerusalem be designated as a defacto international city. They appealed to the diplocatic corps assigned to Jerusalem -- but to no avail. They were hence confronted with the choice of either becoming a part of the Zionist State, which diametrically opposed the interests of Jews as a religion, or abandoning the land of which their forefathers were the first Jewish settlers.

We find it of supreme importance to emphasize that we are fearful of the consequences of the Zionist rebellion against the Creator, as stated expressly in Jeremich, "For it is bad and bitter your renunciation of G-d..." We wish not to be affected by the behavior of this government who in the name of Israel, persist in their renunciation and utter disregard of religious Judaism such as is clearly attested by their laws expressly permitting wanton autopsies (Law of Anatomy and Pathology, 1953), forcible desecration of the Sabbath (Law of Emergency Labor Draft 1967: PPS 1, 19; 27, 36), profanation of Holy Sites by retaining non-religious custodians, desecration of Holy Cemetaries by Safed, Beth Shearim and elsewhere, and countless more examples, proof of which is readily available.

Insofar as all human being find necessary the protection of their rights as human beings, we hereby request all those that find it within their power, to aid us in reacquiring the rights we possessed prior to the formation of the Zionist State*, to remain lawfully independent of the Zionist authority.

_____________* The Laws of Palestine -- Robert Drayton -- Volume 3, Page 213B -- Chapter 126, Paragraph 17(4) -- January 1, 1928.

#13 - THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST, by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann ,


Article by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann - Australia

"Spiritually and Physically Responsible "

From its' inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis.

We were given the Holy Land by G-d in order to be able to study and practice the Torah without disturbance and to attain levels of holiness difficult to attain outside of the Holy Land. We abused the privilege and we were expelled. That is exactly what all Jews say in their prayers on every Jewish festival, "Umipnay chatoenu golinu mayartsaynu" - "Because of our sins we were expelled from our land".

We have been forsworn by G-d "not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time", "not to rebel against the nations", to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour, not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; "not to leave exile ahead of time." On the contrary; we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile. To violate the oaths would result in "your flesh will be made prey as the deer and the antelope in the forest," and the redemption will be delayed.

(Talmud Tractate Ksubos p. 111a).

To violate the oaths is not only a sin, it is a heresy because it is against the fundamentals of our Belief. Only through complete repentance will the Almighty alone, without any human effort or intervention, redeem us from exile. This will be after G-d will send the prophet Elijah and Moshiach who will induce all Jews to complete repentance. At that time there will be universal peace.

All of the leading Jewish religious authorities of that era predicted great hardship to befall humanity generally and the Jewish People particularly, as a result of Zionism. To be a Jew means that either one is born to a Jewish mother or converts to the religion with the condition that he or she make no reservations with regard to Jewish Law. Unfortunately there are many Jews who have no inkling whatsoever as to the duties of a Jew. Many of them are not to blame, for in many cases they lacked a Jewish education and upbringing. But there are those who deliberately distort the teachings of our tradition to suit their personal needs. It is self understood that not just anyone has the right or the ability to make a decision regarding the philosophy or law of a religion. Especially matters in which that person has no qualification. It follows then that those individuals who "decided" that Judaism is a nationality are to be ignored and even criticized. It is no secret that the founders of Zionism had never studied Jewish Law nor did they express interest in our holy tradition. They openly defied Rabbinical authority and self-appointed themselves as leaders of the Jewish "nation". In Jewish history, actions like those have always spelled disaster. To be a Jew and show open defiance of authority or to introduce "amendment" or "innovation" without first consulting with those officially appointed as Jewish spiritual leaders is the ideal equation to equal catastrophe. One can not just decide to "modernize" ancient traditions or regulations. The spiritual leaders of contemporary Judaism better known as Orthodox rabbis have received ordination to judge and interpret matters pertaining to the Jewish faith. These rabbis have received their rights and responsibilities and form a link in the unbroken chain of the Jewish tradition dating all the way back to Moses who received the Torah from Almighty G-d Himself. It was these very rabbis who, at the time of the formation of the Zionist movement, foresaw the pernicious outcome that was without a doubt lined up. It was a man possessing outstanding Judaic genius, and a level of uncontested holiness who enunciated the Jewish stance regarding Zionism.

This charismatic individual, the Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, did not mince any words. Straight to the point he called Zionism "the work of Satan", "a sacrilege" and "a blasphemy". He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of G-d upon His people. He maintained this stance with unwavering bravery from the onset of Zionism whilst he was still in Hungary up until his death in New York where he lead a congregation numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Grand Rabbi Teitelbaum, scion to a legacy of holy mystics and Hassidic Masters unfortunately had his prediction fulfilled. We lost more than six million of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in a very horrible manner. This, more than six million holy people had to experience as punishment for the Zionist stupidity. The Holocaust, he wept, was a direct result of Zionism, a punishment from G-d.


But it doesn't end there. It wasn't enough for the Zionist leaders to have aroused the wrath of G-d. They made a point of displaying abysmal contempt for their Jewish brothers and sisters by actively participating in their extermination. Just the idea alone of Zionism, which the rabbis had informed them would cause havoc, was not enough for them. They made an effort to pour fuel on an already burning flame. They had to incite the Angel of Death, Adolf Hitler. They took the liberty of telling the world that they represented World Jewry. Who appointed these individuals as leaders of the Jewish People?? It is no secret that these so-called "leaders" were ignoramuses when it came to Judaism. Atheists and racists too. These are the "statesmen" who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist "statesmen" forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. Genocide began, but these people, if they can really be classified as members of the human race, sat back.

"No Shame"

President Roosevelt convened the Evian conference July 6-15 1938, to deal with the Jewish refugee problem. The Jewish Agency delegation headed by Golda Meir (Meirson) ignored a German offer to allow Jews to emigrate to other countries for $250 a head, and the Zionists made no effort to influence the United States and the 32 other countries attending the conference to allow immigration of German and Austrian Jews. [Source]

On Feb 1, 1940 Henry Montor executive vice-President of the United Jewish Appeal refused to intervene for a shipload of Jewish refugees stranded on the Danube river, stating that "Palestine cannot be flooded with... old people or with undesirables."

It is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that: a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments: a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees. b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war. c) No ransom will be paid This response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

These treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!

In 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved. The same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).

The British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The "Jewish Agency" leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.

On December 17, 1942 both houses of the British Parliament declared its readiness to find temporary refuge for endangered persons. The British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany. This motion received within two weeks a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures. On Jan. 27, when the next steps were being pursued by over 100 M.P.'s and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion because Palestine was omitted. [Source]

On Feb. 16, 1943 Roumania offered 70,000 Jewish refugees of the Trans-Dniestria to leave at the cost of $50 each. This was publicized in the New York papers. Yitzhak Greenbaum, Chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency, addressing the Zionist Executive Council in Tel Aviv Feb. 18 1943 said, "when they asked me, "couldn't you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said NO! and I say again, NO! should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance." On Feb. 24, 1943 Stephen Wise, President of the American Jewish Congress and leader of the American Zionists issued a public refusal to this offer and declared no collection of funds would seem justified. In 1944, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People called upon the American government to establish a War Refugee Board. Stephen Wise testifying before a special committee of Congress objected to this proposal. [Source]

During the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weizman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated: "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". Weizman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".

And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist "statesmen" lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.

In 1947 Congressman William Stration sponsored a bill to immediately grant entry to the United States of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was not passed after it was publicly denounced by the Zionist leadership. [Source]

These facts are read with consternation and unbearable shame. How can it be explained that at a time during the last phase of the war, when the Nazis were willing to barter Jews for money, partly because of their desires to establish contact with the Western powers which, they believed, were under Jewish influence, how was it possible one asks that the self-proclaimed "Jewish leaders" did not move heaven and earth to save the last remnant of their brothers?

On Feb. 23, 1956 the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister for Immigration was asked in the Canadian House of Commons "would he open the doors of Canada to Jewish refugees". He replied "the government has made no progress in that direction because the government of Israel....does not wish us to do so". [Source]

In 1972, the Zionist leadership successfully opposed an effort in the United States Congress to allow 20,000-30,000 Russian refugees to enter the United States. Jewish relief organizations, Joint and HIAS, were being pressured to abandon these refugees in Vienna, Rome and other Europiean cities. [Source] The pattern is clear!!! Humanitarian rescue efforts are subverted to narrow Zionist interests.

There were many more shocking crimes committed by these abject degenerates known as "Jewish statesmen", we could list many more example, but for the time being let anyone produce a valid excuse for the above facts.

Zionist responsibility for the Holocaust is threefold.

1. The Holocaust was a punishment for disrespecting The Three Oaths (see Talmud, Tractate Kesubos p. 111a).

2. Zionist leaders openly withheld support, both financially and otherwise, to save their fellow brothers and sisters from a cruel death.

3. The leaders of the Zionist movement cooperated with Hitler and his cohorts on many occasions and in many ways.

Zionists Offer a Military Alliance with Hitler

It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, "Tel Aviv", while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a "metaphysical absurdity". Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler's Third Reich. In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist "National Military Organization" (Irgun Zvai Leumi - Etzel) over the group's attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.

This remarkable proposal "for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany" is worth quoting at some length:

"The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that: 1.Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO. 2.Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry. 3.The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

"On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

"This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the "Jewish" men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.

"The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

"The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England".

(Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58. Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317).

On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests.

This is just one example of the Zionist movements' collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.

And to top it all up, brainwashing!

How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: "Traitor," "Enemy of the Jewish People." Source for paragraphs marked "[Source]": The Wall Street Journal December 2, 1976

#14 - An Old Prejudice With a New Name

On Campus, the Line Between Anti-Israel Sentiments and Anti-Semitism is Blurring


BY Noah Cohen-Cline

Tuesday, July 5, 2005

When I first arrived in Washington last January to begin an internship with a nonprofit Jewish advocacy group, I told my boss that I was a student at Berkeley. He narrowed his eyes a bit and tilted his head back skeptically, waiting for me to explain myself. I had seen this reaction many times before. Berkeley, whether deservedly or not, has a reputation for hosting a fiercely anti-Israel student body. Yet what I asked myself as I stood under my boss’s scrutiny was, ‘Why do so many Jews feel personally threatened by anti-Israel attitudes?’

Most Americans, if asked whether anti-Israel sentiment is synonymous with anti-Semitism, would probably say ‘no.’ I would respond in the negative as well, yet this is too simple a question and too simple an answer. While political critiques of Israel can be completely separate from attitudes toward the Jewish people, the extensive censure of Israel and undue attention given to its activities are largely rooted in anti-Semitic tradition.

This can be difficult for us as Americans to understand. Unlike our parents and grandparents, my generation has grown up in an era in which Jews are well integrated into society and enjoy the freedom to practice religion and culture. Anti-Semitism is rarely visible, and most Americans that I have encountered do not cast their opinions regarding Israel, positive or negative, upon American Jews. Yet when we turn our attention to regions of the world that are perceptibly plagued by anti-Semitism, the relationship between this form of bigotry and anti-Israel attitudes becomes clearer.

Europeans have a long history of anti-Semitism. Over the course of the past five or six centuries, Jews have been persecuted in, and expelled from, nearly every European nation. After the Holocaust, anti-Semitism started to become politically incorrect. While anti-Semitic acts continue to occur at a high rate in Europe, they are usually publicly denounced, especially by governments. In light of this development, Europeans who carry on the anti-Semitic tradition have found a politically acceptable way to express their prejudice through the vilification of Israel.

In an extensive public opinion poll executed by the European Commission in 2003, 59 percent of European Union citizens agreed that Israel was the ‘biggest threat to world peace.’ Can they really believe that Israel is a bigger threat than countries like North Korea and Iran? While the activities and policies of a powerful country in such a sensitive situation should certainly be scrutinized, Israel consistently receives greater reprimand than it is due - probably more than any other nation in the world. It is difficult to find an explanation for the excessive vitriol directed toward Israel beyond a general mistrust of Jews.

A more concrete connection between anti-Israel attitudes and anti-Semitism is seen in many Europeans ‘repugnant portrayal’ of Israel’s actions as the ‘real Holocaust.’ In political cartoons, published opinions, and street protests, Israelis have been compared to Nazis, Prime Minister Sharon to Hitler, and the star of David to the swastika. Such affronts strongly suggest anti-semitism conveyed through an anti-Israel guise. At the very least, they demonstrate an ignorance of the realities of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and an insensitive belittlement of the events of the Holocaust.

A venue through which many Europeans have consistently shown clear anti-semitic colors has been anti-war and anti-Israel protests. In several cases, these rallies have deteriorated into podiums for Jew-bashing. In 2002, a demonstration organized in London to protest the war in Iraq was marred by participants adorned in suicide bomber belts and Hamas head bands, and chants of ‘death to Jews.’ Since then, similar episodes have occurred in Rome, Berlin, and Paris.

This type of alarming racism is not unique to Europe; it can be found through much of the world, including here on our own campus. In April 2002, 79 people were arrested after the Berkeley Students for Justice in Palestine organized an occupation of Wheeler Auditorium (on Holocaust Remembrance Day). At a later rally, a lecturer from the Middle East Studies department declared that if students wanted to discover the source of the pressure to prosecute the trespassers, they should ‘look at the Jewish names on the school buildings.’ A surge of anti-semitic events erupted in Berkeley around this same time: synagogues received bomb threats, the Hillel building was vandalized, two orthodox Jews were physically assaulted, and anti-semitic slogans were scrawled on buildings and flyers around campus. All of these attacks were presumably in response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which had significantly intensified around that time. A comprehensive article on anti-Israel and anti-semitic activity at Berkeley can be found at


So, to answer my original question, many Jews are sensitive to anti-Israel politics because those who espouse such views are often either motivated by anti-semitic bigotry, or allow anti-semitic sentiment to sneak into their established political views. Or, as in the cases of many of my peers, people adopt the anti-Israel rhetoric that bombards them at their universities and elsewhere, not realizing that much of it is fueled by anti-semitic bias. It is easy for us to become caught up in impassioned movements while lacking sufficient knowledge of the issues.

I would like to make clear that I am in no way accusing all who oppose Israel and its policies of being anti-semitic. Nor am I calling for censorship of political expression. I simply aim to inform those who are unaware of the very thin line that has been drawn - and often crossed - between anti-Israel and anti-semitic views. This article has barely scratched the surface of this issue. I myself disapprove of some of the tactics Israel has employed in its dealings with the Palestinians, but I largely support Israel as a democratic nation with rule of law and an accountable government, that diligently and relentlessly struggles to achieve peace and stability in the region, while maintaining the security of its own people. My opinions regarding Israel are derived from thoughtful analysis of thorough and unbiased information - not from the fact that I am Jewish. I urge everybody to respect each other’s right to their own opinions, yet also to ensure that their opinions are informed and founded on the principles in which they believe.

Noah Cohen-Cline participated in the UC Washington program this past spring. Reply to

(c) 2003 The Daily Californian

Berkeley, CA

Printable URL:

#15 - Berkeley Intifada, As students embrace the Palestinian cause, UC Berkeley has lost whatever reputation it may once have had for tolerance. By Anneli Rufus


Originally published by East Bay Express 2004-05-19

©2005 New Times, Inc. All rights reserved.

Berkeley Intifada

As students embrace the Palestinian cause, UC Berkeley has lost whatever reputation it may once have had for tolerance.

By Anneli Rufus

PHOTO - Protesters outside the Daniel Pipes lecture held aloft dueling Israeli and Palestinian flags.

PHOTO - Protesters outside the Daniel Pipes speech held aloft limp dummies signifying dead babies.

PHOTO - Micki Weinberg

On the day after September 11, Micki Weinberg walked to the UC Berkeley campus still in shock. At the entrance to campus, facing Telegraph Avenue, huge sheets of blank paper were spread out as an impromptu memorial on which students, faculty, and other passersby were invited to write comments. Glad to have found such a forum, Weinberg scanned the inscriptions. Then he saw one, large and clear, that stopped him dead in his tracks:

"It's the Jews, stupid."

The slender Weinberg, a year younger than most freshmen, had only just arrived at Cal from Beverly Hills, where he had been president of his high school's Shalom Club. As a young teenager, he had savored heady stories of how Mario Savio and his comrades in the Free Speech Movement danced the hora and sang "Hava Nagila" at sit-ins and peace rallies forty years ago.

The son of left-wing, Jewish intellectuals, Weinberg viewed himself as one too, having spent the summer before his senior year of high school in Myanmar, cataloguing the archives of Rangoon's disintegrating and depopulated Jewish synagogue. "That's why I came to Berkeley -- because of its strong romantic aura of the Free Speech Movement and Mario Savio," he recalls. "Then I got here and discovered that that light seems to have been extinguished. You have this vitriol. You feel it everywhere. Berkeley is now the epicenter of real hatred."

Almost three years later, Weinberg graduates this month as a student whose days at Cal were marked by what he calls "pinnacles of horror," in the pinched tone of a man betrayed. He remembers pro-Palestinian protesters insisting that Israeli border crossings are as bad as Nazi death camps. He remembers the glass front door of Berkeley's Hillel building -- where he attends Friday night services -- shattered by a cinderblock, with the message FUCK JEWS scrawled nearby. He remembers the spray-painted swastikas discovered one Monday morning last September on the walls of four lecture rooms in LeConte Hall accompanied by the chilling bilingual message, "Die, Juden. "

In recent years the international press has documented the resurgence of anti-Semitism around the world. Jewish schoolkids have been attacked by epithet-shouting gangs in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, France, and Brazil. Synagogues have been destroyed in Marseille and Istanbul; a Jewish school was firebombed this spring in Montreal; "Death to the Jews" was shouted through bullhorns outside a temple in South Africa. AP ran photos last month of a Jewish graveyard in eastern France where a hundred tombstones had been spray-painted with blood-red swastikas and the Nazi slogan Juden Raus: "Jews out." The Chicago Sun-Times and the British Guardian report that a ubiquitous chant at European soccer matches -- leveled at London and Rotterdam teams perceived as having Jewish roots -- is "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas."

Such anti-Semitism has always seemed the sinister province of fascists and neo-Nazis, Spanish Inquisitors and tattooed skinheads. How topsy-turvy, then, to discover that some of the most virulent anti-Semitism in America today seethes amid the multicultural ferment of American college campuses. And at UC Berkeley, which owes as much of its allure to radical rhetoric as to academic excellence, it thrives.

"Anti-Semitism is not part of the average Berkeley student's thinking, but it exists in certain departments," said theater arts professor Mel Gordon, who was involved in an altercation with student supporters of Palestine in 2001. "It's an obnoxious Berkeley tradition, bringing political agendas into the classroom. And since Berkeley always wants everything in the world to be about Berkeley, Berkeley wants the Israel-Palestine conflict to be about Berkeley."

Student Daniel Frankenstein recalls being heckled and called a "conservative Zionist bastard" when he ran for student-body president last year. "One girl working on my campaign was followed around by someone who kept asking her, 'Are you a Jewgirl? Frankenstein's a Jew, so isn't everyone who's working for him a Jew?'" he said. Incidents such as these have convinced Frankenstein, who is graduating this month and taking a government job in Washington, DC, that "it is really socially acceptable to be anti-Semitic on the Berkeley campus."

A milder but more instructive glimpse of the hatreds that inflame Cal was on display February 10, the day Daniel Pipes lectured at UC Berkeley's Pimentel Hall. Pipes runs a project called Campus Watch, which through its Web site,, monitors Middle Eastern Studies departments at American schools, including Cal. The site keeps dossiers on instructors it believes are biased against the United States, and Pipes writes a steady stream of articles with intentionally provocative headlines such as "When Osama Bin Laden Becomes PC" and "The Muslims Are Coming! The Muslims Are Coming!"

Berkeley Hillel, the Jewish student organization that sponsored the event, had printed fliers calling Pipes "a member of the presidentially appointed US Institute for Peace and a prize-winning columnist." His detractors called him something else entirely. "Racist Daniel Pipes to speak at UC Berkeley," ran an announcement at the day of the lecture, urging readers to protest this visit by a "notable bigot and neo-McCarthyist."

Outside the hall where Pipes was to speak, you could cut the tension with a knife. Protesters had assembled early: young women wearing the hijab; young men clad in yarmulkes or Muslim skullcaps; and, of course, plenty of Cal sweatshirts. One protester hoisted a sign reading, "Israel: Born of British colonialism. Created through Zionist terrorism. Supported by Western imperialism. Sustained by Israeli militarism." Another man circulated silently, bearing a small sign that read, "Another Jew opposed to Daniel Pipes." Female voices ululated.

One flier making the rounds declared, "The neoconservatives and the Jewish Lobby ... planned the Iraq wars. ... Most of the US media ... are Jewish owned." Meanwhile, the largest sign said, "I Want You! to DIE for Israel. Israel sings: 'Onward christian soldiers.'" On the reverse side, in an attempted riff on "Pax Americana," the sign said, "I WANT YOU TO KILL FOR THE AMERA-ISRAELA POX!" Large rakish swastikas replaced the letter "s" in "Israel" on both sides of the sign. The sign-bearer's Uncle Sam hat was emblazoned with another swastika.

"So what exactly does Daniel Pipes represent to you?" one young protester demanded of a middle-aged man whose point of view she surmised by his refusal to accept a pamphlet. "Are you proud of his racism?"

Two male students, like college guys anywhere, eyed a group of young women whose hair was hidden under the hijab, their blue-jeaned legs and excited voices shivery in the cold. "I wonder how all these women who are supporting the Arabs would feel about being clitorecticized," one of the guys murmured to his friend. By that, he meant the practice of clitoridectomy, which is followed in some traditional Islamic cultures.

Sophomore Sandra Tahani was one of the women wearing headscarves. "Daniel Pipes is trying to incite pure hatred and racism," she said with fire in her eyes. "He wants to shut down the Center for Middle Eastern Studies. I'm with Students for Justice in Palestine. I'm with the Muslim Students Association, too. I'm with everyone that stands for justice. I'm an American." She said her parents are Muslim, although her mother converted from Judaism. "Coming from a Jewish heritage -- she has relatives that died in the Holocaust -- my mom says the Holocaust is being used to justify the Israeli occupation of Palestine." Other young women in headscarves clustered around her, their eyes blazing too.

A hush fell over the crowd as four women protesters in black clothing slowly descended into the plaza. Balanced on the shoulders of each was an armchair-sized papier-mâché head complete with hijab and frozen expression of grief. The women's eyes peered through the gaping papier-mâché mouths. Forming a row, they faced the crowd with gloved hands upraised as if in supplication. A pink-faced man moved somberly from one to the next, symbolically draping limp rag dummies in the shape of dead babies over the waiting arms of each.

"This is worse than the Warsaw ghetto," muttered a Jewish man in the queue.

As campus police assembled at the entrance to the hall and prepared to open its doors, a kaffiyeh-clad protester hoisted a placard that read: "What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct." The quote was attributed to Mahatma "Ghandi" in 1938, albeit a decade before there was an Israel. A silver-haired man, older than most in the crowd, burst out of the line to confront him.

"Do you know what it's like to be on a bus, and to see that bus blow up and see heads roll down the street?" the older man shouted, arms wild at his sides. "I've seen it -- in Israel."

The sign-bearer stood firm. "Well, they should have been killed," he yelled, his voice rising. "They should have been killed! They should have been killed because it wasn't their land! They should have been killed and it should have been more."

"You don't know history," the older man yelled. "You don't know anything."

The protester gave as good as he got: "You can leave. Get your ass out of here and back to Israel." Then, equating Israelis with criminals who have broken into someone else's house, he said homeowners in such an instance have the right to kill. "If you broke into someone's house and stole something ... you'd deserve to die! The Jews broke into Palestine and stole the land -- so they deserve to die. ... What's your address? Why won't you tell me? Are you afraid? I'll come break into your house and we'll see if you try to kill me. It's natural."

Berkeley students always have found something to protest since the beginnings of the Free Speech Movement in 1964. But after the fall of the Berlin Wall, radical rhetoric took a brief sabbatical. Activists cast about for an issue with the proper political pedigree, one that could capture the hearts and minds of a new generation of students. And then, in the late '90s, many on the campus left adopted Palestine: a struggle involving both economics and ethnicity, one in which an underclass battled a militarily and economically dominant opponent. Today, politics at Cal are stoked by a faraway conflict that affects students' rhetoric, the clothes they wear, and the screamed curses that will echo forever in their college memories. While a sizable portion of UC Berkeley's thirty thousand students remain more or less oblivious, angry factions clash, spit, and hit. They lob verbal Molotov cocktails: apartheid, atrocities, genocide, fascist, Nazi, racist, terrorist. Both camps claim to have history -- and, if it comes to that, God -- on their sides. Every historical detail, every phrase, is the subject of fierce wrangling. Even little slogans such as "End the occupation" are hives of controversy. After all, to some, "occupation" refers exclusively to Jewish settlements founded after 1967 in the West Bank; to others, it means the Jewish presence in all of present-day Israel.

In Berkeley's version of the struggle, Israel is more often cast as the villain, the denier of statehood, the vector of violence, the mocker and crusher of human rights. "Israel," pleaded a poster on a visiting instructor's door this term in Barrows Hall, "Stop Killing Peace."

Israel has always been a fait accompli for most young Jews, a fact taken for granted. Many have never set foot there nor even especially wanted to, not because of politics but because they'd rather see Prague or Cancún. For many in their parents' generation, however, Israel is not a rats' nest of fascism and right-wing aggression, but a socialist and largely secular paradise where the ideas of the midcentury left finally bore fruit. But these days, Jewish students at Cal are compelled to take sides for the first time in their lives -- redefining old attitudes and, in the process, defining themselves.

As the old joke goes: two Jews, three opinions. Even inside the pro-Israel camp, approval for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government is far from unanimous. Ditto opinions on the settlements, the separation wall, the Oslo accords, and Palestinian statehood. More than twenty different Jewish student groups are affiliated with UC Berkeley. For some, support for Israel comes down to the bottom line: a basic belief that the Jewish state has a right to exist -- since millions around the world believe it doesn't.

Amid this polarizing rhetoric, "Zionist" has become the most cutting of slurs. To say that this word -- coined in 1896 to name a movement based on the idea of Jews returning to the region from which they dispersed after Jerusalem was ravaged by the Roman army in 70 CE -- means different things to different people is a wild understatement. Micki Weinberg shakes his head in disbelief when remembering a newspaper article "that described me as an outspoken Zionist -- as if that was a bad thing."

And yet Jews are among the most vocal members of Students for Justice in Palestine, a student group founded at Cal in 2000 that now boasts chapters at dozens of other universities, including Yale, Princeton, and Columbia. The group's most ambitious project, one inspired by past campus campaigns urging divestment from apartheid South Africa, is its drive to push the UC regents to divest from companies that do more than $5 million a year of business with Israel. The petition has acquired more than six thousand signatures so far from UC faculty, students, and staff. Jewish surnames abound on the petitions.

The tension on campus started long before the latest intifada. One March day in 1996, a group of battle-fatigue-clad young men made their way across crowded Sproul Plaza chanting "Hezbollah! Hezbollah!" -- the name of the Lebanon-based organization in whose ranks suicide bombing is said to have been invented. When they reached Sproul Steps, the men took turns praising Palestinian suicide bombers who had carried out recent attacks in Israel: The preceding two weeks had been marked by two bus-bombings, a bus-stop bomb, and a shopping-mall bomb with a total of 67 killed. One of the demonstrators led the group in loudly declaring his willingness to become a martyr. The men then trampled and spat on an Israeli flag. In preparation for the event, "Zionism is fascism" had been chalked onto sidewalks surrounding the campus.

By April of 2001, Students for Justice in Palestine had become large enough to stage a high-profile sit-in at UC's Wheeler Hall. The group had demanded that the regents divest from companies with significant holdings in Israel. When the regents failed to respond, dozens of group members chained shut nine of the building's twelve doors. They formed human chains to block two of the remaining doors and ushered students out of the building through the last door. Professor Gordon, who had an important class scheduled that day in Wheeler, burst through the chain of students only to be showered with spit and hit by a student. Gordon filed a formal charge of assault against the student who had taken the lead, and his assailant was required to perform community service and write a formal apology.

Later that year, 23-year-old Aaron Schwartz was walking toward the Hillel building as part of an obviously Jewish group celebrating the annual holiday Simchas Torah. According to accounts in The Daily Californian and the Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, one onlooker mocked the procession by goose-stepping in place, chanting "Heil Hitler," and performing the Nazi salute. After punching Schwartz in the face and knocking him to the ground, the man and his two companions strolled away.

But many remember spring 2002 as the season the screaming really started. On spring break, someone hurled the cinderblock through the front door of Berkeley's Hillel Center, scrawling the words FUCK JEWS nearby. Also that spring, catalogues appeared listing courses that would be offered during the forthcoming fall semester. One of these was an English course titled "The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance." Its instructor was graduate student Snehal Shingavi, a prominent member of Students for Justice in Palestine. Among the required textbooks for the class was The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid. In the official catalogue, the course was described as addressing "the brutal Israeli military occupation of Palestine, an occupation that has been ongoing since 1948, has systematically displaced, killed, and maimed millions of Palestinian people. ... This class will examine the history of the Palestinian resistance and the way that it is narrated by Palestinians in order to produce an understanding of the intifada. ... Conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections." The national media had a field day with it. Responding to the outcry, the UC administration issued a statement attributing the course description to "a failure of oversight on the part of the English Department in reviewing course proposal descriptions." Shingavi's "no conservatives allowed" shtick was deemed discriminatory, and the official course description was altered. By that time, however, the class was already full, and even boasted a waiting list.

Micki Weinberg remembers the events of April 9, 2002 as one of his pinnacles of horror. On that day, Students for Justice in Palestine held a rally on campus to commemorate 1948's Deir Yassin massacre, in which Israeli forces killed a hundred Palestinian civilians in a village near Jerusalem. Also that day, at the same time and virtually the same place, Jewish students gathered for a vigil to mark Yom Ha'Shoah, the annual Holocaust remembrance day. Whether these two commemorations were scheduled concurrently by happenstance or on purpose has been a matter of debate ever since.

At noon, Sproul Plaza was packed solid with an estimated six hundred to a thousand students, the majority of whom were Palestinian supporters. Palestinian and Israeli flags fluttered against the gray sky. One sign read, "Israel lovers are the Nazis of our time." Another proclaimed, "Today, Israel is killing terrorists who would attack America." Voices blared through megaphones. "Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism," declared pro-Palestinian community activist Micah Bazant -- the Jewish son of a Holocaust survivor. "Yes it is, yes it is!" chorused another group of students. A skirl of rage erupted when Bazant began reciting the Kaddish, the traditional Hebrew prayer of mourning, in honor of the Deir Yassin dead.

Both before and after April 9, Weinberg counted among his friends several anti-Israel activists and members of Students for Justice in Palestine. But that afternoon threw into nauseating relief the razor-sharpness of the wedge between himself and those friends. Weinberg recalls being handed a leaflet by anti-Israel demonstrators on which photographs of Nazi soldiers herding European Jews onto cattle cars were juxtaposed with photographs of Israeli soldiers and Palestinians. "1942. Poland," the message on the leaflet warned. "Do not let it happen again." Weinberg kept it as a souvenir. "It was sick and twisted," he later recalled.

Student Daniel Frankenstein, meanwhile, was passing the pro-Palestinian demonstrators on his way to class that afternoon when a wad of spit splattered his leg. Among the hundreds gathered there, it was impossible to identify the spitter.

"It landed on my thigh, and instead of stooping to their level I just wiped it off and continued walking to class," he recalled. "And frankly, it doesn't matter who did it. Whoever did it was associated with this movement and this protest, and this is indicative of how confident they felt in their message. It's ironic, because it absolutely represents the lack of discussion and lack of freedom for the people they're trying to represent -- and this vicious cycle of not wanting to hear the other side of an issue."

Frankenstein believes the protesters recognized him as a supporter of Israel and an opponent of Students for Justice in Palestine. As a student senator that spring, he had been openly pro-Israel. His parents used to smuggle books to Jewish refuseniks in the USSR, and one of his earliest memories is of chanting, "Let my people go!" at a rally outside San Francisco's Soviet Consulate. Far from silent on the student senate floor, Frankenstein had opposed a proposal that Cal become a sister school with a Palestinian university. The registered Democrat remembers his critics calling him a "conservative Zionist bastard" and proclaiming, "Frankenstein supports killing innocent children in the Middle East."

The pro-Palestinian demonstrators ultimately marched through Sather Gate to Wheeler Hall, where again they staged a sit-in. Nearly eighty protesters, including 41 students, were arrested and charged with unlawful occupation, resisting arrest, and, in one case, biting a cop. The university also suspended the official privileges of Students for Justice in Palestine and charged the arrested students with violating its Code of Student Conduct -- an offense that carries the possible penalty of suspension for a school year. Students for Justice in Palestine responded with a dispatch signed by instructor Shingavi, who maintained that the group had been singled out for punishment because it was pro-Palestinian.

At a rally on campus protesting the arrests, Palestinian-born Islamic Studies lecturer Hatem Bazian spoke stirringly. Cal's administration, he reportedly told the crowd, was under pressure to punish the demonstrators. As for the source of that pressure, Micki Weinberg recalls Bazian telling his listeners that the answer lay in the names of UC Berkeley's buildings. Zellerbach, Bazian offered pointedly. And Haas. And Moses.

Standing in the crowd, Weinberg fumed. Rising around them, after all, were the campus's other hundred or so buildings, with names anything but Jewish -- names such as Hearst, Barrows, Evans, Campbell, Tang, Giannini, Latimer, O'Brien, McCone, Etcheverry, Sproul, Warren, Morrison, Stephens, Edwards, Chavez, and King.

"I yelled out, 'That's anti-Semitic!'" he recalled. "But he just repeated what he had said. The crowd was cheering. It just didn't make sense to me. If he's worried about countries with democratic problems, he has other things to worry about than the Cal music building."

All charges against the arrested protesters were eventually dropped, none were suspended, and no formal admissions of guilt or wrongdoing were ever made. The university reinstated the privileges of Students for Justice in Palestine.

A strong pro-Muslim bias pervades American academia, Daniel Pipes argues, and its by-product is the dissemination of anti-Israel and anti-US sentiments to a generation of students. "The scholars set the tone -- they're considered the experts," he said in a short interview before his Cal appearance. "The problem with Berkeley is that the scholarship here is so one-sided, representing only one point of view. And that point of view is hostile to the US and to friends of the US. I'm not saying that's a viewpoint that should have no representation. It's the unremitting quality of it that I object to, the indoctrination.

"The politicization of this university began forty years ago, and what has emerged at Berkeley is a working relationship between the leftists and the Islamists," he continued. "The left has been looking for a revolutionary movement for quite some time. So here come these people and they're actually doing it." Pipes was careful to remind his listener that the revolution in question entails "the blowing up of buildings."

UC Berkeley has attracted the scrutiny of Campus Watch more than once; a page on is devoted entirely to articles concerning Cal and its faculty. Hatem Bazian recently earned himself a place on its home page for comments he made at an April 10 San Francisco antiwar rally. "Are you angry?" Bazian asked the Civic Center crowd. "Well, we've been watching intifada in Palestine, we've been watching an uprising in Iraq. ... How come we don't have an intifada in this country? ... It's about time that we have an intifada in this country that changes fundamentally the political dynamics in here. ... They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical. Well, you haven't seen radicalism yet!" Waving signs bearing slogans such as "Support armed resistance in Iraq" and "Support Our Mutineers," the crowd cheered his speech; he has been defending his statements in forums such as The O'Reilly Factor ever since. Bazian, who can recall being stripped naked at the Israeli border and being humiliated at Israeli checkpoints, takes palpable pride in pointing out that the vast majority of Cal students fighting for Palestine have never been there and are not even Muslim. "It's not unique that white students would support a Muslim issue," he mused in an interview shortly after the Pipes lecture. "Young people simply see that there is an injustice being perpetrated, and they rally around it. Look at the civil rights movement in the '60s -- the lunch-counter protest was led by university students."

Unsurprisingly, there's no love lost between Bazian and Pipes. "The quote-unquote scholarly Daniel Pipes belongs to a think tank -- which is an oxymoron in terms of him," Bazian said. "He just wants attention, bringing his circus around. You know what they say: People with small intellects go after those with large intellects."

Pipes' organization has directed even heavier scrutiny upon Cal's Center for Middle Eastern Studies. In 1998, the Saudi Arabia-based Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud Foundation gave the school $5 million to establish the Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud Program in Arab and Islamic Studies. Named for Saudi Arabia's second deputy prime minister, it comprises a visiting professorship, visiting scholars, a graduate fellows program, a research fund, an outreach fund, and a luxe new facility in Stephens Hall. Presented with the donation by Prince Faisal bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud and Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud in November of that year, Chancellor Robert Berdahl declared the university "delighted to accept this gift from our friends in Saudi Arabia." subsequently posted an article noting that families of 9/11 victims had jointly filed a $1 trillion class-action suit implicating Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud in the attacks, alleging that he had failed to curtail the channeling of charity money into terrorist organizations.

University officials maintain that the Center for Middle Eastern Studies operates under no obligation to its donors, pointing out that the center also receives funding from the Diller Family Jewish Studies and Israeli Visiting Scholars Program. Cal alum Helen Diller established the program last year because she was disturbed by the fervency of anti-Israel protests on campus and because she felt Israel was not well represented at the center. However, tensions flared when the university chose as its first Diller visiting professor the Israeli geographer Oren Yiftachel, an outspoken advocate for the Palestinian cause.

Although the center recently hosted a conference titled "Islamicizing Space in the Cosmopolis," the names of courses offered through the center hardly have a sinister ring to them. Among those offered next fall are "Harems and Court Cultures," "Multicultural Europe," "Medieval Hebrew Poetry," and "Introduction to Byzantine Civilization." And Prince Bandar, for his part, decried as "a crime" Yasir Arafat's refusal to accept the peace deal brokered by President Bill Clinton in 2001. But it is what might go on in such classrooms that worries

Other supporters of Israel worry too. Jesse Gabriel, who was student body president in 2002, became concerned after enrolling in an introductory Middle Eastern history course during one of his first semesters at Cal.

"I purposely sought one out that was being taught by a Palestinian professor, because I figured I can't learn if I'm only studying stuff I already know and already agree with," he recalled. But as the term progressed, "there were things my professor said in class that were completely offensive to me. My professor did several lectures on the Israel-Palestine conflict and did not mention terrorism once. There was no discussion of Israel's security situation. It was very one-sided."

All around him, Gabriel saw eager first-year students accepting it all as the whole story. "This is a very big university, an internationally known university that is very highly rated for its scholarship," he said. "There are no faculty members willing to stand up and defend Israel -- and very many who are willing to stand up and criticize it." Associate Professor Beshara Doumani declined to discuss Gabriel's claim, lamenting the frequency with which such challenges are being leveled at Middle Eastern studies instructors nationwide, fueled by the muckraking of Campus Watch and similar groups.

Gabriel, who grew up in a largely Jewish community just north of the San Fernando Valley, where Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur were official holidays at the public schools he attended, said he "honestly never encountered anyone who was anti-Semitic or anti-Israel" -- until he came to Cal. "I used to think anti-Semitism was something you encountered in history books about what happened in Berlin in 1939," said the political-science major. "But my first stepping foot on campus in 2000 coincided exactly with the outbreak of the Al Aqsa intifada. So for a lot of students my age, their experience in dealing with the increase of violence in the Middle East has defined their identities."

When Gabriel was settling into life on campus, he frequently sported a favorite T-shirt whose front bore the Coca-Cola logo in Hebrew. When Jewish friends warned him that by wearing the T-shirt he was "asking for trouble," he snorted in disbelief. But the logo did spark hostility, he said, just as Micki Weinberg said his yarmulke had attracted "dirty looks."

Perhaps no classroom dispute at Cal has acquired the same level of notoriety as when student Susanna Klein claimed last August that her Arabic-language instructor had defended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a legitimate historical document. Those were fighting words. In a letter to College of Letters and Science executive dean Ralph Hexter, Klein wrote that Iraqi-born doctoral candidate Abbas Kadhim had "announced before the entire class during a discussion on Zionism that he believes that the infamous text The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not an anti-Semitic forgery but was in fact written by Jews." She also filed complaints with other university officials, calling for Kadhim's dismissal.

One of the world's fiercest works of propaganda, the Protocols purport to be the minutes of a meeting in which Jewish leaders outline a strategy for taking over the world. Since it first started circulating in 1897, the document has been conclusively discredited by major international scholars, who have outed it as a fake contrived by Russian officers in Czar Nicholas II's secret police. In a landmark 1993 case, a Russian court ruled that the Protocols is an anti-Semitic forgery. Details of its provenance have emerged: As early as 1921, the London Times ran a series of articles demonstrating that the Protocols are derived from Dialogues in Hell, a political satire authored in 1864 by French lawyer Maurice Joly. Extensive passages of the Protocols match passages in Dialogues nearly word for word. But it still finds large and eager audiences. Distributed by the Nation of Islam, widely available on the Internet, a popular seller in bookstores from Argentina to Croatia to Japan, the Protocols are also widely taken for truth throughout the Arab world. A major Egyptian publisher issued a new edition in 2002. That year, Egyptian state television aired Horseman Without a Horse, a thirty-part miniseries based on the Protocols.

Klein's letter to Dean Hexter continued: "I asked Mr. Kadhim if he was being serious about his claim. He assured me that he was 100 percent certain in his belief that Jews were behind the Protocols. ... I am disgusted that UC Berkeley is giving a forum to an ignorant, anti-Semitic, and prejudiced individual." Klein also posted her complaint on the Web site.

In his subsequent rebuttal, also on that site, Kadhim defended his teaching methods but pointedly avoided mentioning the Protocols. However, he was quoted elsewhere as saying that he had merely been "explaining the conventional wisdom of Iraqis" and that when push came to shove he couldn't be certain who authored the Protocols. "I know some people say it is a forgery and some people say it is not," he told The Jewish Bulletin, "but it is not my job or duty to know the details." In a letter to UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who took an interest in the case and began a correspondence, Kadhim elaborated further: "As you know, this issue of authenticity and the identity of the author -- or authors -- of the Protocols has not been settled ... I am not in the business of endorsing one view over the other." Today, nearly a year after the incident, Kadhim calls it a sad episode. "It was an absolutely false accusation," he said. "At this time, I believe that it does not deserve to be dignified by any more discussion."

A Daily Californian article about the case described Klein as both "brilliant" and "belligerent." Her classmates came to Kadhim's defense. "Several other students in the class also submitted a complaint, about Klein, however, claiming she was disruptive and that she also accused classmates of being anti-Semitic on several occasions," The Daily Cal wrote. After conducting an investigation, the university issued an official statement declaring Klein's charge baseless.

On the day Pipes made his case in person, no purses or backpacks were allowed into the lecture hall for security reasons. Members of the audience were admonished not to shout, heckle, or hold up signs, at the risk of being escorted out of the building. Campus police patted down each person coming through the door.

The auditorium was full, with protesters occupying several rows on the right flank and scattered throughout the hall. The overhead lights bathed a sea of shining hair, flowing scarves, and skullcaps. One man's olive-drab yarmulke had the words "Israeli Army" embroidered on it. Campus police studded the aisles, five down each side. Dark-suited bodyguards framed the podium as Pipes, looking formal and disarmingly slight, entered the room to a storm of boos and applause.

"It's an unfortunate fact of university life that such security is necessary today," Pipes said. Still, after teaching thousands of students at the University of Chicago and Harvard and delivering nearly a thousand lectures at other universities over the last few years, he could not possibly have been surprised by the response his remarks elicited. Indeed, within moments, the first heckler leapt to his feet and was escorted out. Again and again, as Pipes parsed the difference between mainstream Muslims and "militant Islam," the auditorium rang with both wild cheers of approval and cries of outrage.

"The same people who support militant Islam," Pipes ventured in a butter-cookie voice whose softness seemed a calculated counterpoint to its message, "support suicide bombers and Saddam Hussein."

To the accompaniment of cheers and cries of outrage, a red-haired female protester became especially vocal and was escorted out.

"This is an ideology like fascism and like Marxism that seeks to impose views on its subjects," Pipes said, calling it a "totalitarian ideology which we must seek to destroy."

From among the protesters, a voice shouted: "You guys are Nazis!"

"Why was the World Trade Center attacked?" Pipes asked. "What was the reason?"

"Zionism!" someone yelled.

When Pipes proposed that global unrest can be addressed only "when we call it what it is: not a war on terrorism but a war on militant Islam," a chanting chorus erupted: "Ra-cist! Ra-cist!"

"Let him speak!" came a strangled yell. "Freedom of speech!"

"Ra-cist! Ra-cist!"

"It's so satisfying to see one's theoretical points proven so quickly," Pipes said in his best butter-cookie voice.

When he went on to call for Palestinian acceptance of Israel's existence, hisses swirled in the hall like steam. "No!" shouted many in the crowd.

"Death to Zionism!" proclaimed a voice.

"I thought this was an institution of higher learning," Pipes said, baiting his hecklers.

"You racist Jew!" cried the protester who had been hoisting the Gandhi sign.

"Ra-cist! Ra-cist!"

Pipes asked what race had to do with anything: "I haven't mentioned race."

He reserved the evening's harshest criticism for "my colleagues in Middle Eastern studies," among whom he decried "a significant element of incompetence. The field is adversarial, intolerant, and my colleagues consistently get the facts wrong." This met with laughter from the crowd, half in gleeful accord and half in derision. By exercising what he called "abusive power over students," Pipes said Middle Eastern studies instructors "too often coerce students into taking a party line, at the same time intimidating and penalizing those who don't."

"End, end the occupation! Free, free Palestine!"

Another sign waved in the air and another protester was escorted out. "Go blow yourself up," someone yelled at the protester's departing figure.

"I don't think my colleagues are doing a good job," Pipes continued. "If I think my colleagues in Middle Eastern studies aren't doing a good job, why don't I have the right to say so? Why do I get called names?"

"Because you're a racist Jew!"

"These scholars know better," Pipes continued, "but they're hiding what they know."

"Racist Jew!"

"My, my," he said, looking up with a wry smile from the microphone. "Don't we have elevated discourse at this university."

After the lecture, attendees filed out of the hall to discover that the protesters had massed so as to allow only a narrow passage between themselves and a retaining wall. In effect, all those leaving the lecture were forced to walk a gauntlet. Some ducked their heads, others set their jaws in anger, squeezing past the dozens of assembled faces chanting "Shame! Shame! Shame!" as fists pumped the air in unison.

A young woman in a kaffiyeh screamed up at a Jewish student significantly larger than herself. Her lips were wet with fury. "If I don't agree with you, then you call it anti-Semitism!" she shouted, as friends arrived to support her. The young man was surrounded. "You call it anti-Semitismmm!" she raged. "Why can't you tolerate anti-Semitismmm?"

"I can tolerate it," the student replied, his voice a low, tired rumble. "I have to. It exists. I just don't have to like it."

Student Ismail Ibrahim attended and protested the Pipes event. Standing alongside fellow members of the Muslim Students Association, the glossy-haired history major stood with friends, classmates, and total strangers, shouting "Shame!" until his cheeks glowed and his voice grew hoarse. "I study history, so I know the truth," he said.

Pipes' critics, Ibrahim among them, charge that Campus Watch's practice of posting dossiers on certain university instructors is nothing short of blacklisting.

"One of my primary concerns is that Daniel Pipes is a noted Islamophobe, a noted Muslim hater," said Ibrahim, whose eyes shine with warm intelligence. "This event was a circus and Daniel Pipes is the ringmaster, and I'm reminded of the same type of racist propaganda that was used in European history to justify the extermination of other racial groups.

"Pipes is a hack," continued the graduating senior, whose parents came to the United States some twenty years ago from Pakistan, and who agreed to speak only if identified by a pseudonym. "He's playing on the fears of Americans who are generally ill-informed about the Middle East, about Arabs and Muslims -- and who think all those things are one and the same. His partisans typically happen to be Zionists. ... Immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing, Daniel Pipes said, 'We told you so -- it was Arabs.' After 9/11, there's definitely an environment in which Muslims and Arabs are called into question as being un-American. A wave of Islamophobia has swept the American public," and Pipes and his supporters "play demagogue to it. ... The bottom line is, it's just chicanery."

Yet Ibrahim also denounced anti-Semitism: "It's a malignancy, an egregious practice, and it should be wiped out, like any form of racism." He finds it odd that "the very same community that has experienced hate and is very sensitive to these dialectics brought a noted racist to campus. ... These people don't even look at the Palestinians as human beings," he said. "It's so ironic -- in effect they're ignoring the history of their own suffering."

Ibrahim said he has been horrified by discussions with fellow students who were so radicalized in their view of Palestinians as subhumans. "If you criticize Israel, you are going to be labeled anti-Semitic," he said, adding that this conflation is dangerous for the way it tends to stifle legitimate criticism.

Also problematic, he said, is the enthusiastic Israel-boosting of Jewish student groups such as Hillel. "There's a great movement within Jewish student organizations which tries to identify Judaism with Israel in terms of building Jewish identity." The result, he added, is the construction of artificial identities in which American Jews believe that their fate is inextricably linked to that of Israel. Upon reflection, he added, "maybe they actually are."

But what of Jews who feel "that 'If Israel doesn't have the right to exist, then how do we as Jews have the right to exist?'" Ibrahim asked. "It's very hurtful for Hillel to do that" -- to emphasize the right-to-exist premise. "It oversimplifies it. Look: Jews existed prior to the state of Israel's existence. And even if Israel didn't exist, they still would."

Daniel Frankenstein was at the Pipes lecture too. Sitting near the back, he watched with bitter amusement as a large group of protesters got up and left the building right before the question-and-answer session, chanting slogans and appearing to sob as they left. Their sobs were fake, he said. "It was just what I expected from them: the overdramatization of a misconception. Pipes wasn't saying anything that makes people cry, and I know these individuals and they're not people who cry. They were holding their hands over their faces but it was just a dramatic thing."

Not that Frankenstein is an all-out Pipes fan. "Daniel Pipes invented this curriculum where he wants to be interrupted. It helps him -- and that's scary in itself."

No less scary, Frankenstein believes, than the contrast between the response elicited by Pipes' lecture and that produced by a visit last year from the late Columbia University professor and Palestine advocate Edward Said. "When Said came to campus, he wasn't interrupted. There wasn't anybody outside protesting his right to be there. Edward Said was a fraud. He was outed by The New York Times as a fraud." (An article in that paper claimed Said had fabricated elements of his own autobiography.)

Outside Pimentel Hall after the Pipes lecture, Frankenstein approached a protester who was venting a distaste for America. Frankenstein suggested that the protester leave America and go to Iran. "I hear the weather there is really nice this time of year," he told the man.

Such are the barbs flung by adversaries on opposite sides. But what happens in the absence of adversaries? "Liberation Through Islam" was the theme of the sixth annual Muslim Students Association West Conference, held on the Cal campus this February. Organized by the group's western regional arm, which has chapters at universities throughout the United States and Canada, the weekend-long series of workshops, lectures, and other events drew an estimated eight hundred members from colleges all over California and beyond. Programs on the agenda ranged from the spiritual to the social to the political.

On Valentine's Day, the second day of the conference, young women wearing the hijab circulated around the steps of Wheeler Hall. Many wore long robes, too, although most wore jeans and blouses with the scarf. Clusters of young men, many in skullcaps and kaffiyehs, drifted in and out of Wheeler, but women and men entered and exited through separate doors marked "BROTHERS ENTRANCE" and "SISTERS ENTRANCE." Practically no intergender socializing was evident, nor bare female arms or legs.

That afternoon's program in Wheeler Auditorium was called "Liberation Struggles, Past and Present." The auditorium was packed. Women filled the right-hand tier of seats, men the left. The front half of the central tier was occupied entirely by men, the back by women. Roughly 95 percent appeared to be of Middle Eastern origin, with small scattered clusters of black attendees and only a tiny handful of white ones. Throughout the hall, the young faces glowed with contentment, the luminous radiance of devotion.

The emcee punctuated nearly every sentence with "Inshallah" -- if Allah is willing. He announced that one of the orators in this program, Imam Jamil, would address the group via phone hookup because he was in jail. "He's under lockdown," the young emcee said, "but he was a slave of Allah before he was incarcerated and when he is released he will continue."

From the men's side came a chorus: "Allahu akbar" -- God is great.

Abdel Malik Ali, an African-American imam affiliated with Oakland's Masjid Al Islam mosque, took the podium and sent a nervous ripple through the crowd by immediately denouncing "the white man, who is the enemy." Presently his monologue narrowed in on Daniel Pipes. Pipes, Ali declared, "can kiss our behind! Your days are numbered," Ali said sharply to an imaginary Pipes and whoever supports him. "Your days are numbered in the apartheid state of Israel and in America."

"Allahu akbar," some chanted.

"The Zionist Jews done really messed up," Ali said. "I'm talking about the Zionist Jews, not all Jews, not the Jews who are down with us -- because not all Jews are Zionists. I have to say that, otherwise I'll get called an anti-Semite."

Soft laughter shimmered through the auditorium.

Ali said the conflict between Muslims and Zionists "is an opportunity, dawg," because "we're allowed to fight against oppression. It's an act of worship. ... In America, you're mostly fighting with your tongue. But you should also learn how to fight with the sword."

Ali's remarks met with polite silence, punctuated by occasional choruses of "Allahu akbar." No protesters were visible either inside or outside the hall.

"The enemies of Islam know that when we come back to power we're gonna check 'em," Ali said before leaving. "They're gonna be checked."

A few minutes later, from a jail in Georgia, Imam Jamil's voice emerged through the speakers less than clearly. He was obviously a practiced speaker but the connection was weak. "The circumstances that Allah has placed upon me at this time have been placed on Muslims around the world," he said. "Stay conscious and ask Allah to raise the Muslims and give us victory over the disbeliever." Jamil urged his listeners to be devout.

Just as the question-and-answer period was about to start, a recorded female voice broke in and blared: "You have sixty seconds left on this call."

After the imam hung up, notes passed to the stage revealed that many in the audience had no idea who Jamil was and wanted to know more. In response, the emcee invited another member up to the podium to explain. "Imam Jamil is the person who has the potential of uniting North America," the speaker said. "Ten years from now, they'll play the tape of this speech like they play tapes of Malcolm X now. You are privileged." When he left the stage, attendees were still puzzled. "Well," said one, "at least you could tell he was a very spiritual person."

In the 1960s, Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin was better known as the revolutionary leader H. Rap Brown. Long before most of the students in the auditorium were born, he was the justice minister of the Black Panther Party. Having converted to Islam in prison during the 1970s, he was convicted in 2002 of killing an Atlanta cop two years earlier. He maintains that he is the target of a government conspiracy.

On the next day, a Sunday, workshops and lectures focused on activism, modesty, and prayer. UC San Diego student Muslema Purmul started off that morning's program. "Why do we feel so at peace here today?" she mused, beaming at the serene faces lining the hall. "Because the next life is the real life. The next life is home. ... We are all part of the eternal destination."

"Inshallah," someone said.

Later that morning, Abdel Malik Ali returned to the stage. Jewelry flashed on his long delicate fingers as he outlined "the recipe for how we come to power: From an Islamic movement we graduate to an Islamic revolution, then to an Islamic state."

"Allahu akbar," came a chorus.

"We must be in power," Ali continued coolly. He rounded up his lecture by promising that "when it's all over, the only one standing is gonna be us."

"Allahu akbar."

"We ain't gonna lose. We must implement Islam as a totality," in which "Allah controls every place -- the home, the classroom, the science lab, the halls of Congress."

The weekend concluded with an evening program called "Muslim Students in the Struggle." A few officers and alumni took turns at the podium; one young man speculated about the day "when we are called upon to rock the West like it's never been rocked before." This is inevitable, he said. "Allah has promised the people that they will inherit this land."

Another speaker urged self-control: "We need to struggle against calling people our enemies." On the sisters' side, attendees passed notes back and forth to new friends.

Hatem Bazian started his speech with a pragmatic gibe. Of all that had been taught throughout the weekend, he said, "you won't remember any more than the three or four main points -- unless you're part of the ADL, which is recording everything we say." Laughter erupted in the hall. The bespectacled polyglot with the brilliant smile went on to admonish his listeners to do well in school and in their professional lives, "to be the excellent person," and earn "the A and the A plus."

Muslema Purmul returned, invoking the rivalry between the Muslim Students Association and its Jewish counterparts: Hillel and the Union of Jewish Students.

"You're afraid of the organizations that are trying to shut you down," she said. "UJS and Hillel are trying to shut you down. But they're the ones that are experiencing trouble on campus right now."

"Allahu akbar," came a chorus.

Abdel Malik Ali also returned one final time, prodding the young crowd to "work on building Islamic infrastructures in the USA now." He allowed: "There will be some poop-butts who will not want to live under sharia law and will leave.

"We're already winning," he said. "Things are coming our way."

He cited a Washington Post article in which Jewish leaders expressed worries "about a backlash against Jews for the Iraq war" and about the general public "blaming Jewish officials in the Bush administration for American casualties." Again, the just-catch-me smile.

"Let the backlash begin.

"Neo-cons are all Zionist Jews," he continued. He scanned the hall, wondering aloud whether Jewish infiltrators were among his listeners. If so, he had a message for them: "You made all the mistakes we wanted you to make. You went after Cynthia McKinney" -- the outspoken African-American former Georgia congresswoman who was frequently cited as the most anti-Semitic member of Congress. "So now black folks don't like you. ... You're walking into all the traps we want you to walk into. You hijacked American foreign policy."

"Allahu akbar."

"They really blew it, y'all."

Sooner or later, he mused, today's Muslim college students will be the parents of Muslim children.

"And," he cried, "they should be militants."

Afterward, the auditorium cleared. Row upon row of attendees rose and brushed themselves off, cheek-kissing and back-slapping their goodbyes, exchanging e-mail addresses. They drifted in groups of two and three and four, tired but laughing and chattering, into a deserted plaza and back to their buses and hotel rooms and homes.

But despite all the enthusiastic cries of "Allahu akbar," not all the attendees enjoyed Abdel Malik Ali's speeches. In the aftermath, one member of the student group confessed to a non-Muslim attendee that it left him feeling shocked.

"As a Muslim," he said, and his heart was in his voice, "I just want to apologize."