MY AWAKENING by David Duke

Chapter 22: Jewish Supremacy in Action

———————————————–

Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on Earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck. — President Harry S. Truman under pressure to recognize the newly announced Zionist state in Israel.1

For all its disappointments, Israel is who we are, uncamouflaged and unadorned.
— Hillel Halkin2

American Jews must have the courage to declare openly that they have a double loyalty — to the country in which they live, and to the state of Israel. The Jew must not let himself be talked into merely being a good patriot of a country in which he lives.3
In the Zionist movement’s new campaign to ‘conquer the communities of Free Diaspora, the government of Israel will give every moral and political support…to the limits of its capacity.4

As I delved deeper into the Jewish question and Zionism, attempting to get a clear understanding of this enigmatic people, I realized that exploring the foundations and policies of the modern nation of Israel would answer some of my questions. For the first time in over 2000 years, Jews had their own sovereign state, a nation created entirely in their own image.

By the time I began my inquiry, it was obvious to me that the press and the entertainment industry were very pro-Israel. They had induced in me an early prejudice in favor of Israel. I now noticed that the reporters covering the stories for the TV networks and for the major newspapers are usually Jewish. Suspecting that much of my pro-Israel sentiment had come from biased sources, I sought to learn the undisputed basics of the Mideast conflict, and I first turned to my encyclopedias.

I found in my encyclopedias, information similar to what one will find today in the “Israel” article in the very popular Encarta Encyclopedia.

Of the more than 800,000 Arabs who lived in Israeli-held territory before 1948, only about 170,000 remained. The rest became refugees in the surrounding Arab countries.5

In 1948, the year the Israeli nation was set up, more than three-fourths of the entire Palestinian population living in the Israeli-held territory had become refugees. According to Encarta, 630,000 people were no longer able to dwell in their homes and to work on the land where their families had lived for thousands of years. Since then, Israel expanded its borders in the wars of 1956, 1967, 1973, and in the Lebanon invasion in 1982 — creating hundreds of thousands of additional Palestinian refugees.

Would people voluntarily leave their homes, their businesses, their farms? I asked myself. Would they freely choose to live as penniless, stateless people in squalid refugee camps? Obviously, the Zionists had driven them from their homes and property; and furthermore, the expulsion had obviously been intentional, for the Palestinians were forbidden to return to their homes after the fighting ended.

While in high school I wrote to a Palestinian information organization in Washington, D.C., and asked for some books giving their side of the Israeli-Arab conflict. From them and from libraries I obtained many well-documented sources — including some amazing Zionist ones — that gave a very different answer to the Mideast question. I learned that the fledgling Israeli government had passed regulations forbidding the expelled Palestinians from returning to their homes and property. They also enacted a special law that deemed this Arab property “abandoned” and subject to confiscation without compensation. The Nazis of Hitler’s Reich could not have disposed of the problem with any more cold-blooded efficiency.

I checked the figures compiled by the British Census in 1922. At that time, Jews accounted for only about 10 percent of the population. In the last such census, taken the year before the establishment of Israel, Jews had made up only about half of the population within the area that subsequently became Israel. The Palestinians then owned 93.5 percent of the land. The facts were inescapable and damning: Zionist immigrants had forced their way into Palestine against the wishes of the inhabitants and then, through the weight of arms and terror, had driven the residents from their homes, robbing them of their land and possessions.

The facts could not be plainer. The Zionists, with help from their cohorts all over the world, had stolen a whole nation: the nation called Israel. No equivocation, no mountain of pro-Israeli propaganda, no playing of “Exodus” on the radio, and no replay of millions of feet of Hollywood films showing Arabs as brutal terrorists and Jews as innocent victims — none of this could change the obvious and inescapable facts.

The pro-Israeli propaganda I read suggested that Palestine was essentially an empty country. Tell that to the more than one million people who have been driven out of it since 1948. Zionist leaders understood from the beginning that Israel was going to be acquired by colonization and conquest. The dedicated Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky makes this clear in his 1923 book The Iron Wall: We and the Arabs.1

Zionist colonization must either be terminated or carried out against the wishes of the native population…an iron wall…to resist the pressure to the native population….A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question…for without an armed force…colonization is impossible…Zionism is a colonization adventure…It is important…to speak Hebrew, but… more important to be able to shoot…2

Israel: Founded on Terrorism

The first obstacle to Zionist objectives was that Britain envisioned a Palestine as portrayed by the Balfour Declaration, a society that would protect the civil and religious rights of all who lived there.

To dislodge the British, whom the League of Nations had mandated to govern Palestine, the Zionists developed to a fine art the use of terrorism as a modern weapon of political revolution. Menachem Begin, Abraham Stern, Yitshak Shamir, David Ben-Gurion, and many others began a campaign of bombings and assassination. They hanged and garroted British soldiers with piano wire and left their mutilated bodies to be found by the British authorities. Israeli terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing more than 100 people. Their operatives invented the letter-bomb technique. Jewish hitmen even assassinated the UN mediator in Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, because he dared to express concern for the rights of the Palestinians. In his final report to the UN before his death, Bernadotte scathingly referred to

Zionist pillage on a grand scale and the destruction of villages without apparent military need.3 (U.N. archives)
It would offend basic principles to prevent these innocent victims of the conflict from returning to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flood into Palestine . . . threatening to permanently replace the dispossessed Arab refugees who have been here for centuries.4

The Zionist campaign worked. Eventually tiring of the terrorist campaign waged against them and despairing of a world press that covered up these crimes, the British finally threw up their hands and announced their withdrawal from the region. With the British gone, the Zionists could have their way with the native peoples who had dared to live on the land they coveted. No force was left to restrain them. Aided by both the military and financial support of both the capitalist U.S.A. and the Communist U.S.S.R., as well as by the huge sums of money that poured in from Zionist coffers from all over the world, the Jewish blitzkrieg rolled over their enemies as decisively as the Biblical account of the Red Sea rolling over the Egyptians.

With military victory certain, two significant problems still confronted the Zionists. The first was that there were hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who obviously would not sit back and let the new Jewish State take away their rights and their lands. Secondly, Palestinians owned more than 93 percent of the land of the new nation — a serious roadblock to the new “Greater Israel.”

Quoting literally from the Book of Joshua, Jewish religious leaders warned that Israel must drive the Palestinians out of their borders:

Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you; know for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive these nations from out of your sight; but they shall be a snare and a trap unto you, and a scourge in your sides, and pricks in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land — (Joshua 23:12-13) 1

Zionists fanatics ultimately solved their “Palestinian problem” with mass expulsions, murder, and well-planned terror. Palestinians who were born there and whose ancestors had lived there for countless generations were rounded up by the Israeli stormtroopers and driven over the border. Told they could never return to their homes, those expelled had little more than the tattered clothes on their backs. Many who refused to leave their homes were massacred by the Israeli military, and the Zionists publicized the massacres, intentionally causing widespread panic and flight among the Palestinians.

Committing atrocities against the Palestinians became an integral part of the Israeli strategy. When Jewish terrorists raped and massacred the residents of Arab villages, those in the surrounding villages naturally gathered up their children and fled for their lives. Once the Zionists set up their state and secured their initial borders — minus approximately 630,000 pesky Palestinian men, women, and children — the beneficent government of Israel forbade them ever to return to their homes, businesses, fields and flocks. By the time the Israeli “War for Freedom” ended, only about 170,000 Palestinians were left within Israel’s borders.

The Jews, of course, had prominent and powerful spokesmen and supporters all over the world, especially in media, telling of the courage and righteousness of “little Israel.” By the 1960s there were millions of adults and children around the world who, like me, were enthralled by the heroic story of Israel — a story romantically retold by the Academy Award-winning movie Exodus.2 At that time I, just as most Americans of today, had scant knowledge of the gross injustice committed against the Palestinians.

The most well known atrocity of the first Israeli war was the massacre of Deir Yassin. On April 9, 1948, after cessation of fighting in that small village, the Zionist terrorist Irgun Gang, led by Menachem Begin, murdered 254 people, most of them women, children, and the elderly. For two days these Zionist terrorists had murdered men, women, and children, raped women, crushed the stomachs of pregnant women, and stolen their possessions. A Red Cross doctor, Jacques de Reynier, chief representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Jerusalem gave a chilling account of the massacre in his official report.3

De Reynier arrived at the village on the second day and saw “the mopping up,” as one of the terrorists put it to him. It had been done with machine guns, then grenades, and was finished off with knives. They decapitated some of the victims and maimed 52 children in the sight of their mothers. The terrorists cut open 25 pregnant women’s wombs and butchered the babies in front of them.

After his retirement in 1972, Israeli Haganah officer, Colonel Meir Pa’el, stated the following about Deir Yassin in Yediot Ahronot, a major Jewish publication:

The Irgun and LEHI men came out of hiding and began to ‘clean’ the houses. They shot whoever they saw, women and children included, the commanders did not try to stop the massacre…they were taken to the quarry between Deir Yassin and Giv’at Shaul, and murdered in cold blood…1

The commander of the Haganah unit that controlled Deir Yassin after the massacre, Zvi Ankori, made this statement in the Israeli newspaper Davar:

I went into six to seven houses. I saw cut off genitalia and women’s crushed stomachs. According to the shooting signs on the bodies, it was direct murder.2

Albert Einstein, along with other concerned Jews, wrote a letter to the New York Times in 1948 decrying Begin as having: “openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist State.” He went on to describe Deir Yassin in these words:

On April 9, terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants — 240 men, women, and children, and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem…the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre…

Menachem Begin boasts of the importance of the massacre of Deir Yassin in his book The Revolt: The Story of the Irgun. He wrote that there would not have been a State of Israel without the “victory” of Deir Yassin. “The Haganah carried out victorious attacks on other fronts… In a state of terror, the Arabs fled, crying, ‘Deir Yassin’.”.3

Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion — no slouch at Jewish supremacy himself — was quoted as describing Begin with these words:

Begin undeniably belongs to the Hitlerian type. He is a racist, ready to destroy all the Arabs in his dream of unification of Israel, prepared to resort to any means to realize this sacred goal.4

The instigator of the mass murder, Menachem Begin, later became the Prime Minister of Israel and even received the Nobel Peace Prize. Such an award is symbolic of the incredible worldwide Jewish media power, for Begin had been guilty of crimes not dissimilar to those of Nazis whom Jews are still hunting and prosecuting today. Yet instead of facing trial and punishment for crimes against humanity, Begin received what many would consider the world’s highest honor.

The massacre at Deir Yassin was not the only one Israeli forces committed. In its May 6, 1992 edition, the Hebrew daily Ha’ir published an article by Guy Erlich called “Not Only Deir Yassin” that outlined a pattern of terror and murder. Erlich quotes the Israeli historian Aryeh Yitzhaki as saying the following:

‘The time has come’ he says, ‘for a generation has passed, and it is now possible to face the ocean of lies in which we were brought up. In almost every conquered village in the War of Independence, acts were committed, which are defined as war crimes, such as indiscriminate killings, massacres and rapes. I believe that such things end by surfacing. The only question is how to face such evidence.’ 5

Erlich and Yitzhaki point out that Israeli authorities are still covering up the murders. Nor did the massacres cease after the establishment of the Jewish State; they continued in times of both peace and war. Following are the names of some of them: Sharafat Massacre, Kibya Massacre, Kafr Qasem Massacre, Al-Sammou’ Massacre, the Sabra And Shatila Massacre, Oyon Qara Massacre, Al-Aqsa Mosque Massacre, the Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre, the Jabalia Massacre.

There were further killings and expulsions of the Arabs as the Jewish State expanded. In subsequent wars and military incursions, Israel drove more hundreds of thousands of Palestinians into relocation camps. Plagued by hunger and disease they bore remarkable resemblance to wartime concentration camps. Lebanon also fell victim to Israeli aggression in the 1980s and ’90s, when it was bombed and invaded. Estimates of civilian casualties in Lebanon exceeded 40,000. The Zionist State also surreptitiously helped create and support rival factions in the Lebanese civil war.

The extraordinary diaires of Moshe Sharett, who had once shared the prime ministership of Israel with David Ben-Gurion, reveal Israel’s machinations in the Lebanese Civil War. Sharett had been forced out the cabinet because he would not go along with what he felt were Ben-Gurion’s clandestine and immoral actions. After Sharett’s death, his son published the diaries despite a long battle of intimidation and legal maneuvers by the Zionists. Jewish author Livia Rokach quotes Sharett’s diaries in her book Israel’s Sacred Terrorism. The diaries tell how Israel purposefully created the Lebanese “Civil War” to further Israel’s imperialist ambitions.1

In May, 1955 passages, Sharett’s dairy describes Israel’s plans to destabilize Lebanon’s government, a plan that eventually produced the 1978 Lebanese War. Sharett quotes Moshe Dayan, Ben-Gurion’s defense minister, at a secret cabinet meeting on May 16th planning to foment Lebanese civil war as an excuse for Israel to go in and annex land with water rights to the Litani River. 2 3

In the first invasion of Lebanon in 1982, 30,000 civilians died and one half of a million people were driven from their homes. In the course of the fighting, Israeli forces devastated the city of Beirut, which before the war was described as the garden city of the Mideast. During the Israeli invasion, The U.S.S. New Jersey, sitting offshore, fired shells into some of the Lebanese towns. The U.S. involvement in Israel’s 1982 war destroyed what little credibility America had left in the Mideast and cost our taxpayers billions; it also cost the lives of 300 U.S. Marines. More than 1,000 women, children, and elderly people were butchered in the Sabra and Shatila refugee centers under the watchful eyes of the Israeli invaders. Israel’s General Ariel Sharon, who was directly responsible for this mayhem (it should be said that thousands of honorable Israelis marched in the streets in protest against it), was relieved of his command, although he was later rewarded with a cabinet post.

A more recent massacre was at Qana, a small town in southern Lebanon. Here are some excerpts of a British journalist’s eyewitness account of the action so that the reader can fully understand that behind the cold statistics are real people, people who have faced a horror no less real than those who were murdered in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Qana, southern Lebanon – It was a massacre. Not since Sabra and Chatila had I seen the innocent slaughtered like this. The Lebanese refugee women and children and men lay in heaps, their hands or arms or legs missing, beheaded or disemboweled. There were well over a hundred of them. A baby lay without a head. The Israeli shells had scythed through them as they lay in the United Nations shelter, believing that they were safe under the world’s protection. Like the Muslims of Srebrenica, the Muslims of Qana were wrong.
In front of a burning building of the UN’s Fijian battalion headquarters, a girl held a corpse in her arms, the body of a gray- haired man whose eyes were staring at her, and she rocked the corpse back and forth in her arms, keening and weeping and crying the same words over and over: “My father, my father.” A Fijian UN soldier stood amid a sea of bodies and, without saying a word, held aloft the body of a headless child.
…When I walked towards them, I slipped on a human hand…
Israel’s slaughter of civilians in this terrible 10-day offensive – 206 by last night – has been so cavalier, so ferocious, that not a Lebanese will forgive this massacre. There had been the ambulance attacked on Saturday, the sisters killed in Yohmor the day before, the 2-year-old girl decapitated by an Israeli missile four days ago. And earlier yesterday, the Israelis had slaughtered a family of 12 – the youngest was a four- day-old baby – when Israeli helicopter pilots fired missiles into their home.
Shortly afterwards, three Israeli jets dropped bombs only 250 meters from a UN convoy on which I was traveling, blasting a house 30 feet into the air in front of my eyes. Traveling back to Beirut to file my report on the Qana massacre to the Independent last night, I found two Israeli gunboats firing at the civilian cars on the river bridge north of Sidon…
A French UN trooper muttered oaths to himself as he opened a bag in which he was dropping feet, fingers, pieces of people’s arms…
We had suddenly become not UN troops and journalists but Westerners, Israel’s allies, an object of hatred and venom. One bearded man with fierce eyes stared at us, his face dark with fury. “You are Americans”, he screamed at us. “Americans are dogs. You did this. Americans are dogs.”
President Bill Clinton has allied himself with Israel in its war against “terrorism” and the Lebanese, in their grief, had not forgotten this. Israel’s official expression of sorrow was rubbing salt in their wounds. “I would like to be made into a bomb and blow myself up amid the Israelis”, one old man said…4

Unlike the bloody scenes of the aftermath of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, Americans and Europeans never saw the butchery that Fisk describes. The media very seldom draw our attention to sufferings inflicted by Jews, it is suffering inflicted on Jews that they focus on. Those who wear the six-pointed star and who bomb United Nations shelters, ambulances, civilian refugee camps and civilian automobiles are never described as terrorists. They are simply referred to as “commandos” or simply “military forces.” In contrast, Palestinian fighters outside the borders of Israel are, of course, routinely described as terrorists.

The remarks of the unknown old man at Qana that he “would like to be made into a bomb and blow myself up amid the Israelis,” proved tragically prophetic, for just a year and a half later a number of Palestinians, desperate to exact revenge, sacrificed their lives to do just that in a Jerusalem marketplace. No one can defend any acts that kill or maim the innocent, but it is important to understand the horror that has induced hundreds of Palestinians to sacrifice their own lives to strike their feeble blows at those who have murdered their loved ones and stolen their homeland. In their grief and rage they also commit acts of violence against the innocent. The Zionist leaders also know full well that such Jewish losses, stroked by their media airing the blood-splashed video around the world, only increases Jewish solidarity and augment non-Jewish sympathy for the eternally suffering Jewish people.

When Saddam Hussein tried to take back Kuwait, which just a few decades before had been part of Iraq, the Western world went to war — encouraged to do so most notably by Israel. Were Iraq’s actions any more imperialistic than Israel’s against the Palestinians or the Lebanese?

Other than the scale of the conflict, what is the difference between Israel’s perpetual war of conquest compared to Nazi Germany seeking Lebensraum in the 1940s? Germany treated no nation worse than Israel did Palestine, with its terrorizing and driving out three-fourths of its Palestinian residents. No populations of any European nation, other than those in some of the Soviet-occupied sectors of Germany, had been so massively displaced. It is Interesting to note that Jews also directed the terror against the Germans as well, but in that war they wore the uniform of Soviet commissars rather than that of the terrorist Stern Gang or Haganah.

Within the borders of Israel and her occupied territories, under the heel of a harsh military occupation, Israel continues to expropriate land from the Palestinians, settlement by settlement. Naturally the Palestinians resist such confiscation. The greatest uprising in recent years was the Intifada. The statistics of Palestinian casualties are ominous. Here are the figures compiled by the major French magazine Le Monde:

1,116 Palestinians have been killed since the beginning of the Intifada (the stone-throwing revolt) on 9 December 1987, shot by soldiers, policemen or settlers. The figures break down as follows : 626 deaths in 1988 and 1989, 134 in 1990, 93 in 1991, 108 in 1992 and 155 from 1 January to 11 September 1993. Among the victims were 233 children under 17 years old according to a study carried out by Betselem, the Israeli association for human rights.
Military sources give a figure of nearly 20,000 for the number of Palestinians wounded by bullets and the U.N. Relief and Works agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) gives a figure of 90,000.
…This humanitarian organization also indicates that at least 20,000 detainees are tortured every year during interrogation in the military detention centers.1

No country in peacetime — not even the Soviets or the Red Chinese in the heyday of their gulags — has held as many prisoners per capita as the nation of Israel. It is one of the few nations that will not officially renounce the use of torture. It has long been high on the list of the offenders compiled by Amnesty International. The London Times Magazine did an extensive exposé on Israeli torture in both the 1970s and the ’80s. The inescapable fact is that Israel was born and built by invasion, murder, and theft. Such injustice requires the use of force and terror to maintain its power.

Meanwhile, Americans and Europeans grow up on mother’s milk and the sacred intonation that Israel is the “only democracy in the Middle East.” But does our Jewish-dominated media ever ask what kind of democracy simply expels three-fourths of the residents who might vote the wrong way? The terrorizing, dispossessing, imprisoning, killing and expelling have taken away from the Palestinians a lot more than just their votes, for the exiles have lost their country.

The Historical Roots of Israel

Israel was born of the Holocaust, but it was sired thousands of years before. For at least 2,000 years Jews prayed, “Next year in Jerusalem.” And until the middle of the 20th century, such prayer was only a religious metaphor. Then, dramatically, in 1948, the possibility of “next year in Jerusalem” became a possibility for every Jew in the world. The political machinations of the Zionist State are testimony to the cohesive and pervasive Jewish power in the West. In its operation, Israel lives as testimony to the very supremacist nature of both Judaism and its partly secular son, Zionism.

Jewish messianic tradition goes back as far as their recorded history. Even when the Jews were one of the smallest tribes of the Middle East, they fashioned a faith that designated themselves a special people, a chosen people, a people who were promised to rule the world. These messianic intentions are not paranoid delusions of anti-Semites, they are written plainly in their own Hebraic scriptures, and since that time they have been dutifully appended all the way to the present. Compare the following Biblical quotation to the messianic words of Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion.

. . .and kings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the foot of the sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which is under heaven, and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire; and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit it for ever’ (Jub. 32:18-19)

In Look magazine in 1962, Ben-Gurion stated his prediction for the next 25 years, a prediction of amazing prescience:

The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: The Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia . . . may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand . . . transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. . .With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind. 1

Many people are amazed to discover that most Jews in Israel are “non-religious,” just as was their first great leader David Ben-Gurion. However, these mostly atheistic Jews tolerate a religious state. Apparently, Jews who have no belief in God support Judaism as a state-sponsored institution that preserves both Jewish culture and the Jewish genotype. Other than a few intolerant fanatics, the Jewish Orthodox institutions allow a wide range of religious belief, from atheism to forms of the occult called Kabbalism. Only the Talmud, could have a passage where a rabbi claims to have argued with God and defeated him. To Jewish orthodoxy, biblical and theological interpretations may vary greatly as long as Jewish tradition and Jewish heritage is scrupulously preserved.

Is God a Zionist?

Israel supports its claim on Palestinian land by saying that God gave it to the Jews. A corollary secular argument is that the remote ancestors of the Jewish people lived 2,000 years ago on parts of what is now Israel. They argue with a straight face that this gives them the right to take that land away from whoever has lived on the land during the intervening years.

That argument is much like saying that because the Romans had ruled the Mediterranean 2000 years ago that Italians now have the right to conquer the entire Mediterranean Basin and drive out three-fourths of its population. Furthermore, the Jewish people cannot claim they were first people dwelling in the “Promised Land.” The Bible clearly records Jewish invasions and genocide in the region. The Palestinian people are descended from the same peoples who lived in the area before the Jewish conquests. If the claim that whoever lived on the land first has the rightful claim, then the Palestinians should have the primary claim to the land because many of their ancestors lived on it long before ancient Israel even existed.

The allegation that Jewish rule over Palestine today is God-ordained poses a more difficult question, especially for contemporary Christians. It is difficult because the Jewish powerbrokers have been able to completely change 2,000 years of Christian interpretation of the Bible. Servile Judeo-Christian preachers have made alliances with the Zionists because of their media power. They quote liberally from Old Testament verses that proclaim a covenant between God and the Israelites that bequeaths to the Jews the land referred to as Israel.

The Christian Church of our fathers, though, from its earliest history up to recent times, has always refuted that claim. Christian scholars, from the writers of the New Testament itself to the mid-point of the 20th century, pointed out that the Bible makes it very clear that all promises made by God are conditional upon faithfulness. God says clearly in the Old Testament that if the Israelites reject him, he will requite them. The New Testament emphatically makes the point that the Jewish nation, by rejecting God and his Son, has dissolved the Old Covenant. New Testament scriptures quote God as making a New Covenant with a new promise of salvation of Christ for all. As I have previously quoted, the scriptures cannot possibly be any more explicit than in Hebrews 8:10, in which God says the Jews are no longer in the covenant he made in the Old Testament.

8:10 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Is it any wonder that Jews reject the New Testament and that Israel forbids even quoting from it in their schools? Government-funded groups have even organized public burnings of copies of the New Testament, and laws provide for criminal prosecution and five-year imprisonment for Christians who seek to convert Jews. It seems quite odd, in light of these facts, that many denominations of the Christian Church are now busily adopting the view that Jews are still today the “chosen people.”

It is understandable that supremacist Jews who reject Christ and the New Testament would say that God sanctions their terror against the Palestinian people, but it is scandalous that Christians could possibly support them in their bloody adventure. Many of those who suffered from the Zionist onslaught were Christian Palestinians. Israel’s crimes have significantly hurt the Christian component among the Palestine people. The fact that a some Christian leaders lend moral and financial support to a nation that hates and oppresses Christians is testimony to the penetration and subversion of Zionist power and influence — even into the highest councils of various Christian denominations. In doing so they have undermined the Christian faith in the entire Mideast. And, indeed, in the entire World.

The Israeli claim that God gave them the land of Israel is ludicrous when one considers that at least three-quarters of Israelis don’t believe in God in the first place. (Israeli government statistics say 85 percent do not believe in God.) How can a God that they don’t believe in, promise them land. Far from being a religious promise, Israel’s creation came not from divine intervention, but from Zionist intrigue that began during the First World War.

The Balfour Declaration

The First World War laid the political foundation of the Zionist State. Britain was having a tough time of it. For years, the war had droned on with a horrendous cost of life. Despite oceans of spilled blood, the front lines had moved only a few kilometers back and forth on the Western front.

Jewish loyalties were somewhat divided during the war. Some Jews favored the allies for business or other reasons. Others favored the Germans for the main reason that German success against Russia would weaken their long-time enemy, imperial Russia and the Czar. Just a decade earlier, financiers Jacob Schiff and Bernard Baruch led a campaign to finance the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war, resulting in a defeat for Russia. Now Jewish powerbrokers around the world hoped for an even worse Russian defeat in the Great War as their opportunity to overthrow the Czar and establish a Jewish-Bolshevik government.

The Germans, desperately fighting a war on two fronts, knew that a revolution in Russia might remove Russia from the war. Toward that end Kaiser Wilhelm approved one of the most treacherous deeds in the annals of Western civilization. In his zeal to defeat Russia, his ministers assisted Lenin, Trotsky, and hundreds of other Bolshevik revolutionaries, mostly Jewish, to cross Germany in a sealed train toward Russia. Allowing the Bolshevik terrorists and assassins access to Russia unleashed the greatest period of human oppression, torture, and murder that the world has ever experienced.

Britain and her allies fought to a stalemate against Germany, but as Russia weakened, the allies knew that her defeat would allow the entire German army on the Eastern Front to almost double their army in the West, dramatically tipping the military balance toward the Central Powers. Britain understood that it was critical that they bring the United States into the war on the Allies’ side to counter the Russian collapse.

Onto this stage of crisis, stepped the British Lord Arthur Balfour. He met with the Rothschilds, and made an agreement that in return for pledging Britain’s support in the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the Jews would use their great international power and influence to draw the United States into the war. Lord Balfour drew up a document — the Balfour Declaration — that called for the Jewish homeland. Even our popular encyclopedias admit the reason for the Balfour Declaration:

It has been commonly accepted that the Balfour Declaration was a unilateral undertaking by the British government. The immediate purpose was to win for the Allied cause in World War I the support of Jews and others in the warring nations and in neutral countries such as the United States.1 (Encarta Encyclopedia)

Read what David Lloyd George, Britain’s wartime prime minister, wrote about the Balfour Declaration. Note his pointing out that the Jews of Russia had been the “chief agents in the betrayal of the Russian war effort” as well as “the disintegration of Russian society — later recognized as the Revolution.”

Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the Declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first… by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognized as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the entente.
It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchase. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.2

Samuel Landman, in his book Great Britain, The Jews and Palestine, confirms the Jewish role in bringing America into the war. Landman, a leading Zionist and secretary of the Zionist Organization from 1917 to 1922, confirms from the Jewish perspective exactly what Lloyd George says:

. . . the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favor of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis…3

Some of President Woodrow Wilson’s top advisers during the period were the Jewish Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise, and the powerful banker and international financier of New York City, Bernard Baruch. Although Wilson had campaigned for president on the slogan “He kept us out of the war,” once the Balfour Declaration was proposed, Jewish influence quickly pushed him to an interventionist path. When Balfour came to the United States in May 1917 in hopes of pulling America into the war, he ignored the U.S. State Department (which created much resentment) and met with Brandeis, who had no authority to speak on foreign relations.1

The Jewish protagonists for war were also aided in their jingoism by a number of American magnates who saw American participation in the European conflict as writing a blank check for the military-industrial complex. The press that was Jewish-owned or Jewish-influenced agitated unashamedly for war, running lurid tales of German atrocities, and promoting stories that Germany planned to invade the United States through Mexico — even though, in four years of war, it had been unable to even take Paris.

In short order, the Germans — although racially and morally no different from the British and Americans — were labeled “Huns” and “baby-killers.” The Allies, despite Britain’s and France’s non-democratic foreign empires, were said to be fighting for “democracy.” Even though Germany had electoral institutions similar to those of the Allies, it was called tyrannical.

The two prominent slogans of the greatest and bloodiest war in all of history up to that time were, “The War to Make the World Safe for Democracy” and, incredibly, “The War to End All War!” If those were truly the Allied objectives of the First World War, it is easy to see the fruits of their victory. As the 20th century rumbles to a close, democracy around the world still seems to be in precious short supply, and war since 1918 has done a thriving business.

Most historians now agree that the First World War was not the result of aggression or dictatorship or any sinister force other than entangling alliances structured to preserve the balance of power. Essentially, it was prompted by nothing but national fears and bravado. For most of that internecine conflict, America sensibly stayed out of the war’s insanity, but finally, Jewish power, whose concern, as always, was only its own interests — tipped the scales for war. After all, what were the lives of a few hundred thousand young Americans compared to the interests of the Chosen?

The media kept Americans blind to the Jewish influence in our participation in the First World War, just as they had cloaked the pivotal Jewish involvement in the Russian Revolution. To this day, few Americans are aware of the Jewish influence in America’s joining the First World War.

The Balfour Declaration was innocuous-sounding enough, and it took pains to state,

…that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. 2

The Zionists, though, did not want a homeland containing a significant non-Jewish community. From the outset, they were determined not to set up a multicultural, pluralistic democracy that they were so busy planning for America and the rest of the European world. They wanted a chauvinistic, ethno-religious, purely Jewish state, but they could not reveal this until they had attained power. Among themselves, though, they made clear their intentions to create an ethnic state — one amazingly similar to the nation they most hated: Nazi Germany.

Zionism/Nazism: Born in Each Other’s Image

In the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, Julius Streicher, the notorious publisher of the crudely anti-Semitic Der Stürmer, gave the following testimony when asked if he had helped develop Germany’s racial laws:

The accused (Streicher) : Yes,…I had been writing that all mixing of German and Jewish blood had to be prevented in the future. I wrote articles to that effect, and I have always repeated that we had to take the Jewish race, or the Jewish people, as a model. I have always repeated in my articles that the Jews were to be regarded as a model by other races, for they have given themselves a racial law, the law of Moses, which says: “If you go unto foreign lands, you must not take foreign wives.” And this, Gentlemen, is of great importance in judging the Nuremberg laws. It was these Jewish laws that were taken as a model. When, centuries later, the Jewish legislator Ezra saw that, despite this, many Jews had married non-Jewish wives, these bonds were broken. This was the origin of Jewry which, thanks to its racial laws, survived for centuries, whereas all the other races and civilizations were destroyed.1

The racial awakening in Europe of the 19th and 20th centuries grew in great part because of the presence of the Jewish people. There were no Blacks or Orientals in Europe, but there was no shortage of Jews. Scientific and social observers noted that their character and appearance differed from those of the indigenous races of Europe.

One of the first major figures to recognize the dynamic power of race and write extensively about it was the British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, who himself was of Jewish heritage. He stated: “The racial question is the key to world history…all is race, there is no other truth.” Scholars who recognized the role of race in history knew that the power and perseverance of the Jewish race rests in its ethnocentrism and prohibitions against intermarriage, enabling it to survive after 2,000 years of living among Gentiles. As Stretcher’s testimony proves, the formulators of European racial ideology had learned a lot from studying Jewish institutions and history. Although Zionists and Nazis saw each other as mortal enemies, many of the leaders of both movements saw similarities of ideas, and some collaborated in pursuit of mutual aims.

The National Socialists wanted their own nation free of Jewish influence, and the Zionists sought nonassimilation with Gentiles and a nation of their own. (Even today in modern America and Europe most major Jewish organizations oppose intermarriage.) At first glance, it seems unbelievable that Zionism and Nazism sometimes had worked together, but the historical record reveals fascinating evidence.

Most Jews in Europe and the rest of the world virulently opposed Hitler and National Socialist Germany. In fact, as Hitler gained power, the World Jewish Congress, claiming to speak for Jews worldwide, declared economic war on Germany and announced their intention to do everything in their power to destroy Germany and National Socialism.2

Within the Jewish community, however, there were many Zionists who saw the anti-Semitic policies of Germany as an aid to the creation of the Jewish state. They saw those policies as encouraging emigration to Palestine and increasing Jewish anger and solidarity. And, interestingly enough, they viewed the racial thinking of Hitler as analogous to what they desired for their own people. For these Jews, collusion between the Zionists and the Nazis served the interests of both.

Britain had difficulty dealing with the increased Jewish immigration into Palestine in the 1930s, as it caused marked unrest in the Arab sectors of the mandate. To lessen tensions, the British attempted to limit Jewish immigration into Palestine. Into this opportunity stepped Hitler and Nazi Germany. Even though Hitler had misgivings about Israel becoming a center for international Jewish power in the same way the Soviet Union had become one for international Communism, and although he had concerns about damaging German relations with the Arab world, he saw the emigration of the Jews from Germany and all Europe as paramount. In his mind, a Jewish state in Palestine might be a practical destination for Europe’s Jews.

From the earliest days of Hitler’s rise to power, the leading Zionist organization in Germany sought out common ground with him. Within months of Hitler’s achieving the chancellorship, the Zionist Federation of Germany presented him with a statement suggesting that Zionism could solve the “Jewish Question.”

In the foundation of the new State, which has proclaimed the race principle, we wish to adapt our community to these new structures…
Our recognition of the Jewish nationality allows us to establish clear and sincere relations with the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not want to underestimate these fundamental principles, because we too are against mixed marriages and for the maintaining of the purity of the Jewish group. . .
. . .Zionism believes that the rebirth of the national life of a people, which is now occurring in Germany through the emphasis on its Christian and national character, must also come about in the Jewish national group. For the Jewish people, too, national origin, religion, common destiny and a sense of its uniqueness must be of decisive importance in the shaping of its existence. . .
. . .We are not blind to the fact that a Jewish question exists and will continue to exist. From the abnormal situation of the Jews severe disadvantages result for them, but also scarcely tolerable conditions for other peoples.1 2 3 4

Joachim Prinz, a German Zionist who emigrated to the United States and who later became head of the American Jewish Congress, wrote in his 1934 book Wir Juden [We Jews]5 that the National Socialist revolution in Germany meant “Jewry for the Jews.” Prinz in later years also scathingly wrote about Adolf Hitler’s view of the importance of race, but hypocritically showed no reluctance to defend the concept of the “Jewish race.”

We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A state built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honoured and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind…No subterfuge can save us now. In place of assimilation we desire a new concept: recognition of the Jewish nation and Jewish race. 6

In the key book of modern Zionism, the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl maintained that the Jews were much more than a religious community; they were a people. Herzl even used the well-known German racialist word Volk to describe them. Volk was also one of Hitler’s favorite words. With it he described his ideal state, the “Volkishe Staat.” Herzl wrote, long before Hitler’s rise, that anti-Semitism is a natural reaction of Gentiles to Jews. He advocated a separate state as the only real answer to the conflict.7 8 9 10

The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers, Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews. . . . I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. . .I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear. . . It is a national question. To solve it we must, above all, make it an international political issue. . . a final solution of the Jewish question.

The leading German Zionist paper, Judische Rundschau, in 1935 even went so far as to express approval of the “Nuremberg Laws” designating Jews as an alien nationality and forbidding intermarriage and sexual relations between Germans and Jews.

The new laws give the Jewish minority in Germany its own cultural life, its own national life. In the future it will be able to shape its own schools, its own theatre, and its own sports associations. In short, it can create its own future in all aspects of national life . . . 11

Georg Kareski, the former head of the largest Jewish community in Western Europe (that of Berlin) and leader of the Zionist State Organization and Jewish Cultural league, made the following comment to the Berlin daily Der Angriff at the end of 1935:

For many years I have regarded a complete separation of the cultural affairs of the two peoples [Jews and Germans] as a pre-condition for living together without conflict. . . . I have long supported such a separation, provided it is founded on respect for the alien nationality. The Nuremberg Laws . . . seem to me, apart from their legal provisions, to conform entirely with this desire for a separate life based on mutual respect. . . . This interruption of the process of dissolution in many Jewish communities, which had been promoted through mixed marriages, is therefore, from a Jewish point of view, entirely welcome.12 13 14 15 16

Other leading Zionists around the world spoke similarly. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress, speaking before a rally in New York in 1938, said:

I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew. I am an American. I have been an American for sixty-three sixty fourths of my life, but I have been a Jew for 4000 years. Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.17

Not only was there cooperation in words, there was a collaboration between the Zionists and the Nazis up to and even during the Second World War. The Nazi government set up a series of 40 agricultural centers throughout Germany to train young Jews for kibbutz life in Palestine. It supported immigration of Jews into Palestine until prevented by the war. The official SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, supported Zionism in front-page editorials.1

The SS collaborated with the Haganah, the Zionist underground military in Palestine, with help in Jewish immigration and even provided smuggled guns for the Zionist forces. Despite misgivings, Hitler continued to support Zionist objectives in Palestine.2 3 4 5

Hitler told his army adjutant in 1939 and again in 1941 that he had asked the British in 1937 about transferring all of Germany’s Jews to Palestine or Egypt. The British rejected the proposal, he said, because it would cause further disorder.6

As the British government became more restrictive on Jewish immigration into Palestine in the late ’30s, the SS made a pact with the secret Zionist agency Mossad le-Aliya Bet to smuggle Jews into Palestine. As a result of this collaboration, Jewish migration, both legal and illegal, from Germany (including Austria) to Palestine increased dramatically in 1938 and 1939. 10,000 Jews were scheduled for emigration in October 1939, but the beginning of the war prevented it. During 1940 and 1941, and as late as March 1942, Germany still assisted with indirect Jewish immigration to Palestine and had at least one officially authorized Zionist “kibbutz” training camp in Germany for potential emigrants.7

In the economic sphere, the Ha’avara agreement between Nazi Germany and the Palestine Center of the World Zionist Organization was vital to the Zionist cause. It began in 1933 and lasted throughout the 1930s and allowed the transfer of Jewish wealth to Palestine. Through this pact, Hitler’s Third Reich did more than any other government during the 1930s to support Jewish development in Palestine.8 9 10 11 12 13

Probably the most telling document of the willingness of some Zionist factions to enter an alliance with Hitler was the offer made in 1941 by the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, popularly called the “Lehi,” or the Stern Gang. One of its top officials was Yitzhak Shamir, who became its leader and chief terrorist after Stern’s death and who later became Israel’s prime minister in the 1980s. The Stern gang considered the British to be Zionism’s biggest enemy because Great Britain tried to protect the civil rights of the native Palestinians and attempted to slow the insurgent Jewish immigration.

In one of the most amazing facts of modern history, the Lehi actually made a formal proposal to the Germans of a military alliance between the Jewish revolutionary organization and the Nazis. In effect, they formally proposed to join the war on Germany’s side. Here are portions of the text of their communiqué with the Nazis.

In their speeches and statements, the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany have often emphasized that a New Order in Europe requires as a prerequisite a radical solution of the Jewish question by evacuation. (“Jew-free Europe”)
The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question. However, the only way this can be totally achieved is through settlement of these masses in the homeland of the Jewish people, Palestine, and by the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries.
The goal of the political activity and the years of struggle by the Israel Freedom Movement, the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi), is to solve the Jewish problem in this way and thus completely liberate the Jewish people forever.
The NMO, which is very familiar with the good will of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program, takes that 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 historical 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…
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.14 15 16

No records exist of the German response to the amazing proposal, but by the time it was offered, Germany had already committed itself to a pro-Arab posture in an attempt to undermine Britain’s position in the Middle East.

When I first saw this document, I noticed the ideological similarities between Zionism and National Socialism, right down to the use of that favorite Nazi word “folkish” (Volk) to describe the foundations of the state they wanted to create.

It fascinated me to read about Zionist collusion with Nazi Germany. Zionist-Nazi collaboration has long been a dirty little secret — one that speaks volumes about the ideological foundations of Israel and the lengths to which Zionist extremists would go to secure its creation.

Zionist fanaticism had little regard for human lives, including that of Jews, when it came to the establishment of Israel. Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, made the following statement when German Jewry was threatened by Hitler.

If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel. 1

If Israel’s first prime minister’s regard for Jewish life was such that he would rather see half the Jewish children of Germany die than be transported to England instead of Israel, how much value could one expect him to place on the life of a Palestinian child? How would we react to a Nazi who would say that he would rather see half the Jewish children die rather than simply go to another country?

Another classic example of a low regard for human life, even Jewish life, can be seen in a 1940 terrorist act by Ben-Gurion and the founders of the Zionist state. The Haganah, led by Ben-Gurion, blew up a ship of Jewish refugees from Hitler. The British had been taking them to Mauritius rather than allowing them to disembark in Haifa, Israel. To arouse indignation against the British, the Zionists blew up the ship on Christmas day, 1940, causing the death of 252 Jews as well as the ship’s English crewmen. If Nazis had blown up a ship of refugees in the waters of Israel, the Mossad would have hunted the perpetrators to the ends of the Earth if need be, so that they could be brought before the Israeli “war crimes” courts. There would be well-publicized, annual remembrances of the terrible act of terrorism. Instead, Israel chose the murderer as its first prime minister.2

Zionism and Nazism are torn from the same cloth, their banners stained with blood. Zionists, though, are a lot better at public relations.

Chapter 22 continued
————————————————
Truman, Harry S. (1945). As quoted from the diaries of Henry A. Wallace from his papers at the University of Iowa. Included in Victory Lasky’s book, It Didn’t Start Watergate.
Halkin, Hillel. (1998). Here to stay: An Unrepentant Zionist Reflects on his Aliyah. Moment. p.5.
Menuhin, Moshe. (1965). The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time. New York: Exposition Press, Inc. p.159.
Menuhin, Moshe. (1965). The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time. New York: Exposition Press, Inc. p.397.
Encarta Encyclopedia. (1996). Funk and Wagnalls.
Brenner, Lenni. (1984). The Iron Wall : Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir. Totowa, New Jersey. : Biblio Distribution Center
Jabotinsky, V. (1923). The Iron Wall: We And The Arabs.
U.N. Archives. (1948). A. 648. September 16. p.14.
U.N. Archives. (1948). A. 648. September 16. p.14.
KJV. Joshua 23:12-13.
Exodus (1960). Director & Producer: Otto Preminger. United Artists.
De Reynier, J. (1950). Chief Representative Of The International Committee Of The Red Cross In Jerusalem. (A Jerusalem Un Drapeau Flottait Sur La Ligne De Feu’, Geneva.
Yediot Ahronot. (1972). April 4.
Ankori, Zvi (1982). Davar. April 9.
Begin, M. (1964). The Revolt: The Story Of The Irgun. Tel-Aviv: Hadar Pub. p.162.
Haber, E. (1979). Menachem Begin, The Man And The Legend. New York: Delle Book. p385.
Erlich, G. (1992). Not Only Deir Yassin. Hebrew Daily Ha’ir. May 6.
Rokach, L. (1980). Israel’s Sacred Terrorism. Bellmont, Mass: Assoc. Arab American University Grads.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Fisk, R. (1996). Massacre In Sanctuary: Eyewitness. The Independent. April 19. p.1.
Le Monde. (1993). September 12. p.118.
Look Magazine. (1962). January 16.
Encarta. Balfour Declaration.
George, D. L. Memoirs Of The Peace Conference. p.726.
Landman, S. (1936). Great Britain, Great Britain: The Jews And Palestine. London: New Zionist Press. p.3-6.
Grose, P. (1984). Israel In The Mind Of America. New York: Knopf. p.64.
Encarta. Balfour Declaration.
Trial Of The Major War Criminals Before The International Military Court. Nuremberg : November 14th 1945 Oct. 1 1946. Official French Text. 26th April 1946. Debates, Tome XII. D 321.
Daily Express. (1933). Judea Declares War on Germany. March 24. p.1.
Dawidowicz, L. (1976). Memo Of June 21, 1933, In: A Holocaust Reader. New York: Behrman. p.150-155.
Nicosia, F. R. (1985). The Third Reich And The Palestine Question. Austin: University Of Texas. p.42.
Niewyk, D. L. (1980). The Jews In Weimar Germany. Baton Rouge. p.94-95,126-131,140-143.
Nicosia, F. (1985). Third Reich. p.1-15.
Prinz, J. (1934). We Jews. [Wir Juden.] Berlin: Erich Reiss.
Hohne, H. (1971). The Order Of The Death’s Head. Ballantine. p.376.
Herzl, T. (1970). Jewish State. New York: Herzl Press. p.33, 35, 36.
Weckert, I. (1981). Feuerzeichen: Die Reichskristallnacht. TüBingen: Grabert. p.212.
Black, E. (1984). The Transfer Agreement. New York: MacMillan. p.73.
Herzl, T. (1897). Der Kongress. Welt. June 4. Reprinted In: Theodor Herzls Zionistische Schriften (Leon Kellner, Ed.), Erster Teil, Berlin: Jüdisher Verlag, 1920, p. 190 (And p. 139).
Rundschau. (1935). September 17. Quoted In: Yitzhak Arad, With Y. Gutman and A. Margaliot, Eds. Documents On The Holocaust (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem. (1981). p.82-83.
Kern, E. (1935). Verheimlichte Dokumente. Der Angriff. Munich. (1988). December 23. p.148.
Nicosia, F. (1985). Third Reich. p.56.
Brenner, L. (1983). Zionism In The Age Of The Dictators. p.138.
Margaliot, A. (1977). The Reaction.… Yad Vashem Studies Jerusalem. Vol. 12. p.90-91.
Levine, H. (1975). A Jewish Collaborator In Nazi Germany. Central European History. Atlanta. September. p.251-281.
Wise (1938). Dr. Wise Urges Jews To Declare Selves As Such. New York Herald Tribune. June 13. p.12.
Nicosia, F. (1935). Das Schwarze Korps. September 26. Quoted In: The Third Reich And The Palestine Question (1985), p.56-57.
Nicosia, F. (1985). Third Reich. p.63-64, 105, 219-220.
Nicosia, F. (1985). Third Reich. p.141-144.
Wistrich, R. (1985). On Hitler’s Critical View Of Zionism In Mein Kampf. See Vol. 1, Chap. 11. Quoted In: Hitler’s Apocalypse. p.155.
Nicosia, F. (1985). Third Reich. p.26-28.