A Palestinian woman is trying to stop an Israeli buldozer destroying her Olive trees, during the Jenin massacre, April, 2002. Moshe Nissim, who operated an armored bulldozer for 75 straight hours in Jenin, has stated (as published in Yediot Aharonot Hebrew daily paper in Tel Aviv, May 31, 2002):
"No one refused an order to knock down a house. No such thing. When I was told to bring down a house, I took the opportunity to bring down some more houses; not because I wanted to - but because when you are asked to demolish a house, some other houses usually obscure it, so there is no other way. I would have to do it even if I didn't want to. They just stood in the way. If I had to erase a house, come hell or high water - I would do it. And believe me, we demolished too little. [...] [The Palestinian residents] were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I came, but I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait. I didn't give one blow, and [didn't] wait for them to come out. I would just ram the house with full power, to bring it down as fast as possible. [...] I didn't give a damn about the Palestinians, but I didn't just ruin with no reason. It was all under orders. [...] Many people were inside [the] houses we [decided] to demolish. [...] I'm sure that people died inside these houses... [...] I found joy with every house that came down,... [...] If you knocked down a house, you buried 40 or 50 people for generations. If I am sorry for anything, it is for not tearing the whole camp down..."
Source: Gush Shalom, at http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/kurdi_eng.html
Zionism 101 and the Palestine conflict.
"Everything they know about hate, you taught them. Everything they forgot about humanity, you made them forget. Give them a hug now, as they have proven themselves worthy of their parents - you."
Quote from Gabriel Ash, YellowTimes.org
"There is no saint without a past, and there is no sinner without a future..."
Quote from Babji, Indian sage.
PART 1 - The Conflict.
The World Zionist Organization.
Palestine's early history in the Old Testament.
Palestine's early history and the Palestinians.
Starting up the Jewish colonization of Palestine.
The promises made to the Palestinians.
The Balfour declaration and its implications.
The beginnings of the violence.
The Palestinians and the Nazis.
The Zionists, the Nazis and the other extremists of the world.
The Mufti's attempts for a peaceful solution.
The Israeli military occupation.
Racism and the theft of land.
The spiral of violence lingers on.
PART 2 - The True Goals of Zionism.
The Protocols of the elders of Zion.
The beginning of the Jewish Diaspora.
Creating the "Untermensch".
Mind control and Zionism.
The Zionists and the NWO conspiracy.
Back to the top.
PART 1 - The Conflict.
It's not an easy thing to have ones facts straight concerning the Palestinian conflict and that which is inextricably bound up with it: Zionism. For many people it's really not clear at all what the reality is behind these subjects, thanks to the relentless media-brainwash. With the intensifying of the violence of the last couple of months (march-may 2002), I found myself in the position of not being able to answer some essential questions about this subject, so I took it upon myself to do some hefty research and read up on it all.
If it weren't for the Internet, my impressions of the Palestinian conflict the last couple of years would basically result in total incomprehension, as one party tries to surpass the other in violence. My early years were not religiously oriented, I'm not Arab nor Jewish (although when looking far enough into the past I probably share the same origins as both), and initially the media did a terrific job on me in programming my mind so that I was basically most of my life pro-Israel due to the "incomprehensible" violence perpetrated by the Palestinian "terrorists", even if "they could have a point".
However, about a decade ago an awareness awoke in me that maybe things weren't all that simple, and that there was an "other side" to this story, so I started to follow events critically. With the recent escalation, I realized that I simply didn't have my facts straight, as is clearly the case for the great majority of people. So I sat out to correct this. And well,... I wasn't disappointed.
The story of the Palestinian conflict is truly a very, very tricky one, indeed. Just when you think you got it right, a new element presents itself that completely changes everything! And it's all the more tricky due to the discussions it involves concerning the Old Testament bible.
The media, TV, press, classic school education, and general consensus have done an incredible job at obfuscating the facts, and brainwashing billions of people - including myself - on the subject.
Nevertheless, fairly soon after delving into the subject, my findings proved to me without any doubt the truth of which I was vaguely aware, and which the media find so hard to report, which is that from a historical perspective the Israelis in reality STOLE the country called Israel from the original local inhabitants - the Palestinians - by trickery, fraud and brutal violence, even if in the process they also acquired small amounts of the land by legitimately buying it, and notwithstanding the fact that a few of their ancestors used to live there some 3000 to 4000 years ago.
Now it happens to be so that, according to Zen and Hindu convictions, when a thief steals something from you, it's your "duty" to simply give it to him/her - and lovingly, for that matter - he or she probably needs it! I can wholeheartedly agree with that.
But what of it when the thief doesn't leave anything for the other and virtually forces the other in his/her turn to become a thief?
This now, is what happened to the Palestinians, although in their case, all they wish to achieve is to get back what was taken away from them...
Who could blame someone for not behaving in the most "holy" of ways, since most mortals in this dimension are still struggling to find the right way...? And who is to say what is "holy" at all, when it may be right to do something in a certain situation, but not in another?
What a great job the media and most politicians have done in promoting the idea of the Palestinian "bad guys" simply acting out their "blind rage"! I wonder: how many people wouldn't be furious when the only thing they have left is stolen from under their nose, with no options for replacement?
However, this article (which has actually become sort of a "booklet") and the analysis that follows is not about condemning anyone or any group of people. It's about breaking through the false image that is being presented to us. After all, what is more "normal" in human history than seeing one power's army invading a country that is not theirs? Likewise, the Israelis have been acting in a way that is hardly different from that of many others before them, and it's therefore useless to condemn them any more than f.i. the British, the French, the Germans, the Americans, the Russians or the Chinese, while the Israelis generally argue that they never invaded any territory other than because of "self-defence" (we'll take a look at the question if this is true or not in the course of this article).
It must be said that not all Israelis stand behind their Government. There is a peace movement, there are those Israelis who camped in Ramallah at the offices of Arafat during the recent Israeli siege in solidarity with the Palestinians, there are about a 1000 Israeli soldiers who refuse to execute their government's orders to harrass and destroy the Palestinian population and who are doing jail-time because of this, and all over the world there are Jews and non-practicing descendants of Jews who disapprove of what is being done in their name, but unfortunately they are presently only a minority.
The shocking reality is that for more than 50 years, and especially during the last couple of months the "military" strategy (or should I say: "blind rage"?) of the Israelis has been aimed purely against the ENTIRE Palestinian POPULATION, and not the slightest bit against some so called "terrorists".
As such, using the term "terrorist" by itself is pure manipulation of the mind. One could also speak of "fighters", or "soldiers", but of course these are terms that are way to legitimate for most of the media, although some do speak of "fighters". And sure, the attacks of these fighters definitely bring "terror", but then so does the Israeli army, or any other army for that matter, while it's typical that the Israelis seem to "forget" that it was precisely "terrorist" militia such as the Irgun Zvai Leumi that brought about Israel's independence (more on that organization later in this article), which of course in that case are called "fighters" by the Israelis. More than anyone else, the Israelis should understand the Palestinian's position. Too bad that most don't.
Concerning the suicide bombings of the Palestinians: of course these bombings are horrific and terrible for the victims, but this is also tragically true for the suicide-bombers themselves!... The discussion isn't and shouldn't be about the question if these attacks are acceptable or not. They aren't any more, or less acceptable than the Israeli aggression towards the Palestinian population. (This is probably where some exclusively pro-Israel readers will click this article away, even if they shouldn't! This article will not be particularly biased in either way, even if the previous remarks may seem so. If they do choose to click it away, may they remember this was their chance to throw off their eye blinders...).
But there is one ESSENTIAL difference between the suicide bombers and other actions from Palestinian militants and the actions of the Israeli military: while the actions of Palestinian militants are meant to intimidate the Israeli government to leave the course they have fared since the declaration of the Israeli state in 1948 or to completely dismantle the Israeli state replacing it by a secular Arab state where Jews would be allowed to live side by side with the Arabs, the Israeli's goal is to exterminate the Palestinian people all together (as proven by the many Israeli massacres of Palestinians and the fact that since 1948 between 400 to 500 Palestinian villages have been raised to the ground) and/or scare them enough so they will flee far away, as has been proven by several writings and statements which will be discussed later.
The Israeli Government insists in putting up a charade by requiring from Arafat to publicly condemn these attacks (which demand has been taken over by the US). But let's face it, if the Israelis wouldn't have a military capacity so ridiculously superior to that of the Palestinians, then the Palestinians would probably have a chance of fighting an "honest" war (IF EVER that's possible). And it must not be forgotten that if Israel has such a military superior capacity, this is for a major part thanks to the enormous financial and military aid it receives from various sources. From the US it receives more financial aid than the whole African continent does! And the financial "aid" Israel has received from the US is f.i. also way more than that of the Marshal plan for Europe after WW2. It also receives incredible sums from the EU as well as many individuals - amongst whom some of the richest people in the world - who wish to support the Zionist cause.
With all this financial and military support, not only do the Israeli policies result in (what is just as much) sheer terror for the Palestinian population, the Israelis basically also demand complete surrender from this people they unrightfully try to subjugate!
Also, the demand for a public condemnation of the suicide-bombings is continuously made the main issue of any Israeli communication concerning the conflict and this results in a manipulation of the media and the governments of the world, of which the main goal is more about making the Palestinians appear to be the actual "bad guys" - which is very misleading as we will see - then to actually protect civilians.
The truth is that Israel's present Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, like most Israeli Prime Ministers before him, has a long record of being personally responsible for the most brutal terror towards the Palestinians. That most Prime Ministers before Sharon were terrorists will be shown later, to get a picture of Ariel Sharon's own terrorist record, read the articles at http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/site_packages/2002/sharon/020430sharon_crime_hist.html
or http://www.rense.com/general25/wr.htm .
There are strong indications and reports that the Israelis themselves are directly implicated in some of the "terrorist" actions against their own people, while they were also involved in creating the Hamas organization which always seems to launch a suicide attack at moments that couldn't be more opportune for Israel's war deployment.
Also, it seems that preceding the latest Israeli military actions there has been a long scare campaign where the police has been made to evacuate public buildings, shopping-malls, a.s.o. under the pretext of them having indications there would be a "terrorist" strike. It appears that in most of these cases they were just hoaxes to create panic with the public and to get their support for the recent military operations...
Read more on this at http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2827sharon_hamas.html . Note that this article was written before 9/11.
Also read more at
(last 2 paragraphs).
Think that Israelis would never hurt a fellow citizen for a political reason? Then what about the murder on Yitzak Rabin? Although the official version of events would like us to believe that he was killed by an Israeli extreme right-winger called Yigal Amir, in fact the latter only fired blanks, and Rabin was killed by his own Shabak, Israel's General "Security" Services, which is responsible for internal security. They killed him just because he realized a peaceful solution with the Palestinians... If these guys wouldn't hesitate to kill a Prime Minister who on top of that was greatly involved in the terrorist-military actions that eventually lead to the creation of the state of Israel, do you think they would hesitate killing a few ordinary citizens if this would serve their goal (and incidentally, in this case that goal would be exactly the same as for murdering Rabin)?
For a good resume on the Rabin murder conspiracy, see
As will be shown in this article, the strategy aimed against the Palestinian population as a whole has been followed by the Israelis for over 100 years, in more or less intensive ways.
For the Palestinians, besides the many killings, theft, arson, and vandalism, the Israelis try with their methods to make it impossible to provide in any way for the most basic needs of living, it be in matters such as food, health or other things. This way, their life is made into hell, which can not but cost many lives, as it already has. Not only is this part of a wilful strategy of collective punishment, on the whole it simply serves to eradicate the Palestinians as a people under false pretexts...
Obviously, they have dismantled any military or law-enforcement capacity, as far as it was existing at all... One of the methods used: pick up or kill all men between 15 and 75 years of age. Apparently, during the military actions, when possible, there is a preference for simply killing them: faster and less hassle... Those who are arrested are in many cases subjected to physical and psychological torture. Conveniently, the Israeli army is allowed to arrest anyone WITHOUT ANY specific charge or trial, even in military courts. It's good to know that at least they stick to the "law"...
See for some shocking reports of the military actions of march-april 2002 and other, http://www.rense.com/Datapages/Israelconflictdata.html (if necessary, use the search engine of that site) and see for example an eyewitness testimony (one of many) at http://www.rense.com/general22/wit.htm .
For another report of the actions of this period see http://www.hoffman-info.com/palestine52.html .
Back to the top.
The World Zionist Organization.
What the media generally don't tell you is that all of these things are being done in the name of Zionism.
The confusing thing about the denomination "Zionism" is that, contrary to what one could suppose, not everyone who is Jewish is a Zionist, while not every Zionist is Jewish (although there are relatively few non-Jewish Zionists). In fact there are quite some Jews who are outright anti-Zionists, see f.i. a report with pictures of a Jewish anti-Zionism demonstration in New York, on 02-12-2002 at http://www.netureikarta.org/dmnsrtn12feb02.htm .
Also, there are even Jews who favor the complete dismantlement of Israel! Read f.i. this report of a press-conference given by Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss where he proposed to do this, as he views this is what would be required out of religious principles, sort of like to avoid "bad karma" - at http://www.rense.com/general24/NYrabbirequests.htm .
Or read about rabbi Israel David Wyce's view of Israel being a state standing "against God", at http://www.rense.com/general24/jewishrabbisays.htm .
And the text of an advertisement the Rabbinical Jewish Congress placed in the NY Times, against the Israeli government and Zionism in general can be found at http://www.rense.com/general25/cong.htm .
The official web site of Neturei Karta, a Jewish organization against Zionism which has been active for some 64 years, can be found at http://www.netureikarta.org/index.html .
To confuse matters even more, many Zionists are not practising Jews, but atheists...
Therefore, it's best to see Zionism as a political movement, and NOT as a religious and definitely NOT as a racial classification. It's best to compare it to a movement like socialism. It's not because there is a socialist movement in Europe that ALL Europeans are socialists...
In this article I will explicitly make a distinction between a) the Zionists, being those who adhere to the Zionist political principles, b) the Jews, being people of the Jewish religious faith and c) the Israelis, being the government and citizens of the state of Israel (when speaking about the "Israelis", in most cases this concerns the Israeli government, military and citizens who support Zionism; for the sake of simplicity, unfortunately, it's unavoidable to make no special discernment of those Israeli citizens - presently a rather small minority - who don't support Zionism and/or who don't agree with their government's and military's actions or decisions; wherever this denomination is used, one should automatically consider the latter to be the case).
Unlike for any of the other existing religions, even non-practicing descendants of Jews are generally called Jews. This is rather strange. Normally, non-practicing descendants of Christians, Muslims or Hindus aren't called so. On the other hand, some may argue that the Jews constitute a race that can be discerned from all other races existing on this planet. This was not only claimed by the Nazis, it's also claimed by many Jews (and their non-practicing descendants). However, it's completely untrue, as will be shown in the course of this article. Nevertheless, the problem remains how to call these non-practicing descendants of Jews. In general, in accordance with general customs, they will be called "Jews", unless specified otherwise.
Thanks to the Zionist lobby and f.i. organizations as the American ADL ("Anti-Defamation" League) any criticism concerning the Zionist movement/philosophy - or on Israeli policies in general, for that matter - is made out to be called "anti-Semitism". This is a strategy that has had a lot of success in simply making it unnecessary to address any criticism in any relevant way, especially in the media and in politics.
Typically, the ADL organization was created in 1913 by the B'nai B'rith, a Jewish freemasonry organization (even if it's members deny it is freemason, it's nevertheless part of the Israeli Grand Loge of Freemasonry). In the 1920s the Myer Lansky crime syndicate who heavily financed the ADL, managed thanks to the ADL to avert measures taken by the authorities against him by having the main challenger brandished "anti-Semite" (Lansky was Jewish, and also heavily financed the Jewish terrorist organizations of the 1930s-1940s in Palestine). It is also heavily funded by the Bronfmans, a Jewish Illuminati-Brotherhood associate.
With all of this, it has been proven in court, that it has close ties with the Mossad - which is also hardly a recommendation for its objectivity - and that besides supposedly defending "ethic behavior" it also runs an extensive intelligence operation, spying not only on so called right wing "hate groups", but f.i. also on the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other humanitarian organizations...
Since the ADL can't control what people say on the web, they invented a software package called "Hate Filter", which is supposed to filter out sites containing so called "Hate content". In fact, besides filtering pornography, it contains a list of websites the ADL finds offensive, while in most cases this means the sites offer criticism on Zionist policies. Even though the list contains some fanatical Neo-Nazi sites, it also lists sites with well-balanced, but critical content...
On the other hand, when looking at how the ADL brings news to the visitors of their own website, it must be acknowledged that the most important news is about Israel, and heavily biased, which f.i. means that while there are few or no reports on Palestinian victims, every Israelian victim is reported on at large.
The ADL can justly be called one of the biggest "Hate" groups in the USA. If such an organization accuses someone of "anti-Semitism", I'd say: look who's talking!
The wry joke about calling those criticising Zionism "anti-Semites" considering recent events is that it's especially the present day Palestinian's ancestors who once were the original "Semites" (the name "Semite" comes from "Sumer") - even though the original Palestinians weren't Semite but mostly from Greece and Asia Minor (Turkey). However, due to their integration with the local populations, today, more Palestinians can be said to be Semite than Israelis and Jews in general, as most of the ancestors of the latter have originated from completely different regions. But more on this will be discussed later on.
The joke becomes even wrier if one sees how implicitly, and often explicitly racist most Zionists are themselves. For finding this out, the Palestinians have paid a price that has been excessively high.
Although Zionism has to be considered a political movement, their purpose is working for the interests of the Jewish people - and ONLY the Jewish people (as well as their non-practicing descendants), although particularly those living in Palestine - while many Jews generally consider themselves as "God's chosen ones" in pretty much the same way as the Jehovah Witnesses who think they're the only ones who will end up going to "Heaven"...
Even the United Nations equated Zionism with racism, on 11 November 1975, when it took a resolution that stated that Israel's behavior towards the Palestinians was a consequence of Zionist racist principles...
Zionist racism is not something that only comes from its political goals, it's also something that is firmly anchored in the Jewish religion.
To give just a single example - amongst many - of Jewish racism: Maimonides, living in the 12th century, is considered the greatest codifier and philosopher in Jewish history and wrote the "Mishneh Torah" which was supposed to explain the Talmud and is considered a work of major religious importance; in that work he declares:
"When the Jews are more powerful than the Gentiles we are forbidden to let an idolater among us; even a temporary or itinerant trader shall not be allowed to pass through our land”.
(Source: as quoted by Israel Shahak.)
Thus, according to Maimonides, if Jews have the power, it's their religious duty to expel Palestinians, or anyone else for that matter...
"Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him."
(Source: Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation, pg. 184.)
Immediately after Maimonides' statement that it is a duty for Jews not to save a drowning or perishing Gentile, he informs us of the same Talmudic duty for Jews towards Christians and towards others who deny the Talmud (even if they're Jews), in other words: all the rest.
Nice chap, no...?
To be precise, in other passages Maimonides explicitly mentions that racism should belong to the past as far as accepting someone to the Jewish community is concerned, although he makes an exception for the Amonites, Moabites, Egyptians, and Edomites, who should never be allowed to marry a Jew (Mishna Torah Issuri Biah 12:17)... Still, on the whole, it doesn't improve matters much, as he completely leaves open the option to discriminate against non-Jews as mentioned in his quotes...
For some insight into the stunning degree of Jewish racism (which one must understand if one is to even begin understanding problems such as those in Palestine), see the links below.
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/october01/0110071.html a "must read" article on the Jewish activist Israel Shahak.
http://www.britannica.com/magazine/article?query=Jewish&id=6&smode=1 same article, if the link above doesn't work.
There are many pages on the web giving a listing of racist quotes from the Talmud and other. The Talmud consists of a collection of books with Jewish Law, which for Jews has more authority than the Torah (the name given by the Jews to the first five book of the Old Testament, also called the Pentateuch, and which are - falsely - claimed to have been written by Moses). The Babylonian Talmud is regarded as the most original and most authorative version. The Jerusalem Talmud is sort of a chastised version of the Babylonian Talmud. The authority of the Babylonian Talmud is greater than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In cases of doubt the former is decisive. When people say that some racist statement doesn't figures in their Talmud, they may well be consulting the Jerusalem version. However, some quotes circulating on the web and attributed to the Talmud are fake, and some are mis-interpreted. Here are a few links to get an idea of them.
The following links defend the view that there are no racist texts in the Talmud:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/qts.html by a Jewish scholar who refutes certain misquoted Talmud lines and points out some fake ones. In reply, see the first link of the next category. One problem I find with some of the refutals is that it mentions what some quotes are not supposed to mean, but then fails to give a translation that would supposedly be right. This makes these refutals almost incomprehensible for non-Hebrew speaking people who don't understand the original Hebrew texts. In other cases, it's remarkable how some racist aspects are actually confirmed by the refutal.
http://www.uwm.edu/~corre/occasionala/wayne.html about how Jewish racist laws are "spent" and supposedly of the past. Also quotes Maimonides.
http://www.aish.com/torahportion/moray/A_Question_of_Race$.asp on who may convert to Judaism, touches same subject as previous article.
Here are some sites showing the racist nature of the Talmud and other writings:
http://resistance.jeeran.com/judaism/articles/chabad2.htm example of some interpretations pointing to racism by the Talmud.
http://www.hoffman-info.com/talmudtruth.html An extensive overview of racism and strangeness in the Talmud.
Although most Zionists would say that Theodore Herzl was the driving force behind the expansion of Zionism as a movement, in reality this credit could well be given to the Rothschilds - who belong to the so called Illuminati.
If you don't know what the Illuminati are, then check the following links:
http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/illumin.htm a brief article on typical available info on who or what are the Illuminati. Nevertheless, the info is incomplete. To fill in the gaps, see the next links.
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/svali_speaks.htm Extensive articles and interview with an ex-Illuminati member. Scroll to the bottom of the page and see in particular chapter 1, 2 and 3, and of the written interview part 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 14.
http://3rdDimension.online.fr/ufo_et_conspiracy.htm#SecretSocieties info on the Illuminati and other secret societies.
Not only have the Rothschilds played a crucial role for the Zionist movement, they have also done this f.i. for bringing Hitler to power (who, in all probability, also was a Rothschild - even if he confiscated much of the property of the German branch of the Rothschilds - read on this f.i. the appendix of D. Icke's "Children of the Matrix" or http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/hitler.html ) and for many other crucial world events.
The World Zionist Organization was officially founded on 29th August 1897 as a kind of political party (at that moment without a country) by Theodore Herzl. It was the materialization of a movement that existed much longer and which was called the "Zionist movement".
Actually, when it was founded the organization was only named the "Zionist Organization" (ZO). Only in 1960 was it renamed to the "World Zionist Organization" (WZO).
Also see: http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/time/1897.html and
It's generally said that the Organization was set up by Herzl, after he publicised his book "The Jewish state" ("Der Judenstaat") in 1896, in which he formulated the wish for an independent state for Jews. As around that time he tried to realize his goal by contacting many people, especially financiers like Edmond de Rothschild, it's more likely that during the sessions that accompanied this period the idea for the Organization was born, and that several people formulated the idea for it, amongst whom Edmond de Rothschild (of the House of France).
At the beginning of the ZO Theodore Herzl worked closely with Edmond de Rothschild, who was already funding Jewish settlements in Palestine (it is said that it was Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever who gave Rothschild the idea to do this "as an investment"). He was definitely manipulated by the latter although it must be noted that some time after the creation of the ZO the two fell out when they deeply disagreed with each other. It appears that the conflict was mainly concentrated on the fact that while Herzl's ambition was that of creating a powerful political movement out of the ZO, Rothschild basically just wished to fund and realize settlements (and thus acquire land) in Palestine. This is basically also why he supported the idea of a Jewish state: it could have made land acquisition and management of it even easier. Also, Edmond de Rothschild prefered to achieve a quiet, stealthy colonization of Palestine, and least of all wanted an organization that would shout the plans for it as from the "roof tops". With that, he was afraid that in the process Herzl and the WZO might take away the power he already had over the colonies he had created in Palestine. After Herzl's death, he stepped up his financing of the WZO as well as the colonies in Palestine.
Read more on Herzl's founding of the ZO at http://iupjournals.org/jss/jss5-3.html .
Still, the relation between the two must have had its impact, as some of the same sly en treacherous manipulation techniques used by the Rothschilds were also applied by Herzl, as will appear from some of his quotes, as shown later in this article. See for a wider selection of his quotes:
Another important leader of the World Zionist Organization was Chaim Weizmann, who became the first president of Israel after having presided the ZO for many years. He too was financed by the Rothschilds (and was therefore manipulated). Some quotes of him that give an idea of his rather racist mindset can be found at http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story645.html
For most people "Zion" is the name for Jerusalem as well as for the nation of Israel. More specifically "Sion" is the name given to a hill of Judea on which the city of Jerusalem is built.
In reality, the name "Zion" refers to "Sion", meaning "Sun". Therefore the name "Zionism" is actually referring to the sun-cult, the Babylon cult, and f.i. relates to secret societies like the "Priore de Sion" or "Priory of Sion", which lost some of its secrecy because of the fact that the Rennes le Chateau mystery became so popular among certain circles. The Priory of Sion is a secret society created around the Merovingian bloodline (whose ancestors can be traced back to the royals of Sumer, Troy and the Greek "Gods") and related to the Templars as well as the Illuminati.
It's particularly because of the true meaning of "Zion", that Jerusalem's hill has been named that way. As for the sun-cult adepts, hills symbolize the way to get closer to their God, due to the fact that at the top of them one is closer to the sun, symbolizing their God. Hence "mount Sion" or "Sun mountain".
When the World Zionist Organization got created, the founders also created the flag that is presently that of Israel, with the two triangles. The most important reason why they adopted this symbol is probably because it was used by the Rothschilds and had a history of being the emblem for some of the Khazar-Ashkenazi Jews.
Besides that the figure of the hexagram was known in the Kabbalah (which originated in Babylon), in no way was it a typically Jewish symbol. It was generally used as an oranamental figure, just like the pentagram. Only from the 13th century AD onwards did the six-pointed star began to gather favor as a symbol associated to the Jews when the (non-Semite) Khazar-Jew David al-Roy (Menahem ben Duji) who pretended to be the Messiah and led an ill-fated campaign where he attempted to conquer Palestine, which led to his death, adopted it - probably for the magical properties that were attributed to it. From then on the symbol was attributed to this David, but a confusion resulted from this and it got attributed to the mythical king David of the OT.
The symbol was carried around Europe by the Khazar-Ashkenazi Jews, and it appeared on the red flag of the Jewish community of Prague in 1354 (or later, depending on the source consulted). Although after this time, some European Khazar-Ashkenazi Jewish families used it in their coat of arms, it only started to become generally popular as a Jewish symbol during the rise of Zionism, after the WZO's adoption of it.
In the late 17th century Moses Amschel Bauer - who was a (non-Semite) Khazar-Ashkenazi Jew and an itinerant money lender and goldsmith - tired of his wanderings established a counting house in the Judenstrasse ("Jew street") in Frankfurt. As a shop sign, he hung up a red hexagram. It was this red hexagram that eventually inspired Moses Amschel Bauer's son, Mayer Amschel, to change his name from Bauer to "Roth Schild", which means Red Shield. From then on, the symbol also figures in the coat of arms of the Rothschilds.
Besides it being adopted by the Khazar revolutionaries, the Rothschilds and the WZO, the hexagram symbol is foremost a very esoteric symbol and thousands of years ago it was used widely in Egyptian and Canaanite magic.
In the first place it was considered a symbol of fertility, where the triangle pointing downwards represents the female sexual organ, the vagina, and the upwards pointing triangle represents the male phallus. As such, it was used in the worship of pagan Gods such as Astarte (Ashtoreth), Moloch, Baal and others, who today are still worshipped in Satanic cults.
In the second place, it was, and is still used in witchcraft and Satanism as well as by the Illumiinati for calling up Satan and diverse Demons or for protection against them. It's likely that this was the reason why the Khazar revolutionaries adopted it.
One reason why Satanists like the symbol so much is because it has six points, six equilateral triangles, and in its interior it contains a six sided hexagon, i.e. 6+6+6 or 666...
Thus, if you interpret this symbol in a positive way, making a positive adaptation of the fertility theme, it may be said to stand for the balance between Heaven and Earth (male and female), while this may actually have been the way the symbol was interpreted originally. However, if you interpret this symbol in a negative way it's a most prominent Satanic symbol (like the five pointed pentagram star, which is used in so many national flags, like f.i. that of the US and the EU - where it should be noted that when used pointing upwards it's supposed to represent positive forces, though even in that way it's still used in Satanism).
Read more on the occult background of this symbol at
The goal of the World Zionist Organization was in particular the creation (for the Zionists the "restoration") of the state of Israel, the "Promised Land", which according to the Old Testament is said to belong to them. In order to hide the true intentions of the Organization, initially the Zionists publicly only mentioned the wish for a "homeland" (Heimstäte), and avoided at all cost talking about a Zionist/Jewish "state".
Some Zionists accuse those who mention that creating a Zionist state was from the outset the goal of the Zionist Organization, of simply being "anti-Jewish" and/or "anti-Semite", which is their usual recipe to avoid having to talk about the facts. However, the fact that from the outset the Zionists wished their own state can be clearly read in the report of the meeting where the World Zionist Organization was created. Read a reproduction/resume of this report on the educational (i.e. not the main) website of the World Zionist Organization itself at http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/time/1897.html .
There is a handful of Zionists who don't/didn't favor an independent Jewish state. But they are/were an exception within the movement, and definitely not in agreement with the goals of the founders of the movement (like Herzl and Rothschild) themselves.
The Zionist ideal of having their own state in Palestine is something that also gets endorsement from "reborn Christians". This is because the return of the Jews to the "Promised Land" is supposed to be the sign of Jesus' second coming... This makes these Christians an example of non-Jew Zionists. Had the Zionists created their state elsewhere - like f.i. in Argentine, Cyprus, East Africa or the Congo, as was considered for a while - this would not have been the case.
Although some Zionist personalities took other places in consideration, for people like the Rothschilds there has probably never been any other option than founding the Zionist/Rothschild state in Palestine. This is because for them it is indeed sacred land - like the rest of the Middle East region - but then seen from the sun-cult angle, not the Jewish one...
However, it's clear that from the moment that the Balfour declaration was drafted - see below - that the goal for the (W)ZO as a whole was unambiguously to create a Zionist state in Palestine.
Although the Zionists find it the most natural thing to have their own state, today nowhere in the world there is a country that has been solely created on the basis of a religious faith besides the Vatican, which can only exist through a partnership with its host country Italy and where mainly people live who are directly involved in "running" or managing the Roman Catholic church. The only country that approaches the Zionist concept nowadays would perhaps be Iran. But Iran was an autonomous state far before it got a fundamentalist Muslim government.
On the other hand, Chaim Weizmann brought up the point that the Jews were one people, like the English, the French or f.i. the Americans. But one may ask to what extent this argument holds, if one considers the fact that the ancestors of some Jews were Semites, while those of other Jews were Khazars (from the Caucasus, and who are closely identified with the Ashkenazis who were originally from Armenia, in the Southern Caucasus), Sephardims (from Spain), African Ethiopeans, or of still other origins? All of these were people who lived separately from each other, and who at most traded with each other, just like f.i. Christians from England and France do. Also, genetically there is no element to be found that is characteristic for all Jews and their descendants (read an article on that fact at http://www.rense.com/general24/al.htm ).
What's more, it's a fact that - even today - many Khazar-Ashkenazis behave in quite a racist way towards f.i. the Sephardims, while many of both these group of Jews generally behave in a racist way towards Ethiopean Jews, which illustrates that to a certain extend the Jewish community itself definitely doesn't consider all Jews to be "one people".
Read more about racism towards Ethiopean Jews at http://www.rense.com/general25/rct.htm .
Most of the readers of this website know that the Old Testament is a collection of stories, more or less adapted, from Sumer's history (also see the works of Zacharias Sitchin - a Jewish author who is not afraid of questioning the "Jewish" origin of the Old Testament) combined with other influences. Therefore, any claim on any territory based on these stories is extremely dubious, especially considering the fact that the authenticity of the stories on which the Zionist claims are based can't be proved in any substantial way. Much more will be said on this in the next section.
Oddly, the founder of the ZO, Herzl himself, was an atheist. This means that he apparently didn't believe in the content of the OT. The consequence of this is that he couldn't endorse one of the OT's most important claims for Zionism, namely that Palestine was the land promised to them by "God". Understanding this fact, is understanding how much more the WZO goals were/are political than religious. Worse, the ZO can be accused of using the Jewish religion solely to attain their political and economical goals, even when its leaders didn't believe in it... The people of the Jewish faith have been purely manipulated by them.
On the other hand, Herzl did believe the Jews were a people, or race. However, this belief was unfounded as well, as briefly discussed above, and will be discussed further in the next section.
In reality, before anything else, the "Zionist ideal" of a Hebrew state allowed the Rothschilds through manipulation of the Zionist movement to realize a secret personal ambition: acquiring a country that would be completely theirs, or at least well under their control. The Rothschilds used the Zionist movement for their personal goals.
The hand of the Rothschilds bankers can also be seen in the fact that immediately at the outset of the creation of the World Zionist Organization a bank was created (and not just a fund, as is more common for such organizations or societies) which was to finance the Zionist goals, while a fund was created especially for buying land in Palestine.
Today, the Rothschilds still have a major influence in Israel, although other financial giants have also entered the Zionist scene.
Frankly, it's pretty easy to understand why the Jewish community after a period where it mostly ignored the ZO, ended up to be attracted by the Zionist Organization and its goals, considering the many cases of discrimination, like the Dreyfus case (where a French Jewish lieutenant was scandalously and unjustly accused of treason - it is said that this was what motivated Herzl to write his book and create the ZO) or later the holocaust of WW2. Here was an organization that told them they would find a place, where all of that would belong to the past. And best of all, it was "the Promised Land"!
Back to the top.
Palestine's early history in the Old Testament.
Presently, the name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north.
The problem with early history of the Palestine region is that learning about what really happened is generally highly compromized by the Old Testament (OT) stories written by the Levite priests in Babylon around 586 BC, and later. In comparison, the influence of Islam on historical claims is negligible, while there are no claims at all on the region mentioned in the Koran, besides its references to the OT.
It must be understood with this that the Palestinian conflict is not a religious conflict, although for the Zionists to a certain extend it can be said to be exactly that considering their fundamentalist standpoints. That this isn't the case from the Palestinian angle is f.i. illustrated by the fact that many Palestinians are actually Christian, while it is true that since the coming about of the problems, and especially due to the polarizing approach of the Zionists, some Muslim factions have also chosen to throw into the arena their religious faith.
It has been shown the OT stories are an amalgam of adapted Sumerian accounts and stories from Egyptian and Babylonian mystery schools, sometimes with adapted names, and sometimes even without adapting them. However, I'm not going to reproduce the proofs of that here, for learning more on the subject I advise the reader who hasn't already done so to read the works of Z. Sitchin - also see http://www.sitchin.com/ - for proof of the Sumerian input, and D. Icke's "Children of the Matrix" - http://www.bridgeoflove.com/bookstore/bol/menu.html - for both the Sumerian, Egyptian and other angles. Also find some interesting articles on the subject at http://www.zeuter.com/~nimbus/k1.htm and http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/origins.html .
In the present article I will simply limit things to giving a practical overview for the subject at hand.
The main characters of the OT are of course the Hebrews. There are several opinions as to the origins of the name "Hebrew". Some say that it comes from the word "ebrim", which means "crossers over" with a connotation of "trespassers", which would refer to the fact that they came from the other side of the Euphrates, crossing the river to come to Canaan.
Some other words that could also be at its origin, include words such as "epru" ("dusty ones"), "epe,,ru" or "pr" ("providing/receiving subsidies"), "apr" ("transferred, without a stable habitat"), "ebru" ("confederates"), "ewri" (Hurrian "lord," or possibly "one who passes through, crosses territory"), "ebe,,ru" (a stranger who has left his country and crossed a frontier or "one who seeks a new means of existence after having lost his place in the old order of things").
Others say that the name "Hebrew" comes from Eber, the name of the father of Peleg and Joktan (Gen. 10:24-25, 11:12-16).
However, it's more probable that its true origin is "Habiru" also mentioned as "Khapiru", "Apiru", and "pr", which was the name given to wandering people who were rather poor and without citizenship and social status, while it didn't indicate a nation or ethnic origin. Thus, literally, as a word "Habiru" stands for "wanderers", "those who pass from place to place". Ancient records show the "Habiru" to be scattered over western Asia and the Middle East for centuries until about 1100 BC. They were of Semitic as well as non-Semitic origins.
In the Old Testament it is claimed that the Hebrews created "Eretz Yisrael", after the region had been under Canaanite, control for over 1500 years.
It tells how Abraham led the descendants of several previously wandering tribes of Semites to Canaan (later called Palestine) from the city of Ur (located in southern present day Iraq, then called Mesopotamia/Sumer) of the Chaldeans, and that the descendants of Jacob, son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham, settled the Hebrew community there sometime around 1900 BC. It is said that Joseph, son of Jacob, was sold by his brothers as a slave to a group of Egyptians, but that thanks to his talents of explaining dreams, he made it to the position of Vizier, the most powerful man of Egypt after the Pharaoh himself. When famine hit Canaan and Egypt, Jacob and his family, all in all 66 people, decided to go to Egypt, where Joseph was able to offer them the best land of the fertile Nile Delta. Some generations later, the descendants of Jacob were said to have been so numerous and powerful, that the Egyptians decided to repress them, for fear of being overthrown by them. During this repression the Hebrews were reduced to slaves. But they were led out of captivity around 1250 BC, to Canaan, by the prophet Moses, while during their escape they stayed in the Sinai desert for 40 years.
Well, when the Israelis from 1967 to 1982 occupied the Sinai Desert, they did anything possible to find evidence of the Jews having stayed there, but to no avail. Nor is there any Egyptian record anywhere that 600,000 Habiru slaves (actually a minimum of +/- 1.5 million people when also counting the women and children) suddenly got up and left Egypt, while the Egyptians are renowned for keeping meticulous records (although they are also known not to record events that would be humiliating to them). This means there is no tangible evidence that the Exodus from Egypt ever happened... Even the Jewish Humanist Rabbi Sherwin Wine has been led to say that the story of the Exodus is "created by priest scribes in Jerusalem" from "a series of old legends and distorted memories which had no relationship to history". More on the Exodus story will be discussed below.
The figure of Abraham can be found represented in stories of other cultures, like in India, while those stories that are founded on certain facts are often anachronistically misplaced. However, nothing proves he actually existed. The same can be said about King David who is supposed to have been the first King of Israel, and also about King Solomon. There's just no unequivocal evidence that all these characters have actually existed in the way they are described by the OT, that they were actually Hebrews or Jews, and in the case of King David and Solomon even that they existed at all!
As a matter of fact, it seems that it was sort of a Semitic tradition to use a fabricated genealogy to establish fictional authority, as has been shown to be the case for the Babylonian king Shamshi-Adad I (1809-1776 BC).
OT adepts generally point to the fact that archaeological finds like the Meshe (Moabite) stone and the Tel Dan inscription prove the fundamental veracity of the OT stories. But nothing could be further from the truth.
The Meshe or "Moabite" stone carries an inscription by the King of Moab, Meshe, a contemporary of King Ahab of Israel. It only relates to a relatively small chapter of Israel's and the OT's history and only mentions the house of Omri, the rulers of the Israelite Kingdom in the north.
Some like to make it appear that it also mentions the house of David, who the OT claims to have been the rulers of the Kingdom of Judah, in the south. But this is simply not true. There is some passage that contains a reference to how Meshe honored his God by taking with him an altar, which in the text is written as being the altar of "HDWD", where some like to interpret "HDWD" as indicating the "house of David". But not only does this make no sense, in truth, some of the letters are unreadable, and at best all that can actually be read on the stone is the equivalent of "house of D …". This leaves open many interpretations, of which those making the most sense are that the text indicates an altar of the "mighty, noble, powerful, or warriors" or that it's simply about bringing along big pots or baskets (which may have been used for sacrifices)! For the complete text of the stone with a fair translation, see http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/moabite.htm.
The Tel Dan inscription on the fragment of a monumental basalt stele from Tel Dan is supposedly the ONLY substantial proof of the House of David having existed. But upon closer inspection, not only is it highly probable that it's a forgery, as far as the crucial proof is concerned it contains an orthographical inconsistency that completely undermines the asserted claim that it mentions the House of David at all.
The text is written in the Aramaic language, which has the particularity of writing a dot between all words. In Hebrew the words "House of David" are written as "BYT DWD", WITHOUT a dot between the two words. And this is how it is written in the OT, which Jews have gotten used to. On the stele, the inscription "BYT DWD" can also be found, but here too, it is written WITHOUT A DOT between the words. Therefore, either it indicates something else - like the name of a city - , or it is an anomaly of such an amplitude that the only conclusion can be that it's a forgery. That the latter is probably the case is also indicated by other facts, such as the miraculous good condition of the stele which was used as rubble for filling up a wall!
This information about the Tel Dan inscription was drawn from articles by the eminent prof. Giovanni Garbini and Philip R. Davies, which used to be found online but which are no more available.
Like Abraham, even the character of Moses seems to have been assembled from several other personalities. And the OT itself gives us indications for this, as f.i. given by the fact that in the OT his father-in-law has three different names: Jethro (Exodus), Reuel (Exodus), and finally Hobab (Judges). So, supposedly, are we to understand that Moses married Zipporah/Tsippora, the daughter of a Midianite priest with three different names? Or should we make of it that either Moses had three wives, and thus had three fathers-in-law, or that there were two other persons in the Old Testament who were also called Moses(!), which means that there were three persons in total, called Moses; Or... it just doesn't make sense!
Also, as can be read in Numbers 12:1: "Miriam, and Aaron too, criticised Moses over the Cushite [or "Ethiopian"] woman he had married. He had indeed married a Cushite [or "Ethiopian"] woman". Well what a surprise! Wasn't he supposed to have married Tsippora/Zipporah the Midianite as we were told in the Exodus story? Either he married again in the meantime and this Ethiopian woman is his second wife together with Tsippora, or Tsippora may have died, or they were separated or divorced!
However, there may be one reasonable explanation for all these discrepancies concerning Moses. It may be that in the first case the editors of the OT mixed up the stories of two different persons called Moses, f.i. Moses the Egyptian and Moses the Midianite! This is what could have resulted in there being three fathers-in-law and two wives as the leftovers from the original stories...
This seems like a good explanation if it weren't for the fact that as such the character of Moses is based in the first place on the Sumerian king Sargon the Elder living around 2700 BC, of whom it is told that his mother put him in a basket floating down the river where he was found by a member of the Sumerian royal family... Sounds familiar? And besides king Sargon, there are quite a few others who have served as a model for the Moses of the OT.
You can read more on the Sargon - Moses parallel at
In the second case - where Moses is married to an Ethiopian wife - the Levite priests clearly mixed things up, although OT adepts have tried to say that the term used for "Ethiopian" i.e. "Cush", merely means "very beautiful", or "dark skinned" (as in "tanned by the sun") while some even say that "Cushite" was another name for Medianite... However, if the word indicated something else than "Ethiopean" (or some other origin), this makes the phrase only even stranger. And clearly, to say "Cushite" means "Medianite" makes no sense. In that case, why not simply use the same name in all cases?
In reality, the Levite priests simply lost track of what the name "Cush" or "KWSH" actually meant. It has been shown that "KWSH" is not a Hebrew word but comes from a non-Semitic language, and that it refers to the Kassites, a people who were originally from Khasi-stan east of the lower Tigris. Definitely not the Medianites...
The 10 commandments that the OT attributes to Moses are an exact copy of the laws that are known as "the Code of Hammurabi", an Egyptian text written at least a thousand years before Moses supposedly received them from "God". The least this tells us is that he never got these directly from "God" and that the Levites wilfully made up a story that hides their true origin which is not only Egyptian but goes back to Babylon and even further to the so called "Hug Runes" as they are called in the Edda. The story as such is based on a Babylonian story where it is said that God gave a certain "Nemo the Lawgiver" tablets with the law on a mountain top. This Nemo later in the OT simply became Moses.
All these discrepancies and amalgams are serious enough to seriously doubt the true foundation of the OT stories as a whole, at least in the OT version, and completely abolishes any historical or juridical claims based on them.
Like it is written in the Zohar itself: "Woe to the man who sees in the Thorah [the OT] only simple recitals and ordinary words!... Each word of the Thorah contains an elevated meaning and a sublime mystery...".
A mystery? Perhaps. The question is: for who?
For an extensive list of inconsistencies found in the OT see
Despite all the smokescreens, based on Sumerian and other accounts and archaeological findings, it may well be concluded that a people coming from Sumer, Syria and western Asia, who'd later become the Hebrews, lived in Canaan (the region later called Palestine) during the 2nd milennium BC, mostly concentrated in the hilly interior of the region. Around 1200 a small agrarian community that could be called "Israelite" appears, as indicated by archaeological findings.
Egyptian inscriptions and other finds indicate that during the Egyptian 18th and 19th dynasties (approx. 1570-1200 BC) most of Canaan was a province of Egypt. It seems that this remained so at least until about 1000 BC.
It's probable that around 1200 BC, the Israelites already tried to create their own Kingdom called Israel, or at least that they were an identifyable group of people, as a stele of the Pharao Merneptah I (Merenptah I) mentions how the Egyptians beat the Israelites around that time. That it's probable that the Israelites tried to set up their own Kingdom, or gain some form of independance, is implied by the fact that Merneptah fought them. If they would just have been wandering tribes, he would probably not have had to try to subdue them.
Many people contend that the Merneptah stele is actually mentioning the Exodus. But this is highly unlikely, seeing that it mentions the victory on the Israelites as part of a campaign that was much broader, including actions throughout all of Canaan. Also, it simply mentions the Israelites' defeat, and no other memorable events the Exodus accounts of, such as f.i. a chase through the desert or a few plagues.
Read the complete text of this stele at
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/stela.html with comments on the stela.
It's more or less certain that sometime around 1000 BC the Hebrews - or Habirus - revolted against the Canaans and Egyptians and founded the Kingdom of Israel. However, the OT claims that after a while - 70 years? - it split into two parts, Israel in the north and Judah in the south, the latter controlling Jerusalem. While it's very well possible that a group of Israelites seperated themselves from the rest, and started to wander again, there are several archaeological and historical findings that strongly plead against there ever having been a Kingdom called Judah as mentioned in the OT.
It's more likely that Judah was only the name for the city of Jerusalem and a relatively small district around it, while being ruled by a King (during the Canaanite period such "city-kingdoms" were numerous), but that the rest of the region the OT attributes to the Kingdom of Judah, as well as Jerusalem itself, was actually successively occupied by several people, such as the tribes of Judah and Benjamin on one hand, and the Edomites, the Philistines, the Egyptians and the Chaldeans (from Chaldea, name given to southern Mesopotamia) on the other. This would also explain why there are Israelite fortresses from the 7th and 6th century BC erected in the eastern Negev desert.
What's more, most archaeologists conclude that around 1000 BC Jerusalem was "a poor, miserable village" with a civilisation that was not of a very high order - which is far from the glorious city it is claimed to be in the OT - while on the other hand it may have played a role as a public administrative centre.
In contrast, around 1400 BC, during the Canaanite/Egyptian period, Jerusalem was a capital city ruling over considerable territory. It had a palace, a court with attendants, scribes, servants, and a temple in which a King served as head of state. This has been shown by the so called "Amarna letters", which consist of tablets with records of correspondence of the Egyptian administration amongst which one with the local Canaan ruler Abdu-Heba. The content of these tablets can be found at http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/amarnaletters.htm.
It's interesting to note that much of these letters are about the local Canaanite rulers asking the Egyptians for military help against the Habirus, who at that time apparently already seemed to try to put the region under their control. It's probable that some of the things that happened during these campaigns have made it in some adapted form into the OT stories.
One thing is certain, although archaeological evidence give some indications on what happened in the Palestine region from 2000 BC onwards, the real history of the Kingdom of Israel and the region attributed by the OT to Judah is still highly occulted and confused by the Levite priests, who wrote their stories only starting 500 years after Israel was founded. We can thank them for centuries of bloody debates about it...
Read more about the history of Canaan at
The question then is: WHY did the Levites wrote their Old Testament the way it is, besides for obvious manipulative reasons? Why did they use all these influences from the Babylonian and Egyptian mystery schools and Sumerian stories? And why did they invent a story like Exodus?
There are several answers to this.
First of all, the Levites had a very good reason to write a book glorifying the Sumerian and Egyptian heroes, myths and religious convictions, even if these are mostly glorified through Jewish characters. The reason is: they had the same ancestors as the Sumerians and those who ruled Egypt for more than one century, the Hyksos. So let's take a look at who these ancestors really were.
It has been shown that from at least 5000 - 3000 BC onwards, the entire Middle East and Mediterranean region was inhabited by the Aryan race, whose original homeland was the Caucasus. See for an extensive analysis of this D. Icke's "The Biggest Secret", found at http://www.bridgeoflove.com/bookstore/bol/menu.html
The ancestors of the Hebrews were the Semites, who originated from the Aryans of Sumer and the Indus valley. The name "Semite" is derived from "Sumer".
The Philistine ancestors of the Palestinians came mainly from Mediterranian regions, while other Palestinian ancestors were the Canaanites and (also) the Semites.
Thus, in the distant past, not only do the Jews, the Palestinians and the Semites have the same origins, they're also all Aryansl! So much for myth-making. That's why calling someone "anti-Semite" is basically the same as calling that person "anti-Aryan"! Try to explain THAT to some neo-Nazis (or to some Zionists for that matter)...
For some people, reading this may be quite a shock and/or it will not be believed. However, to those I say: do your own research, and start by reading the book mentioned above.
However, one fact that is important to underline is that the ancestors of the great majority of the Jews of today, the Khazars and Ashkenazis, were Caucasians who converted to the Jewish religion in the 8th and 9th century, and afterwards settled in the Russian (moving north) and European (moving north west, or west) regions. These Jews do not have Hebrew ancestors at all! As the Hebrews came forth from Caucasian Aryans who (thousands of years earlier) travelled south while some of them initially settled in Sumer, after which they spread over the rest of the Middle East region. This is why it can be said that part (but not all) of the Hebrews have a Semitic "origin". But non-Hebrew Jews definitely don't have Semitic origins! Nevertheless, in the end, all are in majority Aryan, but the travels of their forefathers just led through different regions...
Obviously, through the ages, the Aryan bloodlines of the Jews have also been mixed with African and Asiatic bloodlines, while the Aryan bloodline of the Palestinians has been mixed with Semitic bloodlines and to a certain extent with African bloodlines.
It's important to understand why the Ashkenazi Jews call themselves this way, considering that about 85% of the Jews worldwide are called so. In fact, the country that is now known as Armenia (in the south of the Caucasus region, and which used to stretch into what is now known as Turkey), used to be known as the country of Ashkenaz, or "the Ashkenazi nation" as it is termed in Armenian literature. The Armenians claim to be the descendants of Ashkenaz and Togarmah, who according to the OT are both sons of Japheth, descendant of Noah (see Chronicles chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 10).
Indeed, there was a Khazar king called Joseph, living in the 10th century who claimed that he was from the bloodline of Japheth, "from the seed of Togarmah, Japheth's grandson" as he stated in a letter correspondence he had with a Spanish Israelite (see 1st link below). In that correspondance he also stated that Togarmah, who was the brother of Ashkenaz, had ten sons and that the Khazars represented the seventh son, called "Khazars".
The name of the Biblical Japheth literally means "opened" or "expanded", which can be seen as referring to the fact that his descendants spread all over the globe. In the OT he is said to have populated the regions of northern Turkey and further northern and European regions. In fact, he thus has to be associated with the Caucasian Aryans who didn't travel southwards, but to all the other regions.
It's likely that the Japheth of the OT refers to "Djapatischta", known by the early Aryans, and whose name means "chief of the race". His name contains the Sanskrit and Aryan word "dyu" (in his name simplified and transformed to "Dja-"), which means "to shine", and from which the name Zeus and the French word for God, "Dieu" are derived, while "-pati-", is associated with the Sanskrit "pitr" or "pitar", from which the words "pater" (Latin), "Vater" (German), "vader" (Dutch) and "father" (English) come. Thus, his name can also be said to stand for "the shining (one) originator/father/chief of the race".
The East Indians called him Iyapeti or Pra-Japati, while the Saxons perpetuated his name as Iafeth, subsequently transliterated as Sceaf (pronounced sheef or shaif), and recorded in their early genealogies the son of Noah as being the forefather of their various peoples (Anglo-Saxon Chronicles). The variant Seskef was used by the early Scandinavians.
Some people suggest that the Romans deified him under the name of Ju-Pater or Jupiter. However, that name is also said to come from Zeus-Pater, or Deus-Pater, which may well be true, and which may point to the same origins. In that case, the question arises: was Japheth the one the Greeks knew as Zeus? Well, it's hard to answer that question conclusively, especially since the Greeks also knew a Titan-God called Iapetus or Japetos, which has a striking resemblance to his name. The name Zeus, like the "Ia-" or "Dyu-" part of the name Iapetus or Djapatischta comes from the same Aryan word for "to shine", i.e. "dyu". Thus, Zeus means "the shining one", while it's also said to mean "clouds gathering" (relating to the thunder and lightning that would ensue from this), "bright sky", and other.
Because the Vedas associate Zeus to their god Indra, and because of some other correspondances, L.A. Wadell associates Zeus and Indra to the first Aryan king of Sumer. If that's correct, it's unlikely that he is the same person as Djapatischta, i.e. Iapetus.
That Japheth is found in the Greek pantheon should come as no suprise if you think about the fact that one of his sons called Javan had a son called Elishah (see Genesis chapter 10). It doesn't need a big stretch of the imagination to see that the Elysians of Greece could have come from the line of this Elishah and that they were the ones who introduced Djapatischta's transformed names.
In any case, it appears that the descendants of Gomer (son of Japheth), other Aryans, some Asiatics and some Semites (of whom small numbers traveled back north) populated the Caucasus region, and created the Khazar empire and Armenia. At some point in time, the Khazars invaded Armenia. As a result, the peoples of these countries mingled, which meant that so called Ashkenazis moved into Khazaria, while Khazars moved into the Armenia regions. Since that time the distinction between Khazars and Ashkenazis is hard to make, and therefore these people are mostly called Khazar-Ashkenazis, or simply Khazars or Ashkenazis, depending on preference or family memory.
It must also be noted that some Khazar Jews preferred to use the appellation Ashkenazi due to a prophecy of the OT in Jeremiah 51:27, where the prophet calls his people and their allies to rise and destroy Babylon: "Consecrate nations to make war on her: Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz;...". The spiritual leader of the Eastern Jews in the tenth century, Saddiah Gaon, interpreted it as a prophecy relating to his own times. He was of the opinion that Babylon symbolized the Caliphate of Baghdad, and the Ashkenaz who were to attack it were either the Khazars themselves or some allied tribe. Accordingly, some learned Khazar Jews, who heard of Gaon's ingenious arguments, called themselves Ashkenazi when they immigrated to Poland...
In the 12th and 13th centuries, the Khazar empire collapsed, and the Khazar-Ashkenazis fled to the Northern and Eastern European regions, later on spreading over the rest of Europe and it's this people who have formed practically the entire Jewish population of Europe besides the Sephardims (who were based in Spain until they were expelled at the end of the fifteenth century and settled in the countries bordering on the Mediteranean, the Balkans, and to a lesser extent in Western Europe).
Seeing that the Khazars and Ashkenazis claim to descend from the Japheth mentioned in the OT (although it's most likely that many are descendants from other Aryans, Asiatics and - a few - Semites), while the Israelites are said to descend from Shem and his grandson, Eber, the patriarchs, Abraham and Isaac (see Chronicles chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 10), strictly speaking, the OT doesn't count the descendants from Ashkenaz, the Ashkenazis, as being Israelites. And the "God" of the OT certainly didn't give the "Promised Land" to them...
Some people claim that it were those of the Benjamin clan who founded Armenia, the "Ashkenazi nation", based on the OT accounts in Judges, chapters 19/21. But this is totally unfounded, as these chapters only mention how the Benjaminites attacked the Israelites who occupied the northern Canaanite region. Nowhere is it mentioned they subsequently moved further north.
It's also claimed that Khazaria would be the Biblical kingdom of Amalek and that therefore the Khazars would be descendants of Simeon, Amalek's brother. But this is simply a fabrication and/or a mistake, as the OT places the Amelek kingdom south-west of the Negev desert (in the south of Canaan). All of these claims are simply fruitless attempts to prove a tie between the Khazar-Ashkenazis and Abraham.
So let it be said here one more time: the big majority of the present day Israelis - some 80% to 90% - are Khazar-Ashkenazis, whose ancestors NEVER lived in the Palestine region, and whom the OT specifically EXCLUDES from the Israelite people. Any historical or religious (for what it's worth) claim by these people on the Palestinian lands is totally UNFOUNDED!!
The fact that the Khazar-Ashkenazi Jews claim Palestine as "their" homeland is as ridiculous as when Chinese Muslims (there are quite a few of them) would claim Saudi Arabia with its holy city of Mekka as their homeland...
For more background information on the above, see the following links:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/HebrewIsraelites/edomtext.html on the Khazars and the Ashkenazis.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb000319.htm a good analysis of the "Table of Nations" of the OT where Japheth is named.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/13trindx.htm "The Thirteenth Tribe" by Arthur Koestler, free ebook on the Khazars and Ahkenazis.
http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html on the conversion to the Jewish religion of the Khazars and the Ashkenazis. Please note that the author of the article at this link makes the incorrect assumption that besides being Khazar, the Ashkenazis descend in part directly from the Israelites. The only reason why he draws this conclusion is because some genetic markers found in the Ashkenazis are also found in Yemenite Jews, Iraqi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Kurdish Jews, and Arabs. However, in reality this is the case because they simply all descend from the same people, as discussed above: the Aryans!
So, by writing the OT, it's probably so that the Levites who were in Babylon around 500 BC, in acknowledegment of the fact that they shared the same ancestors as the Sumerians and the Hyksos Egyptians, i.e. the Aryans, created a tool that would guarantee the continuation of their ancestral and religious heritage.
Much of the Egyptian rituals were pure Black Magic. While the Hebrews themselves worshipped what one would call "pagan Gods" such as Baal, Moloch, Astarte (also known as Ashtaroth, Ishtar to the Babylonians, and Inanna to the Sumerians), Leviathan (from which the name "Levite" comes and which was actually another name for Yahweh), and others well into the first millennium CE, although religious reforms started from the 6th century BC, from the time of the captivity in Babylon. This worshipping of pagan Gods came with massive human sacrifice rituals, where in the case of Moloch worship children were burnt alive, while the attendants sang, accompanied by loud drums so that the children's horrible shrieks wouldn't be heard... Astarte worship rituals often consisted of ritual prostitution, for women as well as for men.
Both the ritual human sacrifices and prostitution rituals are well mentioned in the OT. The first example of human sacrifice being the story of Cain murdering his brother Abel.
In Genesis chapter 4, it is told how the two brothers once gave an offering, worshipping their God called Yahweh:
"...Cain brought some of the produce of the soil as an offering to Yahweh, while Abel for his part brought the first-born of his flock [of sheep] and some of their fat as well. Yahweh looked with favor on Abel and his [blood sacrifice] offering. But he did not look with favor on Cain and his offering [consisting of merely fruits and vegetables]."
This God is clearly a bloodthirsty God. He prefers a blood sacrifice to one where no blood is flowing... When Cain sees that "God" is not happy with his sacrifice ("God" actually threatens Cain that if he goes on like he did, he will be seen as a sinner!), he is "angry and downcast". So he takes his brother Abel into the desert and kills him, in a supreme attempt to please his "God". However, his plan is said to have failed, as then "God" is angered. But while "God" first curses Cain for the murder and commits him to "wander the earth" (something the Habirus were doing anyway), in the end he gives him a sort of "blessing", saying that whoever will kill Cain will suffer a vengeance 7 times worse (i.e. more blood).
Another example of human sacrifice is the story of Abraham who is asked by "God" to sacrifice his first born son, Isaac (Genesis chapter 22). The sacrifice of the first born son is a major theme in pagan worshipping. Although in the end of the story, "God" allows Abraham to spare his son and instead sacrifice a ram (yet, still a blood sacrifice), the fact that Abraham is ready to sacrifice his own son without the least of protests shows that it was considered a most common thing to do...
The story of Jepthah (Judges, chapter 11) couldn't be more specific on this matter. In this story, Jepthah makes a deal with his "God" Yahweh. He makes the following vow:
"If you [Yahweh] deliver the Ammonites into my grasp, the first thing to come out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from fighting the Ammonites shall belong to Yahweh, and I shall sacrifice it as a burnt offering [a holocaust or "Shoah" in Hebrew]."
Seeing that only something that is alive can come out of the doors and meet someone, Jepthah is clearly talking about a ritual blood sacrifice, while chances are great it would be a human sacrifice, unless the city he lived in consisted mostly of stables...
To his great grief, when he comes home after having beaten the Ammonites with the help of Yahweh, the first to meet him is his own daughter.
Not only doesn't Jepthah consider for a second breaking his promise to Yahweh or does he try to negotiate a less dramatic sacrifice, his daughter insists he keeps his promise by burning her alive, which happens after she takes off for 2 months to "bewail her virginity"...
In the books of Samuel, chapter 15, Samuel tells Saul in the name of Yahweh that Saul must punish Amalek and "... put him under the curse of destruction with all that he possesses", killing Amalek and "...kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey...".
Saul executes this gruesome task with great expedience. However, he makes the fatal mistake of sparing "... Agag with the best of the sheep and cattle and fatlings and lambs and all that was good. They [Saul and his soldiers] didn't want to consign these to the curse of destruction; they consigned only what was poor and worthless...".
The fact that Saul didn't kill everyone and everything (even though these were good innocent people and animals), greatly angers Yahweh, who punishes Samuel by taking his Kingship away from him. Even if after this he still slaughters for Yahweh the innocent Agag, he is banished for the rest of his life.
This story of massive slaughter is not just about war and political genocide, it's clearly about ritual sacrifice of humans and all else that is alive. There are other examples of ritual human sacrifice in the OT, but we'll leave it at this, as the examples above should be enough for getting the picture.
The human sacrifice of humans, and especially of first borns, generally served to atone the "Gods" and/or to be purified of ones supposedly sinful actions. In the same way, the story of Jesus Christ, is actually about an elaborate ritual human sacrifice, where his execution is supposed to bring blessings and purification...
Ritual human sacrifices were not reserved to the Hebrews. All over Canaan and the rest of the Middle East such sacrifices were done for mostly the same Gods and others. In all Semitic strata, remains have been found of sacrificed young children, as is mentioned by the archaeologist R.A.S. Macalister. Human sacrifice was normal practice in cultures around the world. Even Christians can be said to have practiced them, when considering the butchery of things like the Inquisition and witch hunts. Today, ritual human sacrifice is still done by practising Satanists, of whom many hide behind the facade of one of the mainstream and accepted religions, such as the Catholic church, the Jehovas, Mormons, a.s.o. Although besides an occasional exception generally Jews don't practice ritual human sacrifices any more (there are quite a few courtcases - up to this century - where practicing Jews were accused and convicted for doing a human sacrifice), they still practice ritual sacrifice of animals, just like the Muslims, who every year have a celebration called Aïd-el-Adha (or Aïd-el-Kebir) where every household is supposed to sacrifice a sheep.
In the OT the "God" called Yahweh constantly strives against the other "Gods" like Baal, Moloch, Astarte and others. However, essentially, it's nothing more than a power struggle, as the worshipping rituals for Yahweh, Baal and Moloch are all basically the same: they are blood sacrifices. In many cases persons who are supposed to worship just Yahweh, in reality seem to worship another "God", while in other cases several Gods including Yahweh are worshipped at the same time.
An example of the latter is f.i. that Abraham receives his divine blessing from the king of Salem called "Melchizedek". That name actually stands for the Hebrew name "malkîsedeq", which is generally translated as "My King is righteousness". However, the word for King comes from "Melek" which comes from "Moloch". Thus, the name actually stands for "Moloch-i-sedek" or "My King Moloch is righteousness"... By the way, the highest level of the hierarchy of the Mormon church is called the "Melchizedek Priesthood", and the Mormons have a big reputation of being practicioners of Satanic rituals, including human sacrifices...
The name "Malachi", which supposedly indicates the Hebrew priest/prophet Ezra, and which is significantly the name of the last chapter of the OT is generally translated as "My messenger", i.e. Yahweh's messenger. But it comes from the same root as the previous case: Moloch, while the "i" stands for "my". Thus, in reality it stands for "My (King is) Moloch".
In Ruth 1:2, Naomi's husband, the father of Ruth the Moabite and ancestor of Jesus, is called Elimelech, or "El-i-Moloch", which stands for "My God is Moloch".
King Saul's youngest son in certain versions of the OT, in 2 Samuel 2:8, is called "Ishboshbeth" which in Hebrew is supposed to mean "Man of shame". In reality, that name is used in an attempt to hide his real name which nevertheless is mentioned in Chronicles 8:34, where the name given to him is "Esh-Baal", which stands for "Man of Baal". Anyway, Beth is a common variation on the name Baal, so an attentive reader would notice it. In the same passage of Chronicles, we read that the son of Saul's first-born son Jonathan is named "Meribbaal" or "Merib-Baal", which stands for "Baal protects him". In certain versions of the OT this name is also occulted, where in 2 Samuel 9:6 he may be called "Mephibosheth", which stands for "Shamefulness comes from his mouth". When Jonathan dies, this Meribbaal is welcomed into the household of the mythical King David.
Many other characters of the OT have names that prove that most didn't worship just a single deity like Yahweh - if they worshipped him at all - while most of their Gods are what one would call pagan.
It's easy to understand from this that at least some of the Levite authors of the OT were still pagan Gods worshippers (though actually Yahweh is just as much such a "pagan" God), while some also inherited the beliefs and practices of the Egyptian black magic priesthood. Today, the same is the case for some Rabbis. It's simply something that belongs to the very foundation of the religion. That's also why some adepts of the New Testament - which has as its foundation the Old Testament - are ritual Satanists. While, besides the fact that the NT is about a ritual human sacrifice, the figure of Jesus is basically modelled on the Babylonian Anunnaki/God Nimrod, and should Ultimately be equated with Lucifer, the "morning star", the "Light-bringer" or "Sun-god"... Indeed, the minds of creators and manipulators of religions are not necessarily those of simple ones...
Some people would say that Luciferism has nothing to do with Satanism, but in the end they are two sides of the same coin, and should be interpreted in the light of a sort of Yin/Yang style cult, where both - Lucifer and Satan - are two sides of the same (ultimately evil) entity.
Even the Pope has recently admitted - for the first time in recorded history - that all religions sprang from the cities of Babylon, Rome, Egypt and Greece. Essentially, you may narrow that down to just Babylon, really.
Anyway, just like the Catholic church who has been silent about the truth since its creation, as far as the Levites go, you are not going to expect from Black Magic adepts to tell you the actual truth, right? That's why the result of the Levite's writings was the manipulative concoction that we know today. The Levites wilfully falsified historic events as well as religious convictions.
An example of the latter is given by the fact that while we have showed that the Habirus/Hebrews actually worshipped many Gods, it's obvious that the OT writers tried by all means to give the impression that only one supreme God reigns.
This one supreme "God" is initially called the "Elohim" (Genesis). In some translations of the OT this is translated by "God". However, "Elohim" is a plural! Therefore it stands for "the Gods". It means they were writing about a polytheistic religion since the singular form of the word is "Eloah"! Later, on the other hand, "God" is called "Jehova", or YHWH, while in the original OT text he is actually mentioned as "Yahweh of the Elohim". From then on the trend is that of a monotheistic religion. Go figure it out if you don't have an informed friend or something like the internet available...
The biblical name for "Gods", "Elohim", is in its religious meaning generally wrongly interpreted as meaning something like "The Eternal". But in fact a more precise translation would be "The Immortals", which must most probably be seen as an explicit reference to an alien and probably reptilian race who landed on earth, the Anunnaki, from the Sumerian stories...
In that case, the description of Yahweh as being "Yahweh of the Elohim" makes sense, if only understood in the correct way, i.e. "Yahweh of the Immortals"!
You can see some millennia old depictions of these reptilian Anunnaki Gods and other ETs at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.hurley/index2.html - notice the reptilian beings on 3/4th of the page and further down.
It was this "immortal" race which according to Zacharia Sitchin ruled Mesopotamia and Sumer, which according to L.A. Wadell at one stage comprised the entire Middle East.
The Summerians depict the Anunnaki not only as reptilian humanoids, but also as having horns. This horned image of the Anunnaki is also that of the biblical Satan, a fallen "angel" and "devine" being. Interestingly, in one section of the OT the image of "the horned one" is momentarily even attributed to Moses! When Moses receives the covenant for the 2nd time from Yahweh, he comes down from the hill where he met with Yahweh, and his face is said to "shine" with such radiance - due to having been face to face with his God Yahweh for a while - that it scares the others away (Exodus 34:29-35). In fact, the original text when talking about the face of Moses mentions that it was "qaran" which comes from the Hebrew word "qeren", meaning horn. Thus, the correct translation should be that his face was "horned", and not "shining"... Does this mean he supposedly took over some of the facial characteristics of Yahweh, i.e. the horns? And doesn't this simply mean that the OT writers saw Yahewh as a reptilian, like the Sumerian Anunnaki, who indeed had such horns?
As far as the OT goes, great attention is given to the tracking of bloodlines and descendancy in general, and to these Reptilian/human bloodlines in particular. Characters like Noah, Abraham and Moses (alias king Sargon the Elder) are all descendants of Adam. And according to Sitchin the story of Adam being created by "God" i.e. the Anunnaki, refers to some type of genetic experiment, where a human/reptilian hybrid was created. From this, a bloodline of human/reptilian rulers and leaders descended, like the Jewish patriarchs, or rather the Sumerian figures these patriarchs were modelled on.
In any case, while some pretty incredible things and events may be at the source of the OT stories, it's certain that they are grossly distorted and misrepresented. In fact, as far as the religion is concerned, it's best to see the coming about of the OT as an attempt to reform the religious practice of the time when it was written, where the idea was to form a polytheistic religion (where several Canaanite, Egyptian and Sumerian "Gods" were worshipped) into a monotheistic one.
However, let me be clear about this: it's not because the OT messed things up that there wouldn't be a metaphysical reality, where there is something like a mega-consciousness some would call "God". There is. And it's particularly because of this that things like the OT have been brought into existence, i.e. in order to bring people away from the fundamental truths about this metaphysical reality, and, once stories like that of the OT are "unmasked", to bring people away from the idea of such a reality at all!
Not only were the Levites out to falsify religious beliefs, they also tried to "correct" certain historical perspectives, in plain words: to give historical disinformation. One story of the OT that stands out in this context is of course the Exodus story for which there has never been found any substantial proof (at least not for the OT's version). In my opinion this story, as well as some of the Genesis stories, were on one hand basically created to give a context to the ties between the Hebrews and the Hyksos people, while on the other hand they falsify some crucial historic events.
The Hyksos were a Semitic tribe that used to live in Canaan and settled in northern Egypt during the 18th century BC. They slowly occupied and took over Egypt, seizing power completely around 1630 BC, after which they ruled over Egypt for some 110 years. However, what this probably meant in practice is that although they controlled the country, the Theban Pharaoh dynasty still remained in place, but as vassals. In about 1567 BC it was Ahmose I of the Theban dynasty who chased the Hyksos out of Egypt.
Please note that the dates given above and elsewhere in this article are those of the so called "conventional chronology". There is a big discussion going on concerning the dating of the Egyptian dynasties, where a so called "new chronology" is proposed, which would have dynasties such as the Hyksos and later ones dated some 150 to 300 years later. However, for the purpose of this article, I'll stick to the conventional chronology, while using any of these "chronologies" is of no great significance to the understanding of what actually happened with the Hyksos and Hebrews.
Although some Egyptian accounts make the Hyksos out to be cruel invaders and rulers, this is probably only partly true, as the indications are that they also earnestly endeavored to conciliate the inhabitants, while an unsympathetic occupying force would probably not have adopted the hieroglyphic writing or the "Pharoah" title (although some sources contend that they never used that title).
The name "Hyksos" or "Hycsos" was used by the Egyptian historian Manetho (living around 300 BC), who, according to the historian Flavius Josephus (who lived in the 1st century CE), translated the word as "king shepherds" or "captive shepherds". Typically, when later the Piso family invented the Christian religion, the savior known as Jesus Christ was also called a "shephard king". And by the way, Josephus who is considered one of the most prominent historians of the first centuries, was actually Arius Calpernius Piso and one of the authors of the New Testament. (Read the complete story on the Pisos at http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso/ and http://members.tripod.com/~ReuchlinA/ ).
Today, scholars know that "Hyksos" was probably an Egyptian term meaning "rulers of foreign lands" (heqa-khase), and it almost certainly designated the nomadic chieftains on their north-eastern border, rather than a whole nation or tribe.
Josephus wished to demonstrate the great antiquity of the Jews and therefore he identified the Hyksos with the Hebrews of the Old Testament. However, most scholars today don't support this view. Nevertheless it's highly probable that some Hyksos were the ancestors of some Hebrews. The latter must have been important enough for the Levites to be acknowledged with special emphasis, seeing the importance the Reptilians/Illuminati give to bloodlines. This is illustrated by the fact that according to some sources, Abraham himself would have been a "Hyksos". However, as said earlier, the person of Abraham can be found in many cultures, and is hardly a uniquely Hebrew character.
On the other hand, all the stories like that of Abraham go back to one and the same source, which is Babylon, Sumer and the Anunnaki. Thus, if some Hebrew heritage stories claim things about an ancestor being of "Royal" or "Sun-God" blood, then really, what it is saying is that the ancestor is a descendant from the Anunnaki human/reptilian hybrids, who mingled with the Aryans, while his descendants migrated to many different places, because of which the settings and versions of the stories changed.
In any case, the fact that the Hyksos ruled over Egypt means that somewhere along the line there were some Reptilian/Anunnaki bloodlines involved.
One of the Hyksos Pharaohs was called "Apophis" (or "Apepi"), named after a God of Egyptian mythology which is depicted as an evil dragon-like, monstrous serpent god. I'd say it's a perfect description of a Reptilian. Nevertheless, he seemed to have been one of the more peaceful Hyksos rulers.
The most important God the Hyksos worshipped was Seth also called "Sutekh", ultimately the same as Set. While in the earliest Egyptian mythology stories the deity Seth was considered a positive force who helped Ra (the Supreme Sun-God), later he became known as an evil enemy. This happened when the 1st Egyptian dynasty (3100-2890 BC) was installed after those from Upper (south) Egypt conquered Lower (north) Egypt. Set was the patron deity of Lower Egypt, so he was turned into an evil entity by the conquerors. It's after this time the myth originated of Seth killing his brother Osiris (Nimrod) sun of the Goddess Isis (Semiramis).
During the 19th Dynasty there was a resurgence of respect for Set, where he was once more seen as a great god, who benevolently restrained the forces of the desert, but this turned around from the 20th dynasty onwards. Therefore it's probable that the Hyksos worshipped Seth as an evil entity, or a war God, as the Egyptian version of their original Asiatic "Storm God".
It may be assumed that Seth also came to stand for the God "Baal", because of all foreign deities Baal alone is designated in later Egyptian texts by Seth's animal (of which it cannot be determined with certainly of what species it is). In the Aramaic (Chaldean) language Seth was called "Shaitan" which became the Satan of the OT.
Seeing that Seth is equated with Satan, it's understandable why the deity Set plays such a prominent role in what is known as Satanism.
The Hyksos also worshipped their god of lightning Southekou, whom was also assimilated with Baal.
Read some more on the Hyksos at
http://neithotep.com/misc/kingslist.html for a simple and rather complete overview and timeline of the Egyptian Dynasties
The Hebrew-Hyksos-Egypt ancestral AND religious link is perhaps most obviously shown by the name the Hebrews chose for their first kingdom: Israel. Actually, it stands for Is-Ra-El, respectively referring to "Is" or "Isis", the Egyptian Goddess, also seen as the Moon Goddess; "Ra", the Egyptian Sun God, and "El", generally meant to signify "God" or "of God", while the El deity stands for the Anunnaki serpent Goddess and has a long and vast history which is magnificently described by D. Icke in his "Children of the Matrix". Amongst other, it also used to be a deity worshipped by the Canaans. I'd say, "Israel" is basically an Egyptian-Canaanite name, and rather more Egyptian than Canaanite. According to the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, Israel should be understood to mean "a Prince with God". However, more precisely it can be understood to mean "one who has passed from the Moon through the Sun and become a God".
The name "Is-Ra-El" when taken to mean "one who has passed from the Moon through the Sun and become a God" actually also expresses an idea that is particularly Luciferian. Actually, it expresses 2 typically Luciferian ideas: 1) that man finds enlightenment by going "through the Sun", or in other words by meeting the "light bearer", i.e. Lucifer, and 2) that man (then) can become a God.
Although this may seem paradoxical to some, Luciferians/Satanists particularly strive to become "Gods". It's just that they want to become that on their own terms, they be good or evil... certainly not on terms that are defined by love, compassion and (true) enlightenment. Although the idea that man can become a God is in complete disagreement with all the main organized religions, it's not so much that fact which makes it Luciferian, but rather the fact that it suggests to those who adhere to the idea that man can isolate himself from creation in a superior way, while in reality any man is a part of it, and therefore a part of (what some call) "God".
The story of the creation of the name is that "God" changed Jacob’s name to "Israel" after Jacob had wrestled with a man all night whom afterwards let himself known to be "God", and he then followed "God's" instructions to settle in Bethel with all his family and followers, destroying all the statues and altars of the different gods that were worshipped at that time, while building an altar for the one and only God, El.
Besides the fact that it's rather interesting to see that a God who instructed Jacob to "put away" all other Gods besides himself chose to give Jacob a new name consisting of the names of no less than 2 such Gods(!) besides his own name (El), the story should also prove to be a serious anachronism, as there was no reason for the Hebrews to honor and refer to Egyptian Gods before the Hyksos' Egyptian rule...
It seems that one reason for writing certain Genesis stories and the Exodus story may be to hide the fact that some Hebrew ancestors actually ruled over Egypt.
That the Hebrew/Hyksos were a power to be reckoned with in Egypt is presented as fact in Exodus 1:9-11, where the Egyptians are said to fear being attacked by them. However, immediately following that statement, the Egyptians are presented as having said that: "They might take arms against us and escape the country.".
Considering how numerous and powerful the Hebrews/Hyksos were and how much stronger they were than the Egyptians, as mentioned by the OT (Exodus 1:7 and 1:9), and considering the fact that they lived on the most fertile lands of the Middle East, why on earth would they ever have wanted to "escape" the country? If ever there was an obvious historical falsification, then this definitely must be the one...
Also, if they were stronger than the Egyptians, how is it possible that the latter ever succeeded in enslaving the Hebrews? The answer is that in reality some crucial historical events are omitted in the Exodus story.
Clearly, the Exodus story starts out by telling the reader that the Hebrews, i.e. the Hyksos, were more powerful and stronger than the Egyptians. It just stops short of stating that they actually seized the power in Egypt.
Some of the fact that the Hyksos ancestors of the Hebrews ruled over Egypt also remains in the story of Joseph - son of Jacob - being made a Vizier (a subordinate ruler, like the early and late Hyksos) by the Pharaoh (Genesis 41:40-49). For a Habiru, it was only possible to reach such a position under the Hyksos rule, as these welcomed and favored the Habirus because like the Hyksos themselves, they had Semitic origins.
It may well be that the story of Jacob and his family finding refuge in Egypt, where they are given the best pastures by the Pharaoh through Joseph, and thus escape the famine that occurred in the Canaan region and Egypt, is basically symbolizing the good ties between the Hyksos and the Habirus. If the ties were that good, this probably means that at that time already, Hyksos and Habirus were mixing bloodlines.
Interestingly, about three of the Hyksos rulers of Egypt were called Jacob - like Joseph's father in the OT - namely Jacob-el (Ya' qub-'al, Yaqb-hr, Yakobher, Yakub-her, Yaqub-Har, Yakobner or Yakuber), which stands for "May El give protection"; Jacob-baal (Yaqb-ba or Yakob-Baal), which stands for "May Baal give protection" and Jacob-aam (Ykbmw, Yakobaa or Yakbam), which stands for "Jacob of Asia". The name Jacob doesn't occur amongst the other Egyptian Kings.
It is therefore very tempting, to say that one of these Jacobs was the Jacob of the OT and that Joseph was a Hyksos vassal king. But in fact, the story of Jacob has little or nothing in common with that of the Egyptian pharaohs. And the fact that he shares the same name seems less significant when seeing that the name also occurs elsewhere, like f.i. on Babylonian tablets from Chagar Bazar, from the 18th century BC where someone is mentioned called Ya-ah-qu-ub-il (Yahgubil), which stands for "May El give protection". Is it this Babylonian tablet then that is referring to the Jacob of the OT, seeing that the God he worshipped was El? The answer to this can not be given with any certainty, as little or nothing is known about the person the tablets refer to.
In fact, the story of Jacob and his son Joseph serves to demonstrate how the Habirus moved to Egypt, and that they mingled quite successfully with the Egyptian Hyksos authorities. It may even be that the story of Joseph is actually based on some veracity, where a Habiru succeeded in achieving a very high position at a Hyksos court.
The OT places Joseph in a time period preceding these Hyksos Pharaohs. But in fact, the Hyksos only gradually seized power, over a period of 3 to 4 centuries. Therefore the OT story may definitely be referring to a Hyksos period, yet before the high period of the Hyksos, which started around 1630 BC.
Besides that the story of Joseph is meant to show how the Habirus came to Egypt, it's probably also meant to make clear how the Hyksos gained control over Egypt with supposedly clever strategies, i.e. by buying out all landowners during a time of great famine. This in itself may be a bit of a historical falsification, as the final push for power by the Hyksos was brought about with violence.
According to the OT, several generations after Jacob and Joseph, a descendant of Jacob is born: Moses.
Some interesting observations can be made about the origin of the name given to Moses, when looking at it from the Egyptian perspective.
The OT tells how Moses got his name from the Pharaoh's daughter. It comes from the Egyptian word "ms" or "msw", meaning "child", "son", or "the one born of". That's why it can be found in the names of Egyptian Pharaohs like Kamose ("the one born of the - deified soul - Ka"), Thutmose ("the one born of - the scribal god - Thoth), and Ahmose ("The Moon is Born" - with a slightly different twist than the other cases) who was the last Egyptian Hyksos ruler. The name Ramses actually stands for Ramoses ("Son of Ra"). In everyday life, these names were often abbreviated to just "Mose".
Seeing that the Pharaoh's daughter gave Moses his name because she "drew him out" of the water (while it's highly unlikely that the daughter of a Pharao who was supposed to become the new queen, would bath naked in the river - for all the common Egyptian and Jewish workers to see - where normally she would only bath inside, following very specific rituals), and seeing that the Egyptians worshiped the Nile, which they deified as "Hapi" (Hpy) and commonly called Itrw, later Irw, Moses' full name could have been Hapimose or Irumose, either of which would mean, "the one born of (or "drawn out of") the Nile. But the OT doesn't mention this. Why not, if the story is based on fact? Even if the Moses of the OT would have dropped such a reference to an Egyptian deity once he joined the Hebrews, as some contend, then surely, the OT could have mentioned this noteworthy feat. The fact is that not giving a full name allows for Moses being a reference to the Egyptian Pharaohs, and more precisely, the last Hyksos Pharao called Apophis II (Apepi II, also called Khamudi).
The purpose of the story of Moses is to make it clear to the reader that he had royal ancestry and nobel character, and seeing that he is placed in the period after the demise of the Hyksos, from a Hyksos angle it's easy to understand why he had to run into a conflict with the Egytians.
Ultimately, I can only draw the conclusion that Moses - besides being a reference to the Hebrew's Sumerian ancestry, King Sargon the Elder and several other mythical and historical individuals - essentially symbolizes the Egyptian Hyksos rulers who after they were overthrown by the Egyptians had to flee from Egypt, while the OT story is clearly a falsification of these events.
Notwithstanding the falsifications, the Exodus story has still some parallels with what actually happened during that time, including f.i. the story of how the Pharaoh repeatedly breaks his promises to Moses. Each time he breaks his word this is punished by God with a terrible plague that miraculously stops once the Pharaoh says that he will keep his promise and let the Hebrews go.
What happened in reality is that when the Hyksos rule was abolished, they withdrew under the leadership of Apophis I (Apepi I) to their ancient base in northern Egypt, the fortified city of Avaris. The new Egyptian Pharaoh Kamose I of the Theban dynasty gave his word that they could stay there in peace. For some years the Hyksos were left alone. But then the agreement was broken and under the leadership of Kamose's younger brother and successor Ahmose, the Egyptians launched an attack on Avaris.
There followed some years of fighting where the city was greatly damaged. It proved to be the fatal blow for the Hyksos and their last ruler Apophis II.
According to an account by the Egyptian historian Manetho, in the end, there seemed to have been negotiations where it was agreed that the Hyksos could leave the region peacefully, while in the process they received financial compensation for their loss. The latter is mentioned in Exodus 12:35/36, although it is given a different explanation. The Hyksos then fled to Canaan, while it is said that they went through the Sinai and Negev deserts. The route they are said to have taken was known as "Wat Hor" or "the Way of Horus", which can be seen to stand for "the Way of the one who was reborn"... In Canaan they took shelter in the fortress of Charouhen.
As the Egyptians were afraid that they would reorganize and attempt another attack on Egypt, they broke their promise (again) and followed the Hyksos into Canaan, which resulted in the Hyksos having to give up their fortress, fleeing to neigboring regions. As it seems, instead of drowning in the Sea of Reeds by the hand of "God", the Egyptians actually had quite a successful day...
Thus, in my view, probably the most important reason why the Exodus story was created was to hide the fact that the Hyksos/Hebrew ancestors were (in their turn) overthrown and chased out of Egypt, thus suffering a great defeat, a fact that especially in the days of the writing of the OT was greatly despised and seen as extremely humiliating. Of course, this is far from the heroic story of the Jewish slaves freeing themselves under the leadership of Moses!
Actually, the fact that the Hebrews/Hyksos were chased out of Egypt IS mentioned in the OT, but it's generally overseen. The chapter on the 10th plague was written seperately from the other chapters, and it presents the Exodus as an expulsion (Exodus 12:33 and 12:39-40), i.e. much closer to what actually happened. However, this distinction is generally overlooked by most people, and void of significance if one hasn't the background information.
Some people try to explain the discrepancy with the other chapters away by saying that there was twice an Exodus, one for the Hyksos, and one led by Moses. But, although there exists another story about Hebrews and Hyksos being chased out of Egypt, as mentioned by Manetho (see below), the OT story version of events remains historically unfounded...
The timing of the Hyksos' demise fits the date given by the OT to the period of the Exodus, give or take a few years. Seeing the controversies about the precise dating of the ruling periods of the Pharaohs, it could even one day be shown to coincide exactly, although it doesn't really matter, seeing the extend of the falsifications of the OT.
It's very probable that some of the Hyksos who were not slaughtered or captured, after the negotiations indeed escaped through the Sinai and Negev deserts because it wasn't possible to escape by the sea, and that THIS is the actual basis for the desert episode of the Exodus story. Still, things happened in a way very different from the OT version.
As said, during the Hyksos reign and at the time of their demise, there were some Habirus living in Egypt. It appears that after the demise of the Hyksos any Habirus who lived in Egypt at that moment were made into slaves, just like the Hyksos that were captured. The fact that the Habirus had to endure the wrath of the Egyptians is probably because of their close ties with the Hyksos.
This then may well have been the source of the story of the Hebrews - or better said, some of their ancestors, as they were not yet known as "Hebrew" but as the Habiru - being enslaved by the Egyptians. The fact that some people called the Habirus ("Apiru") were enslaved at that time is proven by Egyptian inscriptions from the 16th and 15th centuries BC which give details of these Habiru slaves and their forced labor in the turquoise mines.
In later time, such as during the reigns of Rameses II, there were many Hebrew slaves and they were treated in ways quite cruel. It's possible that the memory of this has made it into the OT stories.
It frequently happened that small groups of these slaves managed to escape. This is commonly complained about in Egyptian inscriptions of the period after the Hyksos dynasties. Typical of these complaints by officials of the period was one written during the reign of Merneptah I (who mentioned the Israelites upon a stela):
"Of the cultivators [slaves] of the estate of the Pharaoh which is under the authority of my lord, two [more] have fled from the stable-master Neferhotpe as he beat them. Now look! The fields are now abandoned and there is no-one there to till them."
While this example shows that escapes of Jewish slaves did occur in small numbers, there are no indications that any of these or the slaves of the 15th/16th century BC escaped in the way as told by the Exodus story.
With that, it's very well possible that just like the Hebrew descendants of the Hyksos, the Levites actually considered Egypt - and not Canaan/Palestine - to be the "Promised Land", but that the events forced them to reconsider things, and that it was this which eventually led to the creation of the Exodus story!
That this is the case may be supported by a text of the Egyptian historian Manetho. In his "Aegyptiaca" he mentions how during the reign of Amenophis I (Amenothep I, approx. 1546-1527 BC) a group of slaves - amongst whom probably some Habirus - was allowed to go live in Avaris, which had stood empty since the eviction of the Hyksos. These slaves then revolted against the Egyptians, and they chose as their ruler a priest called Osarsiph (or Osarseph).
Amongst other things, he is said to have promised them "their return to their ancient city and land of Avaris", while he also decreed some religious laws that went straight against the Egyptian convictions, very much like the Moses character of the OT is supposed to have done.
The rebels are said to have sent messengers to Jerusalem (which was under Egyptian control at that time) to ask for help in their revolt. Then 200 000 "shepherds" - a strong indication that they may have been Hyksos or Habirus - came to Avaris. Apparently, the Hyksos and Habirus gradually managed to live in the Canaanite Jerusalem region again, notwithstanding their conflict in the past with the Egyptians.
However, things failed miserably, as those who were supposed to help seemed to have abused the rebelling slaves terribly. After a short exile to Ethiopia, Amenophis came back and drove the rebels out to Syria... This could well be the 2nd Exodus which some claimed happened. But just like the 1st one, it was about Egyptians chasing people away, definitely not about the Hebrew slaves freeing themselves in the OT fashion...
Read more on Manetho's text at
Another indication that the scribes were thinking from an Egyptian perspective when they wrote about the "Promised Land" is that they made sure it included the old capital of the Hyksos rulers: Avaris, which was located north-east of the Nile delta (see the map on the 1st Manetho link mentioned above). When you read the OT about what exactly was to be considered the "Promised Land", it is written in Genesis 15:18:
["God" speaking to Abraham] "To your descendants I give this land from the River of Egypt [the Nile] to the Great River, the river Euphrates."
If taken literally, such a territory would include all of eastern Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, 2/3rds of Syria, Jordan, half of Irak, and the whole Arab peninsula, namely Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the Arab Emirates, Bahrein, and Koweit! Perhaps the people of these countries have rather a good reason to be wary of Zionist-Jewish fundamentalists!
As a matter of fact, people like the founder of the WZO, Herzl, and the fundamentalist Rabbi Fischmann, defined Israel precisely along the terms of the OT (even if Herzl was an atheist), although they would not include the entire Arab peninsula, drawing a border by running a straight line from the top of the Persian Gulf to more or less the Egyptian city Assuan. Herzl described this vision for Israel in his diary, as found in his published "Diaries" Vol.II, 1904, p. 711.
A map of this situation can be found in the book "The Hidden History of Zionism" by Ralph Schoenman. You can find the map online at http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/map.htm .
From this, it's easy to understand that Israel is in reality waging an expansionist war which they will only stop once all the territory described by the OT is conquered or brought under their control through Arab puppet regimes.
That this is indeed what has secretly been planned by the Israelis appears from the publication of "The Personal Diary of Moshe Sharett" (Yoman ishi, Maariv, Tel Aviv, 1979), who was Israel's Prime Minister from 1954 to 1955. Sharett preferred a relatively moderate policy towards the Palestinians and this led to such a big conflict with Ben Gurion that he had to resign and leave political life completely. In his diary, it is documented how Israel’s leaders from both Labor and Likud have always followed a strategy that would "dismember the Arab world, defeat the Arab national movement and create puppet regimes under regional Israeli power."
The diary furthermore clearly shows that Israel's military actions were never done out of fear for the Arabs, or as Zionists like to put it out of "self defence". Sharett’s diary reveals in explicit language that the Israeli political and military leadership never believed in any Arab danger to Israel. In reality, it has always followed a strategy where (limited) Arab violence was provoked so the Israelis could legitimize military actions that would expand their territory.
The land indicated by the OT scribes and that the Zionists attempt to conquer would in fact basically consist of a great part of those territories once ruled by Egypt, Canaan/Egypt, the Kingdom of Israel, and as a bonus a big part of what was under the rule of ancient Sumer (like the previous territories), which according to L.A. Wadell ruled an empire far greater than the small territory generally attributed to it. Curiously, the capital city of Babylon was not included in the "Promised Land" deal.
Seeing that it was the Hyksos' ambition to rule over ALL of Egypt, one probably has to see the OT boundaries as a "concession" of some sorts...
Strangely, in other passages of the OT, like Exodus 3:17, the "Promised Land" is described as being "the country of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites...".
That territory wouldn't include the city of Avaris, but it would include Palestine, part of Jordan, and the whole of Turkey (depending on what definition is used for the Hittite empire). Turkey lies across the Euphrates river. It would definitely include much less territory than that shown on Herzl's and Rabbi Fischmann's map (see above).
It's typical of the editors of the OT that they didn't even have the capacity to keep the same definition in all cases of what was to be the "Promised Land"... On the other hand, it may well be that it was a reassessment of what would be a feasable conquest of land that forced the scribes to make a different definition of it. But then, doing this without correcting the other texts isn't exactly very handy...
While Manetho has a reputation of having falsified some accounts, there is not a real reason why this would be so in the case of the story mentioned above. And while there are scholars who reject many of his accounts as being untrue, upon closer inspection, they seem to contain much more reliable information than previously thought.
Nevertheless, falsifying accounts of historic events was actually quite customary amongst the Egyptians, especially if it was to cover up a crushing defeat. It should come as no surprise to see the Levites of later times do the same, just like even today news about certain events is blocked or manipulated whenever possible, when this suits those controlling the news sources. Obviously, this makes it all the more difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff, no matter if OT sources or Egyptian sources are being consulted.
As far as the Palestinians or "Philistines" are concerned, the Levite writers could say whatever they wanted, to give their people a good reason to dislike them so they would not be granted any rights or land, just as is happening today. It's mostly pure, unadulterated propaganda.
Back to the top.
Palestine's early history and the Palestinians.
In the OT the Palestinians are called "Philistines". It seems fair to say that when around 1200 BC (approx. 200 years before the Hebrews created their Kingdom of Israel) a major wave of "Philistines" settled in the coastal region of what would become Palestine, some Hebrews (Habirus) at that moment were living in the hilly interior of the region. It's probable that there were also many Habirus living on the coast - just like Philistines who settled there at an earlier date - and that many of them (but not all) fled from the region to the hills because of the Philistines' arrival. This is where the Philistines are said to have gotten their name from, as it is said to be derived from the Hebrew term "Peleshet" (from the root "Pelesh") which means "dividers", "penetrators" or "invaders". The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" also has the same origin, as it's the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman version of the name "Palastina". On Egyptian monuments the Philistines are called "Pulsata" or "Pulista".
However, before they got their OT name, the Philistines were also referred to as "The Sea People" while the OT in some passages also refers to the Philistines as "The Northerners" ("ha Saponi").
It's thought that those known as the "Philistines" were Mediterranean people who came from Greek localities and Asia Minor (presently Turkey), although some - in accordance with the OT - also say they came from the Egyptian Nile Delta region, which may well be the case, but not for all of the Philistines.
While there is a general consensus on the fact that the Philistines came from Crete, there are good indications that most of them actually came from Cyprus, which also would allow the conclusion that their first appearance in the Palestine region lies around 1600 BC. See for more on this an article by John J. Bimson found at http://www.nunki.net/isis/jacf4article1.htm .
As discussed in the previous section, the real origins of the Philistines are Aryan, like the Jews, the Hebrews, the Semites, the Canaanites, a.s.o. The Philistines living in the Meditarrenean, Turkish and possibly also those of the Northern Egyptian regions, were culturally most related to the Mycenaeans (the Greeks) and the Hittites (the Turks), and they didn't speak Arabic.
Although there are indications that some Philistines were already in the Palestine region from around 1600 BC onwards, the first Egyptian references to the Philistines occur in the 8th year of Ramses III, commonly thought to be 1177 BC. So it's generally said this is more or less the period they came to the region, while the earlier settlers were simply not yet called Philistines by the Egyptians, but "The Sea People".
When around 1200 BC a major wave of Philistines invaded the coastal area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan valley, they founded the powerful Kingdom of "Philistia" which contained five settlements: Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat, also known as the "Philistine Pentapole (five cities)". During 200 years, the Hebrews living in this territory were their subjects!
See what Philistia more or less looked like, on this map made in accordance with OT views (therefore it also show the kingdom of Judah which may well never have existed as such, although its territory as depicted may have been occupied by various people, see previous section):
Oddly, even though the Philistines supposedly only spoke Greek and fairly soon Canaan, the only name for their Kingdom that seems to be known is the OT name derived from the Hebrew language, and it is said to have been used from about the 12th century BC onwards. In Assyrian inscriptions the Kingdom is known as Palastu and Pilista, which may still be derived from the Hebrew term indicating "invaders".
However, some of the insights advanced by John J. Bimson have lead me to think the term may well be ill-deserved, or generally interpreted in the wrong way, as it is understood to refer to the fact that the Philistines "intruded" on the Hebrews. But it's highly probable that originally (and before it was misused in the OT) the term pointed to how the Philistines took the southern coast of Palestine from the Egyptians, while all the Philistines initially did when they conquered the region was liberating fellow Philistines and other "Sea People" from the Egyptian yoke... Thus, the name would simply be another historical injustice.
That this could indeed be the case is more or less proven by the first known record of the Philistines - calling them the "Pulsata" or "Pulista" - which is Egyptian. It is a record of how the Egyptians supposedly defeated them when they tried to invade the Philistia region. However, archaeologists consider this version of the events may be a historical falsification, which was done because defeat was considered something too humiliating to be admitted.
Considering that at the time of the creation of the kingdom of Philistia Israel didn't yet exist, and that the Levites started to write the OT only 6 centuries afterwards, it's most plausible that the Hebrew word "Pelesh" was actually derived from the Egyptian description of the "Sea Peoples" as being "Pulista".
Nevertheless, the Philistines and the Hebrews fought against each other, while it remains to be seen who tried to invade who... When after a long period of fighting, on their turn the Hebrews finally founded their Kingdom of Israel in 1000 BC, they had defeated and chased the Philistines, the Canaanites, Egyptians and some other peoples whom - excepted the Egyptians - from then on dwelt in the Palestinian region, never certain of their safety. Still, the region that used to be the Kingdom of Philistia kept that name.
The Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians in 722 BC and large numbers of its population were forcibly resettled in Mesopotamia and were replaced by other peoples, subjects of the Assyrians. The region which the OT calls the kingdom of Judah was absorbed into the Babylonian Empire in 586 BC, the Babylonians being the successors of the Assyrians in Mesopotamia. It's only at this time that those of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were captured. Most of the tribal and religious leaders were transported to Babylon, Jerusalem being destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 588 BC. This is why the writing of the Old Testament began in Babylon.
At the end of the sixth century BC, Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon and those Israelites who had been exiled were allowed to return to Israel. In the period that followed, it was the Roman historian Herodotus (484-424 BC) who was the first to mention the name "Palestine", calling it "Syria Palaestina" (Philistine Syria). From that time, this was also what the Greeks started to call the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, in time simply calling it "Palaistine" (Palestine).
The country changed hands again when Alexander the Great defeated the King of Persia in 323 BC. Subsequently, the territory came under the control of Egypt and later, Syria.
In 140 BC there was a successful revolt by the Macabees against Syrian rule, which resulted in the creation of the Jewish Kingdom Judea that lasted for 80 years. By the way, the only physical evidence of a Biblical tribe that has ever been found is a tomb of these Macabees that dates from 200 BC. Read more on it at http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951127/archaeology.html .
In 63 BC the Romans invaded the region and incorporated Judea into the Roman Empire. The Jews revolted against the Romans. There were two revolts: the first by the Zealots and the second led by Bar Kokhba.
After having subdued the Jews and having broken down the Bar Kokhba revolt, the Romans renamed what was known up to then as the Kingdom of Judea to "Syria Palestina", while Jerusalem was given the name Aelia Capitolina.
"Syria Palestina" or simply "Palastina" became a province of the Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 CE, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Muslim Empire. The Arabs kept for the region the Greco-Roman name "Palastina", which they pronounced as "Falastin".
In that period, much of the mixed population of Palastina was forced to convert to Islam and adopted the Arabic language, while an important number of Palestinians remained Christian. In this period the Palestinians were subjects of a distant Caliph who ruled them from his capital, that was first in Damascus and later in Baghdad.
The Christian crusaders who founded several states in the Palestinian region between 1099 and 1191 CE, used the name "Palestina" to refer to the general area that had been known since the fourth century as the "Three Palestines". After the fall of the crusader's "Kingdom of Jeruzalem" (in 1187 CE) , the name "Palestine" was no longer used officially. THE NAME, HOWEVER, CONTINUED TO BE USED INFORMALLY FOR THE LANDS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE JORDAN RIVER. Which is important to emphasise due to claims otherwise.
After the Egyptian Vizier Saladin (Salah-al-Din ibn Ayyub) had chased the crusaders, there was a wave of Jews who settled in the region and during the 12th and 13th centuries the Jewish community of Jerusalem began to prosper.
From 1260 until 1516 the city of Jerusalem and the surrounding region came under Mamluk rule. The Mamluks were mercenary slaves who rebelled against the Ayubbid dynasty and conquered the city in their own name.
After this, the Ottoman Turks ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, Palestine attached administratively to the province of Damascus and was ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was again officially used after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, under the British Mandate (what region was indicated by it will be discussed in later sections).
So, when Zionists say that there never has been a country known as "Palestine", this is highly misleading, seeing f.i. that the Romans and the Crusaders used it as an official name for a very precise region and that after their departure it kept being an informal name for that very region. Obviously, this region had a population which - even regardless of their ancestry or culture - should be named "Palestinians".
Also, it has to be noted that it was especially thanks to Muslims like Saladin, the Mamluks and the Ottomans that the Jews could come and live in Palestine and prosper in a fairly peaceful way, while they were otherwise chased by the Assyrians, the Romans, and the Christian Crusaders.
The fact that Jews were able to relocate in Palestine proves how false and manipulative the image is of the Palestinians being by definition bloodthirsty killers of Israeli Jews, like they are generally depicted by the media and the Zionists. If the Palestinians would be like the media and Zionists depict them to be, not a single Jew would ever have been able to enter the Palestinian territory. Something to think about...
Now here's the joke. Zionists claim that:
a) since Palestine was never an independent state (which is not true, see answer below), while Israel and Judea (not Judah) could be called this, the Jews have more right to the territory than anyone else; and
b) since the Palestinians are not originally from the region, the Jews have more right to the land than they do; and
c) since the Palestinians don't have their own language, they neither have their own culture (not true), therefore they don't deserve their own land... ; and
d) since Palestinians only claimed to be "Palestinians" from 1964/1967 onwards (which is false, see answer below), and since before that they didn't even call the region "Palestine" and only called themselves "Fellahins", they don't have the right to claim their own state called "Palestine"... ; and
e) since over 95% of the land in the Middle East is in Arab hands, surely, who has the right to mind the Zionists taking that little bit of land some call Palestine?...
The answers to these claims are as follows:
a) Before the Kingdom of Israel was established the Philistines already had their Kingdom of Philistia for at least 200 years, will that do? If not (I already thought for some it wouldn't...), being part of the Roman empire, the Crusader's Kingdom and later the Ottoman empire means the region named "Palestina" lived with a certain "statehood" within a greater state, just like today the countries of the EU live with a certain "statehood", although having lost sovereignty. Should countries like England or France therefore cease to be considered a state? Should the fact that the Netherlands were once invaded by Spain, and later by France, be a reason for it never to have existed after these occupations?
The fact that during the Roman and Ottoman empire there wasn't something like a Palestinian government doesn't essentially change anything to this, as there have always been regional authorities.
In any case, in 1919 Palestine and its people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation by the League of Nations, and this still holds today for the UN! However, this fact has been completely silenced of course. More on this in a later section.
Concerning Israel and Judea, need I mention the fact that states come and go, while some exist longer, and others barely see the light of day?... Is anyone interested in restoring the Roman Empire?... Anyone? (besides some Illuminati and the Italians)
b) OK, so the first Palestinians, the Philistines, came from abroad, but hey, where did the Israelis/Jews came from? Egypt? Sumer? Caucasus? That's three times right! And that's anywhere except from what has become known as Palestine...
Furthermore, the Philistines have always mingled with local people like the Canaanites, Semites and other, which means they have gradually become more and more "local" anyway, while the Canaanites lived in the region long before any Habirus/Hebrews or Israelites came into the region.
c) Should Belgium be robbed of its territory because the languages spoken there are French and Dutch (Flemish)? Should Canada cease to exist because its inhabitants speak either English or French or both? Should Brazil be put in the bin because there they speak Portugese? Can it be said that these countries and its people don't have their own culture or cultural particularities? Is it probable that for the Palistinians this is the case? Saying this is indeed so is like saying the Belgium folks brew beers like that of all other countries or that Brazilian samba and football simply are caused by a behavioral problem! And please don't say these are cultural expressions not worthy of being mentioned... at least they have been great for business! And don't tell me there are no artists, writers, poets, musicians and film makers in Palestine. There are, just as in all the other countries named above... and there's not 2 of them alike.
And by the way, even the Philistines of ancient Palestina had f.i. a style for pottery that is recognized as a unique classic "Philistine" style, dating back to approx. 1600 BC. The OT has made sure to make the Philistines look like crass barbarians, but it's generally recognized by archaeologists like Trude and Moshe Dothan, who have pursued the archaeology of the Philistines for about forty years, this reputation is grossly undeserved. Technologically and artistically the Philistines were more advanced than the Hebrews of the OT.
d) Heck, does it matter what the Palestinians claimed, if in the Old Testament the Jews themselves already claimed them to be "Philistines" (which was meant as an insult, with that!)?! And so what if there were a time that the Palestinians have called themselves "Filestine", "Falastin", or "Fellahin"? Would anyone dare say the French are less French because they were once known as the "Franks" or that the Americans are less of a people because once they were known as "Armoricans"??? And should we talk about the origins of the name "Hebrew" (which most Israelis are not, even if they live in a "Hebrew state")? After all, the Hebrews have been known as the Hapiru, Habiru, Khapiru, Apiru, Pr, Ibri, and what have you...
And what is this about nobody ever claiming there existed land called "Palestine"? See the answer to claim a), and by the way, didn't the World Zionist Organisation itself in 1897 mention specifically a region called "Palestine" as the future home of the Jews? (See above)
Nevertheless, yes, it's true that before WW1 the Palestinians identified themselves as being part of "The Great Syria" (Suriyya al-Kubra). However, that drastically changed once they understood what the Jewish-Zionist community was up to, and that they saw they would have to fend for themselves, which was around 1917, after the Balfour Declaration (see a later section). This is when Palestinian nationalistic awareness started to take off (and not only after 1967, as Zionists usually claim).
The Palestinians officially proclaimed their own state called "Palestine" for the first time in 1948, the same year the Israelis proclaimed their state, for the details on this see the rest of this article.
e) Well, the problem is that it's Palestinian land, not Egyptian, Jordan, or even Syrian (at least not any more). Furthermore, it's a different bunch of people who live there. Would the average Zionist mind if someone would take 100% of the money on their bank account because to their neighbours it's like being only 5% of their capital??? Thought so...
Please note: the claims described above are made by the big majority of Zionists in all seriousness. That's why they are mentioned here, even if some may seem pretty silly...
The source of some of the info mentioned above is the Columbia encyclopaedia, at http://www.bartleby.com/65/pa/Palestin.html .
Back to the top.
Starting up the Jewish colonization of Palestine.
Countries we know today like Israel, Palestine (West Bank and Gaza strip), Lebanon, Syria, and the other countries of the Middle East did not yet exist at the end of the 19th century. They were all regions of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. There were three main regions. We can call them Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia (or Iraq). Each region had several provinces, and although the Turks governed the whole area, they allowed some of their provinces considerable local autonomy. For example, Mount Lebanon north of Beirut in Syria had been largely self-governing since the 1860s and the province of Kuwait in Mesopotamia had been self-governing even longer.
Already from approx. 1880 onwards (almost 20 years before the creation of the World Zionist Organization) bit by bit Jews from all over the world started to immigrate to what was then still Turkish-Ottoman Palestine. Of course there always had been a small Jewish minority and in the decades before some colonizing had already been going on.
But it's from the 1880's onwards that with financial help from the Rothschilds, Jews started to buy all the land they could get their hands on. The Rothschilds financed some 80% of all land acquisitions by the Jews.
Fairly soon, the fact that Jews were acquiring land at an alarming rate, while they also used all sort of schemes to confiscate Arab land, and the fact that the Jews behaved in a way very unfriendly to the Palestinians (f.i. by only giving good jobs to Jews), lead to the Palestinians growing more and more worried and to a great discontentment. This was even more so because of the fact that the Palestinians didn't by far had the financial means as the freshly immigrated Jews.
From the outset the Zionist colonists applied a strategy which aimed at removing the Palestinians from the areas the Zionists were interested in acquiring for their State that was to be founded. This came with trickery and fraud, as put in words by the founder of the World Zionist Organization himself, Theodore Herzl, in his own diary:
"WE MUST EXPROPRIATE gently THE PRIVATE PROPERTY on the state assigned to us [ed.: Palestine]. WE SHALL TRY TO SPIRIT THE PENNILESS POPULATION ACROSS THE BORDER by procuring employment for it in the transit countries [ed.: outside of Palestine], while DENYING IT EMPLOYMENT IN OUR COUNTRY. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out DISCRETELY AND CIRCUMSPECTLY. Let the owners of the immovable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But WE ARE NOT GOING TO SELL THEM ANYTHING BACK."
Source: "America And The Founding Of Israel", by John W. Mulhall, p. 49, and "Righteous Victims", by Benny Morris p. 21-22.
Today's practice is that Israeli law strictly forbids Jews settled on "National Land" to sublet even a part of their land to Arabs, even for a short time. Those who do so are punished, usually by heavy fines.
One of the Zionist mottos was "A country without people for a people without land". Notice the words "... a country WITHOUT people...": for the Zionists, millions of Palestinians simply DIDN'T EXIST, as is still the case today.
When they DID notice the local inhabitants, the Zionists viewed them as neglecting their country. To prove this Zionists love to give a quote by Mark Twain from "Innocents Abroad" about one of his travels. In it he describes a desolate, dry, desertified country, where he "... never saw a human being on the whole route". This was, and is still seen as good enough a reason for taking the region over...
An exception to such views was expressed by the humanist Zionist Ahad Ha'am. He questioned the dealings of the Zionists and described how they treated the local Palestinian inhabitants in the period 1900-1914. Here are some quotes of him (his own quotes are between the ' ' characters):
"... Ahad Ha'am warned that the settlers must under no circumstances arouse the wrath of the natives ... 'Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the Diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in unrestricted freedom and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination ...' "
"... The same lack of understanding he found in the boycott of Arab labour proclaimed by Jewish labour ... 'Apart from the political danger, I can't put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to humans of another people, and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: if it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we shall achieve at the end of times power in Eretz Yisrael? And if this be the "Messiah": I do not wish to see his coming.' "
"Ahad Ha'am returned to the Arab problem ... in February 1914 ... '[the Zionists] wax angry towards those who remind them that there is still another people in Eretz Yisrael that has been living there and does not intend at all to leave its place. In a future when this illusion will have been torn from their hearts and they will look with open eyes upon the reality as it is, they will certainly understand how important this question is and how great our duty to work for its solution'."
Quote source: Kohn, Hans, "Ahad Ha'am: Nationalist with a Difference".
Back to the top.
The promises made to the Palestinians.
During WW1 there were many negotiations concerning Palestine, although in most cases without their direct participation. All of these negotiations had military strategic motives.
When WW1 broke out, the Turks chose to align themselves with the Germans. This made Turkey England's and France's enemy. Consequently, during the war they decided that once the Turkish Ottoman empire would be controlled by them that they would partition the Arab world and make the various Turkish provinces into countries.
Initially, attempts by the British to invade the Ottoman territory - using mostly troops from Australia and New Zealand - were disastrous.
But eventually, the British found a solution. They understood that the weak spot of the Turkish Ottoman Empire was that nearly half of its population was not Turkish but of several different Arab origins. They saw that if they could persuade the Arabs to rise up against the Turks, they could weaken the Ottoman Empire, divert Turkish soldiers from Europe, and harm the Central Turkish Powers.
So, negotiations began with the Hashemite family of Mecca. The family leader Hussein, Sherif of Mecca, was well respected throughout the Arab world. During 1915-1916 he negotiated with British diplomat Sir Henry McMahon. What became known as "the Arab Revolt" began in June, 1916, with Arabs believing Britain had promised a unified Arab kingdom under Hashemite leadership as well as an independent Palestinian state at the end of the war.
However, in reality, amongst several other promises, McMahon only APPEARED to have promised the Palestinians a territory with which the Palestinians agreed. The negotiations consisted of a letter correspondence between Hussein and McMahon. In the letters the areas were outlined that Britain was prepared to cede to the Arabs in return for Arab participation in the war against the Turks. Although McMahon had been vague enough to give the impression that this also included Palestine, Palestine is never specifically named anywhere in his letters. Afterwards, this allowed the British (and the Zionists) to say they never promised anything to the Palestinians...
The fact that during the correspondence it was never specified that Palestine WASN'T part of the deal is under the circumstances enough to suspect foul play on the part of the British. In any case, years after all this lost its immediate relevance, a secret memorandum of the Political Intelligence Department on British Commitments to King Hussein was made public. On page 9, the Memorandum states:
"With regard to Palestine, His Majesty's Government are committed by Sir H. McMahon's letter to the Sherif of 24 October 1915 to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab Independence."
That the British implicitly promised to give the Palestinians their independent state has also been confirmed by T.E. Lawrence, who was the inspiration for the hero of the famous movie "Lawrence of Arabia" (among other sources, this is confirmed in the "Documents on British Foreign Policy", 1919-1939, 1st series Vol. IV) and who during WW1 led the Arabs to battle the Turkish Ottomans.
In name of the British, he also promised the Arab Palestinians full sovereignty. But early on in the war campaign it became clear to him that the British would never keep their promises. The fact that he had to betray people he closely worked and fought with, and who gave him all the honors that they could think of, seemed to have completely broken this man, who, when after the campaign he returned to England, wasn't more than the shadow of himself...
In 1916 there was a secret agreement, in which the Palestinians also were not directly involved, between the British, the French, the Russians and the Italians: the so called "Sykes-Picot" agreement. Lebanon and Syria were assigned to France, Jordan and Iraq to Britain and Palestine was to be internationalized. This agreement was mostly made to secure Russian participation in the war. See a map of this agreement at
Even if for many years afterwards the Palestinians tried to get these agreements and promises materialized, they all appeared having been done in vain. This is most definitely apparent when in 1917 the Zionist - and particularly Rothschild's - lobby succeeds in having the British acknowledge to them their right to their own state, by the Balfour declaration (see below). Read more about this period at
Remarkably enough in 1919 Palestine and its people were provisionally recognized as an independent nation by the League of Nations in League Covenant Article 22(4) which later was extended by the 1922 Mandate for Palestine that was awarded to Great Britain. Legally, this provisional recognition continues into effect TODAY because of the conservatory clause found in Article 80(1) of the United Nations Charter...
After WW1, countries like Egypt en Iraq were given independence. But thanks to the lobbying of men like Lionel Walter Rothschild (who played a major role in the coming about of the Balfour declaration, see below) the British didn't do this for Palestine. This way they left the possibility for Palestine to become something else than an Arab/Palestinian state. Even though the Jews formed a very small minority of the Palestinian population, eventually, the British thought they had to give them the most important parts of Palestine.
The world had to wait until 1946 before the British finally gave independence to Trans-Jordan, making Hussein - with whom they negotiated for the Arab Revolt when he was Sherif of Mecca - its King. Some time afterwards it became what we now call Jordan.
This event also led to a proposal from the British where the Palestinians would be located in Trans-Jordan.
In the opinion of the Zionists too, really, the Palestinians should have better moved over there and take THAT as their land... But obviously this didn't by far agree with the opinions of the Palestinians themselves. Not only were they chased out of their land, they would also lose all land on the seaside as well as f.i. areas that were rich in orange orchards and other valuable agricultural areas. To see a map of this situation (the British proposal) see:
Some Zionists actually consider that Jordan also belongs to "Greater Israel", and therefore that they should own that land too. That's why it would be far from surprising if the present Israeli military operations will eventually expand to a full invasion and occupation of that territory, while they already had a bloody try at doing so in 1982. If it is left to Jewish fundamentalists (and as long as the Old Testament's authority in the world will not be completely abolished), we may even see them one day trying to invade the entire Arab peninsula...
Back to the top.
The Balfour declaration and its implications.
Thus, as already mentioned, the Zionist's right to have their own state was more or less given by the British through the so called Balfour declaration in 1917. I say "more or less" because its juridical value is contested by some.
The fact that the Rothschilds play a central role in this whole story is well proved by this Balfour declaration. Actually, it wasn't what you'd imagine such a declaration would be, but just a letter from a member of British parliament, Lord Balfour, to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild (from a different branch of the Rothschild family than Edmond de R. named above) - who financed the secret society called "The Round Table" to which Balfour and himself belonged.
The reason why the letter was addressed to Rothschild, instead of f.i. to Otto Warburg who was the president of the Zionist Organization at that time, is that he was a representative of the English Federation of Zionists (also funded by Rothschild). Nevertheless, it seems strange - and therefore it's significant - that the letter wasn't sent to the president of what should be considered the "mother-organization" of the English Federation of Zionists, especially since many of the ZO participated in drafting it.
The letter was drafted fairly soon after Mac Mahon made his promises to the Palestinians (see section above), and for a long time after it had been drafted, the letter was kept secret. This meant that for many years the Palestinians were left completely in the dark as to the true intentions of the British who clearly preferred not to waste the Palestinian's support in the war against the Ottomans due to a premature publication of the letter.
The content of the letter was as follows:
2nd November 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild:
I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of our sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood 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."
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Arthur James Balfour
The sneaky thing about this letter is that it says that "...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,...". Sounds fair. But what it doesn't say is even more important: that there was no objection to oppress the Palestinians politically, and that they would NOT give THEM their independent state (or "home" as the letter mentions)!
Please also note: at the time when this Balfour declaration was drafted less than 9% of the population in Palestine was Jewish, and this means that 91% was non-Jewish, mainly consisting of Muslims and Christians (56,000 Zionists for 644,000 Arabs). Also, 97% of all land was still owned by non-Jews!
The mere fact that the British promised the Zionists (Rothschild & co) their own state with this Balfour letter shows to what extend the Palestinians were no match for the Illuminati network.
Read more about the backgrounds and implications of the Balfour declaration at
One of the reasons why Balfour gave in to the demands of the Zionist lobby was partly the fact that he was deeply anti-Jewish, and very much in favor of an independent Jewish-state, if this would mean that England could get rid of Jews. A philosophy that would later also be held by the Nazis.
But it was a crucial world-event that gave the Zionists and the British the right pretext to issue the Balfour Declaration.
In February, 1917, the Russian Revolution occurred and threatened to take Russia out of the war. (Note: there were two Russian Revolutions in 1917. The famous one in the fall was the Communist Revolution that brought Lenin to power; while the one in the spring overthrew the Czar and brought to power a group of non-communist reformers.)
Russian neutrality would allow Germany to concentrate its armies on the Western Front, a disaster for the Allies. This created a panic in the Allied capitals, especially in England. They were desperately hoping America would enter the war and that Russia would stay in.
So, on one hand, it could be said that that if the British signed the Balfour declaration the Zionists would do all they could so that Russian Jews (like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Sverdlov) would reject the Bolshevik-party (which was very unlikely on the short term, as these offered them many advantages compared to the anti-Jewish Tzar), while on the other hand they would gain the support of the American Jews, which was understood to be determinant to make president Wilson join the War.
BUT, all this was only a smokescreen, as Balfour, Rothschild and fellow Illuminati agreed already from the beginning on what was to be done. The world events simply gave a good pretext for selling the Balfour declaration to the British politicians, as the Russian Revolution was organized by the Illuminati Brotherhood, and the USA - which was under their control - would enter the war anyway. The Balfour declaration was simply the realization of an UN-democratic decision, taken by a small number of Illuminati elitists.
Read more on this issue at
There is one common element that can be found in most crucial world-events of this period: the Rothschilds (as members of the Illuminati).
They played a crucial role in having WW1 break out by controlling the flow of information after having bought the German news agency Wolff (agencies like Reuter and Havas have also been bought by them - are we surprised these are biased?).
The event that gave fuel to their pro-war information campaign - the killing of Archduke Ferdinand - was organized through a web of secret societies, ultimately controlled by the Illuminati.
They played a crucial role in the coming about of the Russian revolution. First they provoked the ruin of the Tzar and the Russian economy, by manipulating the Tzar into a war with Japan, financing both sides. Later they financed enormous amounts of Bolshevik propaganda, through their German news companies.
Through the Round Table secret society they directly or indirectly were able to manipulate the USA president Woodrow Wilson as well as the British Lord Balfour.
It's an amazing demonstration of how the Illuminati succeeded at realizing a whole set of goals (amongst which - but not limited to - the creation of Israel), through carefully orchestrated events.
Back to the top.
The beginnings of the violence.
To sum up a long story in a (very) short and (very) simple way: when after the period 1880-1917, 3% of the Palestinian land was bought (practically all of it with Rothschild funding), the Zionists didn't succeed at achieving a numerical majority in Palestine and they had to acknowledge the fact that the Palestinians didn't wish to support the Zionist ideal (i.e. the creation of a state for them) they decided (strengthened in their opinions by the Balfour declaration of 1917) that in that case they had to realize their goals by "force majeure".
Initially, this meant that they'd only act in their own interest and where possible they'd harm Palestinian interests. So, at first, the Zionists applied a strategy where they'd buy out local Palestinians. Then, with time, they'd do anything to exclude Palestinians from the (local) political life. They'd also make it impossible for Palestinians to find work or housing in certain regions, or made these extremely unpleasant.
One example of how the political power was abused can be seen in the fact that in 1920 England appointed to the position of High Commissioner a Zionist, Herbert Samuel, who was one of those who had worked at formulating the Balfour declaration. Thanks to the Zionist lobby, and notwithstanding the fact that Jews were still a small minority in Palestine, he got one of the most powerful positions of the region. And he didn't waste time to make himself useful, inciting Palestinians to leave certain regions while encouraging Jews to come there, using new regulations and his special powers whenever needed.
Although the Zionists were still a small minority, anti-Palestinian decisions could be enforced thanks to the British troops who embarked on the territory in 1917, after the creation of the Balfour declaration.
To the despair of the Palestinians, in 1922 the British even made it possible for any person who'd come to live in Palestine to automatically obtain the Palestinian nationality.
A reaction from the Palestinians was unavoidable, and so, in 1920, a violent revolt broke out to which the British army and the Jewish/Zionist community responded with great violence.
When the Israelis say that "the Palestinians started" the violence, then they usually refer to the period that was started by this revolt (1920-1930); obviously, they don't mention the fact that perhaps there was a good reason for it! The Zionists left no method untried to provoke the Palestinians...
On the other hand, some Bible adepts will state that it was the Philistines - later called the Palestinians - that attacked the Jews already in the Biblical past. But these stories simply can't be taken to the letter and it has been shown in this article that they hide a terribly biased view of a situation that may or may not have occurred thousands of years ago.
Back to the top.
The Palestinians and the Nazis.
However, no discussion of Zionist and Palestinian violence is complete without looking at the role played during WW2 by the "Great Mufti" of Jeruzalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was the Palestinian religious leader and also political leader until 1964 when the PLO took over this role.
Although he let himself be called "Great Mufti", or in other words "Great teacher of Islam", this was in fact a title he seized without really being entitled to it as not only did he not finish his University studies of Islam, for Muslims it's considered "not done" to call yourself a "Great" teacher, as before Allah all are equal...
The reason why this descendant of a rich old aristocratic family became considered as a religious leader was due to the fact that in December 1921 he got the position of President of the Supreme Muslim Council, which was an organization created by the British to ensure religious autonomy. Normally the President for that council was elected, but al-Husseini never was. So, it seems that in the end he simply threatened everyone in his way, and seized the position, which meant that from that moment on he was the most powerful person of Muslim Palestine.
A consequence of this was that he was never fully supported by the Palestinians, and he frequently tried to repress opposing factions - rivaling Arab Palestinians, Christian Palestinians as well as Zionists - which resulted in several killing raids organized by him.
Although he was clearly someone who, if he had the power to do so, would have stopped Zionist immigration to Palestine, there is some persistent disinformation concerning the Mufti, saying that it was he who convinced Hitler to exterminate the Jews. The disinformation gives as a fact that the Nazis only started to actually exterminate Jews soon after the Mufti met with Hitler in November 1941.
However, new research combined with circumstantial evidence prove that this idea is ludicrous, and highly manipulative as to the image given of the Palestinians. On the other hand, it could well be true that he suggested Hitler to extend the Nazi genocide program to the Arab world, and more specifically to Palestine... Obviously, in itself, not exactly an "enlightened" advice, but still not the same as thinking up and taking the initiative for such a diabolical plan.
From around 1933, the Mufti had contact with the German Nazis and in that year already he met in Palestine with Wolff, the German Consul-General, to whom he expressed his approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and whom he asked not to send any Jews to Palestine.
The following years, he continuously kept asking for the support of his cause. He ended up with receiving some substantial aid in the form of funds and arms, with which he mainly enforced his grip on the Palestinians.
But until the 1940s, concerning the Jews he was in for little luck, as the Nazis were not the least bit interested in NOT sending Jews to Palestine. On the contrary! In general, the Nazis favored the "return" of the Jews to a "homeland", wherever it be, as long as it would be somewhere else than Germany. For a while Hitler considered sending them to Madagascar, but he eventually came to favor sending them to Palestine for several reasons.
This lead to the strange fact that for a while the Nazis actually endorsed Zionism! Even today, this is still true for certain Neo-Nazis...
One supporter of Zionism was the SS-er Alfred Eichmann. After the war, when living in Argentina he actually stated: "... had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist..."!
Interestingly, and rather typically, the admiration seems to be reciprocal, as Ariel Sharon proved when he stated during an interview with Amos Oz in 1987: "Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint."...
Besides the fact that Zionism fitted well in the early Nazi ideology, the Nazis also made a lucrative agreement with the Zionists called the "Ha'avara" or "Transfer" agreement, as a result of which many German Jews were sent to Palestine, more on this in the next section.
The Ha'avara agreement was applied until 1939, and up to that date Germany kept sending Jews to Palestine, while after that time Jews still fled to Palestine when possible, although not under the Ha'avara agreement.
So if the Nazis initially were not interested in not sending Jews to Palestine, or making it impossible that a Zionist state would be created, why did they gave the Mufti funds and arms?
There are probably several answers to this. Firstly, the German Nazis simply may not have want to alienate an important representative of the Musilms in the Middle East, and the Mufti's mere insistence compelled them to make a gesture. Secondly, they may have want to guarantee the Mufti's support, if necessary, when affronting the British in the Middle East. For that same purpose they worked with secret agents of the Zionists, as will be discussed in the next section.
The Mufti fairly soon understood that the Germans were not going to stop sending Jews to Germany. So in 1934 he turned to Mussolini. But the best he got there was more funds.
From the facts mentioned above alone, it's clear that the Mufti's capacity to influence Hitler's decision making was minimal, and the best results he obtained was moral and limited material support. There is no reason to come to the conclusion this changed when he met Hitler in November 1941, even if the systematic liquidation of Jews was radically stepped up soon after this meeting, which Zionists see as the irrefutable proof that it was the Mufti who instigated it.
However, the German records as well as the Mufti's diary show that during the meeting they discussed nothing more than their desire to fight and abolish "Jewish-Bolshevik-rule", not liquidating all Jews, although one may wonder if in the case something of the sort was discussed it would have made it into these records.
Read the German's and Mufti's record of the meeting between the Mufti and Hitler at http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/mufti6.htm
So, to say that it was the Mufti who made Hitler decide to carry out the Holocaust seems pretty far-fetched. But to make the matter totally clear it's good to take a look at how the Nazis actually came to their decision of mass-liquidation.
For decades, the problem in proving that it was actually Hitler who ordered the holocaust personally was that no such order was ever put to paper. Indeed, according to researchers like Breitman of the American University in Washington it seems that Hitler preferred to do most of his dirty work through oral communications.
Nevertheless, researcher Christian Gerlach, discovered in previously secret Soviet archives and in other documents, a notation by Heinrich Himmler - the SS chief - that could be the closest thing to a written record. In the notation, Himmler reports of an announcement made by Hitler at a secret meeting of 50 Nazi Party loyalists on December 12, 1941, that he did, indeed, made the personal decision to put to death German and all other European Jews under Nazi occupation.
Looking at the date of this announcement, one could indeed come to the conclusion that the Mufti's meeting with Hitler the previous month could have played a determining role in Hitler's decision. However, Gerlach himself argues that it was mostly the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, that touched off Hitler's decision, while other historians believe that Himmler's remarks could have alluded to the way Hitler wanted to publicly depict the systematic killing of Jews, implying that the decision to exterminate was taken much earlier.
When looking at other evidence, it's highly unlikely that the decision to exterminate Jews as a general policy was only taken as late as December 1941.
In 1996 the researcher Breitman disclosed newly discovered documents from the National Archives showing that, as early as July 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, Jews were being systematically massacred, which could suggest that the decision to embark on the holocaust was already made at that time or earlier.
Against that, though, Gerlach argues that the behavior of German authorities toward Jews in occupied countries was uneven, suggesting that there was -- at that time -- no master plan. In his opinion "a general order for the murder of German Jews had not yet been made", even though thousands of German Jews had already been deported to concentration camps in eastern Europe, some had been killed and Soviet Jews were already being methodically massacred.
Thus, historians are still arguing on how to interpret Himmler's notes of the December 1941 meeting.
Read more on this at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hitgen.htm .
Another - although highly controversial - source, namely Himmler's masseur Felix Kersten, relates that Himmler got the order for the systematic extermination of Jews from Hitler "immediately after the capitulation of France" (on June 22, 1940), and even that Himmler explicitly blamed Goebbels as the person who had made Hitler take the decision...
However, it's not really necessary to look at what was said or decided at secret meetings or massage sessions. Already on January 30, 1939, before the outbreak of WW2, Hitler made a public speech at the Reichstag in which he "prophesied" that a new world war would mean "the annihilation of all Europe's Jews", not just those in the Soviet Union...:
"...If the international financial Jewry in or outside Europe should succeed once more to throw the nations into a world war, then the result would not be the Bolshevization of the world and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!..."
And afterwards he repeated this "prophecy" many times, even in a radio-broadcasted speech on January 30, 1941.
Another public proof of the Nazi's decision can be found in the hideous propaganda film called "The Eternal Jew" ("Der ewige Jude"), which was produced between October 4, 1939, and September 3, 1940 (with some extra edited versions in 1941), under Goebbels' and Hitler's supervision. Its first public screening was on November 28, 1940. The film basically does everything it can to convince the viewer that Jews are the "scum of the earth". According with Hitler demands it was intended to be the final public legitimation of anti-Jewish measures.
The final version of the film can only be interpreted as a deliberate call for annihilation. This is particularly obvious during a section of cross-cutting between scenes of ritual slaughter of cows, calves and sheep and a (re-cut) version of Hitler's notorious speech in the Reichstag - named above - where he talked of the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". The ritual slaughter scenes were particularly cruel but may possibly have been staged (although this is not certain) and it was presented as cruelty to animals, and as the visual proof of Jewish "inhumanity", thus legitimizing their annihilation as proposed by Hitler's speech.
It's remarkable to see how the Jewish practice of ritual sacrifice that was instigated by the Reptilian Anunnaki "God(s)" turned against the Jews, as it seems that it was a private projection to Hitler of the images of the ritual sacrifices - filmed under Goebbels' supervision - that provoked a particularly fierce reaction of disgust and anger from Hitler, who was a vegetarian...
The main responsibility for the film definitely lies with Joseph Goebbels. It can even be said that, in a way, when Goebbels made the film, it was primarily in order to regain Hitler's confidence after some personal setbacks and to convince the "Führer" of the necessity to take the final decision to kill the Jews - and, seeing the remarks (above) of Himmler's masseur (whose remarks are pretty well confirmed by the history of producing the film), he succeeded at this. By endorsing the picture, Hitler endorsed the main idea it advanced: genocide of the Jews.
Read more about this picture at
http://holocaust-info.dk/shm/yale.htm (This article also takes a close look at when possibly Hitler might have taken his decision on the genocide).
So, in conclusion, it's definitely highly misleading and manipulative to state that it was the Palestinian Great Mufti who convinced Hitler and the Nazis to exterminate the Jews. When the Mufti met Hitler in 1941 the extermination had already started, and the plans for it were made public years earlier. In fact, the Zionists in all probability have been more responsible for the realization of the Holocaust - or more precisely said: for making it possible - than the Mufti or any other Palestinian, as will be shown in the next section.
On the other hand, when in 1941 the Mufti met Hitler, it's very possible that the Mufti asked Hitler and the Nazis to extend their genocide program to Palestine and the rest of the Arab world, but this hasn't been proven conclusively by testimony or anything else.
It may also be that the Mufti's mere insistence on a solution for the problem he had with the Zionists may have been one of several triggers for the Nazis to turn their tragic "final" solution (that had already begun) into a general order, or to step thing up, but this doesn't mean it was the Mufti who proposed it... Even the fact that he visited Auschwitz incognito can't change anything about this, although it doesn't plead in his favor...
Besides the facts mentioned, after WW2 another fact came haunting the Mufti. In 1945, after he was captured by the French, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Zionists from Cairo and later Beirut.
The problem for today's PLO is that the Mufti was an uncle of Yasser Arafat (whose full name is Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini), and the facts discussed above are apparently yet all the more reasons why the Israelis profoundly hate the guy and his organization.
But it should be noted that, as is always the case with political leaders and has been discussed, many Palestinians disapproved of the Mufti and his chosen line of action. And it can be neither said nor proven that someone like Arafat approves of the ways his uncle attempted to hold off the immigration of Jews to Palestine and their subsequent colonization or the region. Even though Arafat has repeatedly stated that he sees it as an honor to have been given the Palestinian leadership after the Great Mufti, I bet if you'd ask him, he probably would resolutely reject the actions of his uncle. But then, diplomacy obliges...
Although biased in a highly anti-Palestinian way, some interesting details about the Mufti not mentioned here can be found at http://notendur.centrum.is/~snorrigb/muftism.htm
Back to the top.
The Zionists, the Nazis and the other extremists of the world.
Not only the Mufti and his followers, but even the Zionists themselves tried to use the Nazis to their own benefits, of which one example is the "Ha'avara" or "Transfer" agreement mentioned earlier.
Thanks to this agreement some German Jews were allowed to come to Palestine and thus, their lives were saved. But this was basically just icing on a cake that consisted in the first place of financial and business interests. Therefore, it may well be said that this agreement constitutes one of the darkest chapters in Zionist history.
The first steps that would eventually lead to the "Ha'avara Abkommen" agreement were made in 1933, when immediately after Hitler came to power, a certain Sam Cohen, owner of a Jewish-Palestinian export company called Ha Note ltd., approached the German ministry of economical affairs with the proposal to advance the creation of a Jewish state thanks to a certain business construction.
As mentioned in the previous section, the Nazis were actually Zionists in this period, however strange this may seem. Before Hitler came to power, this Cohen had tried to do the same proposal, to the chancellor Heinrich Bruning, but he rejected it out of hand. Now, with the Nazis, after some hesitation, his ideas were welcomed. Not only did the proposal offered advantages to all parties, they knew that they would never have to fear the Zionists resisting ANY of the Nazi's anti-Jewish measures, at least not as long as the Zionists were controled by the people they were talking with... If this wouldn't have been the case, obviously, they would never have participated in helping to build up a concentration of Jewish power in the Middle East and risk it turn against them.
The proposal came at a time where the anti-Jewish acts in Germany reached the point where this resulted in a world-wide anti-German boycott in solidarity with the Jews. That boycott was initiated by an international gathering of Jews at a conference in Amsterdam in 1933 when the Germans wouldn't satisfy certain demands they formulated. So, what Cohen - and the Zionists associated with him - did was nothing less than breaking that same boycott by offering the Germans to trade through them!
The deal was that money from German Jews could be sent to Palestine in the form of goods, while this would finance imports to Germany through Palestine. Thus, after Cohen's proposal was accepted 1,000,000 Reich Mark (about $400,000) of money from Jewish businessmen was transferred to Palestine, in the form of agricultural machinery. Once the goods arrived in Palestine, the ZO - that was desperately looking for funds - took care of things, selling the machinery, and then used the funds for various purposes, like buying more land.
At a later occasion, a barter agreement was added which consisted of exchanging Palestinian oranges (exported by Cohen's company) for German timber, automobiles, agricultural machinery, and other goods.
The construction invented by Cohen was the fundament of the "Ha'avara Abkommen"/"Transfer" agreement which was created subsequently. The only difference was that instead of using financing by Jewish businessmen, now they used the money of any German Jew who was interested.
The deal then was that it was made possible to immigrate to Palestine, while bringing along most of ones capital. Seeing that for Jews it was very difficult to leave Germany without having to abandon all ones possessions, at least with this construction, they could sell all of it, have the money deposited in a bank that was specially created for this purpose, immigrate to Palestine, and once they were there get most of the money back after the goods bought with their money in Germany were sold in Palestine. The Germans received a "tax" for the procedure, and of course it got higher and higher with time. By 1938 the average traveller was losing at least 30 per cent and even 50 per cent of his money, but this was still better than losing all.
As an extra advantage, this construction allowed them to meet one of the criteria for obtaining a certificate of immigration from the British authorities, who from 1939 to 1945 had made immigration of Jews to Palestine illegal. Obviously, only Jews with money could profit from this deal, although because the top limit for the Ha’avara scheme was 50,000 marks ($20,000) per emigrant, the procedure was unattractive to the richest Jews.
One major financial player involved in the Ha'avara financial transactions was Max Warburg, bank owner and a descendant of the "black nobility" bloodline, in other words: a major Illuminati member.
Some Zionists will say that the main object for the agreement was getting Jews out of Germany to Palestine, but as shown, the initiative for the agreement was purely to economically advance the Zionist state, and its main objective was simply making a profit and buying more land in Palestine, thus gaining more control. All in all, during the entire time the agreement existed, under the agreement $40,419,000 went to Palestine, whereas the same organization transferred $650 million to the USA, $60 million to the United Kingdom and other substantial sums elsewhere.
In reality, only a limited number of Jews got saved through it, about 10% of the German Jewish population. Had the Zionists dedicated themselves to it, many, many more Jews could have been saved...
Does this observation mean that I would have favored the immigration of great numbers of Jews to Palestine during the period 1933-1945?... ABSOLUTELY! You just don't slam the door on someone who's going to be killed just because of belonging to a group with a certain religious faith. You just don't do that... Yet this is precisely what countries like Britain, the USA and Canada did! And these were also very good candidates for receiving Jewish refugees, while it seems that it were precisely Zionist lobbies who actively tried to stop any efforts to change immigration laws in these countries...
As a matter of fact, many of the Jewish refugees didn't particularly favor Zionism or going to Palestine. But many simply didn't have a better option.
And, after all, it's not in particular the bulk of Jewish immigrants who created problems with the Palestinians, it were (and still are) the directions and leadership given by the (W)ZO, the Rothschilds, certain Rabbis, individuals and small groups of ultra-Zionist people on one hand, and the manipulations of the British government on the other hand that are at the basis of the problems in Palestine.
If all this wouldn't have been the case, today there would probably have been a democratic Arab Government with a Jewish representation, in a secular state. Remember, most people are followers, if their leaders wouldn't be such sharks, neither would their followers...
Some people say that had the Zionists not made the Ha'avara agreement with the Nazis, the world-wide boycott would have been successful and by 1939, when the Ha'avara agreement ended, Germany would probably have been on its knees, and not have pursued the Holocaust.
This may be true on a practical level, as it may well be that had the boycott not been broken by the Zionists, the Germans would have lacked enough food to sustain the effort necessary for the realization of their diabolical plans...
On the economical side however, seeing the incredible secret funding of Germany by the Illuminati that was going on before and during WW2, the boycott would have made no great difference. Germany received funds and means from many major multinationals like USA's Standard Oil, the Rockefeller banks, several arms manufacturers like the DuPonts, the Morgan company, British banks like those of the Rothschilds and the Russian government. The Nazis didn't lack funds, oil or other goods, but as they could have lacked some food, they must surely have appreciated the oranges...
Breaking the boycott remained a highly cynical act, as was the case for the refusal to support the boycott by Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Committee, the B’nai B’rith (Sons of the Covenant) fraternal/freemasonry order and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. On the other hand, due to their extremely close ties with the Illuminati Brotherhood, all these organizations may well have acted on instructions of Illuminati personalities who knew the agenda, and were planning a war, in which case a boycott was simply unwelcome.
Thanks to the fact that the Zionists broke the boycott, one German company who did extensively business with the Palestinian Jews was IG Farben, which delivered the dying colors for the Zionist textile industry. IG Farben played a major role in WW2. Amongst other, it produced the infamous Zyklon-B, used in the concentration-camp gas-chambers...
It seems that it's particularly the business with IG Farben that was responsible for the economic strength and industrial capacity the Zionists managed to obtain during WW2, which gave them a serious edge over the Palestinians after the war. IG Farben was controlled by the Rothschilds, and its American branch had Paul Warburg - brother of Max - on its board of directors.
Thus, even if they couldn't have known in advance what the anti-Jewish measures of the Nazis would eventually lead to, the Ha'avara agreement was truly a pact with the Devil... Some Zionists like Wladimir Jabotinsky probably must have fore felt something like this, as - although a "hardliner" - he and his followers refused categorically to have any dealings with the Nazis, and they were responsible for killing the head of the Jewish Agency, Chaim Arlosoroff, who succeeded Sam Cohen as negotiator for the Ha'avara agreement. The result of the killing was simply that someone else replaced Arlosoroff to do the job...
During WW2, Zionists always placed the interests of Palestine ahead of fighting the anti-Jewish events in Europe. While thousands of Jews endured, resisted or fled the Nazis, yet even at the Holocaust's height, Jewish Agency leaders and settler leaders in Palestine offered little help. In 1943, Ben-Gurion (who later would become Israel's Prime Minister) said: "... The disaster facing European Jewry is not directly my business. ...".
The reality is that Zionist leaders believed the fight in Europe diverted them from their main task: building the Jewish state in Palestine. The chairman of the Jewish Agency's committee refused to divert Jewish Agency funds from Palestine into rescuing Europe's Jews. In 1943, a leader of the Jewish Agency, Yitzhak Gruenbaum, said: "... They will say that I am anti-Semitic, that I don't want to save the Exile, that I don't have a warm Jewish heart. Let them say what they want. I will not demand that the Jewish Agency allocates a sum of 300,000 or 100,000 pounds sterling to help European Jewry. And I think that whoever demands such things is performing an anti-Zionist act. ...".
During WW2, the Agency spent far more money to acquire land in Palestine than to mount rescues.
What guided Zionist leaders was preserving the "remnant of Jewry" for transfer to Palestine, rather than saving the Jews. Ben-Gurion opposed a plan to allow German Jewish children to emigrate to Britain in 1938. To justify himself, Ben-Gurion said: "... 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 to [Israel], 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. ...".
But not only were the Zionists ready to sacrifice 1 of every 2 children if only this would mean they would come to Palestine, in their view it was better to have a select group of "productive" Jews come to Palestine, than have ALL Jews come there, amongst whom non-prominent elderly Jews, the uneducated, the weak, the sick, a.s.o., which could have tampered the process of colonization.
It is in this light that the case of Dr. Rudolph Kastner case and the Hungarian Jews must be seen. Representing the Zionists, Kastner made a deal directly with Eichmann, of which the consequence was that hundreds of thousands of Jews were sacrificed, while a few hundred prominent or young and energetic Jews were sent to Palestine. The deal consisted of the fact that while the Zionists knew that the Hungarian Jews would be gazed, in return for the Zionist's silence and betrayal a few hundred Jews of their choice were spared. Had Kastner and his associates not remained silent, thousands of Jews could have escaped their tragic end...
The fundamental reason for this betrayal was the Zionist's principle of selection of the "fittest". For this same reason Zionists were basically not in favor of unfit Jews escaping the holocaust, something that can be easier understood when seen in the light of the Jewish religion, which at its origins is based on worship through blood-sacrifices, they be sacrifices of animals or humans (see a previous section).
It was this cynical approach that also led to many plans of the allies to save Jews being torpedoed by Zionist factions in Britain as well as the USA. This was the case with immigration and asylum laws, but also for plans like bombing concentration camps or the railroads to them, which could have be done easily. One well aimed bomb on the gazchamber complex of Auschwitz would have meant several months of delay in killing Jews at the rate of several thousands per day. One bomb could therefore have saved hundred thousands of lives...
But perhaps most shocking of all is that besides that the Zionists willingly sacrificed Jewish lives to their own advantage, they were also ready to sacrifice those of the allies...
Another example of how the Zionists tried to benefit from the Nazis can be found in the fact that in the 1930's, the Zionist militia, the "Haganah" - who were carrying out terrorist actions against the British because of the fact that the Zionist demands were not met - negotiated for support against the British from the German SS itself!
The collaboration that was brought about resulted in deliveries of massive quantities of high-powered German assault weapons, which were also used of course against Palestinian Arabs.
For a period in the late 1930s, the Nazis even allowed Haganah agent Faviel Polkes to set up recruiting and training camps inside Germany. The ties between the SS and Polkes were so important that for a period of time, Polkes' sole income came from secret funds from the SS...
In 1937, at a secret meeting in Haifa, it seems that Polkes told the SS-er Adolph Eichmann that "... Jewish nationalist circles are very pleased with the radical German policy, since the strength of the Jewish population would be so far increased ..." and overwhelm the Palestinians...
By the way, Israel's present Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, joined the Haganah at the age of 14, in 1942. It's not a great mystery from where he got his admiration for the Nazis (see his quote in the previous section)...
Today, Zionists like to present things as if the Haganah was simply a "sweet" brigade of people who simply "defended" themselves against the Palestinian Arabs (there we go again with the "just defending ourselves" line...) and that they only started to actively resist the British at the end of WW2 due to their "anti-Zionist policy". But stories like that of Polkes clearly prove otherwise.
Interestingly, during the thirties, the Haganah formed a sort of quasi-police force for the British, more particularly providing cover for the armed Zionist presence that was encouraged by the British who trained the Haganah for military style operations. From the end of the 1930s until the end of WW2, they were even cooperating with British secret services, yet they were also carrying out actions AGAINST British interests!
The reason for the cooperation with the British secret services was in the first place to combine efforts against the Nazis, but for years during this cooperation, the Haganah was working with these same Nazis! A remarkable story that would be great for a good thriller...
Eventually, after in 1947 Ben Gurion (later to become Israel's Prime Minister) got involved with the organization, in 1948 the Haganah became Israel's official military organization... That's why today's Israeli army, is called Zeva Haganah Le-Yisrael, or simply ZHAL.
Another Zionist terrorist organization that sought to associate itself with the Nazis was the Stern Gang. However, they had less "luck" than the Haganah, and - like the Mufti, see previous section - had to turn to Mussolini for support.
The Zionists even proposed to the Nazis a formal military pact! This has been discovered from a document found after the war amongst the files of the German Embassy in Turkey. Through this so called "Ankara document", on January 11, 1941 the Zionists formally offered to actively take part in the war on Germany's side under the condition that their aspirations for their Zionist state would be guaranteed.
It's not really clear what happened exactly with this offer from the Zionists besides the fact that the same year the proposal was made the order for the extermination of Jews was turned into a general order and that the Nazis around that time propbably chose to cut their military and economical ties with the Zionists, as shown by the fact that about 1,5 year earlier they already discontinued the Ha'avera agreement. But had the Nazis agreed with the proposal, this would have effectively and unequivocally made the Zionists an enemy of the allies, while this also means they would have actively prolonged the holocaust...
We can see from the course of history, that things didn't go exactly as the Zionists seemed to have hoped, but they easily adapted to the change in odds and NWO agenda...
Nevertheless, seeing that since the Ankara proposal nothing has changed about the Zionist power structure nor their philosophy and that they never formally proposed such an agreement to the West, while they have developped nuclear arms yet never recognised this or signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which prevents the use of nuclear arms in a 1st strike attack, the West should seriously question who it thinks it is associating with... As an indicator: Israel is the country that has broken the most UN-resolutions in the world. If it already refuses to satisfy resolutions that would simply ease up the iron grip the Israelis keep on the Palestinians, what would the Israelis do in international matters when they feel too much of their interests are at stake, even when the West issues a reasonable demand?
The examples given above of Zionist and Nazi collaboration and other forms of betrayal are far from being the only ones, but they are amongst the most disconcerting. It's particularly telling that time after time, Zionists have proven to readily sacrifice the lives of Jews as well as non-Jews, if only the Zionist case would be strengthened by it.
Read more on the Ha'avara agreement and the anti-nazi boycott at
Read more on Zionism and the Holocaust in an article from which some of the above info is quoted, by Lance Selfa at http://www.isreview.org/issues/04/zionism_false_messiah.shtml (halfway the article)
The founder of the WZO, Theodore Herzl, also didn't relinquish associating with extreme-right anti-Jewish entities and personalities. The main reason for this was that he was of the opinion that by STIMULATING anti-Jewish behavior, this would cause Jews to wish immigrating to Palestine... That's why f.i. he endorsed the election of the renowned Jew-hater Karl Lueger for mayor of Vienna. Without Herzl's endorsement, this man would probably not have been elected, as (even) the Habsburgs blocked his election up to 2 times, being afraid of problems, particularly with a great number of Jews that were found in the higher hierarchy of the Prussian army. It seems that Herzl assured the Austrian Prime Minister they would have no problems. Lueger's victory was the first victory obtained by an anti-Jewish political party in Europe...
In his diary, Herzl wrote about how anti-Jewish behavior could benefit the Zionist enterprise:
"The anti-Semites will become our most loyal friends, the anti-Semite's nations will become our allies..."
(From "One Palestine Complete", by Tom Segev, p. 47).
The reason why people like Herzl and other Zionists chose to associate with extremist anti-Jewish-right-wingers was not only strategical. It was indeed also because of ideological reasons. They found European Jews to have grown into "weak, lowlife creatures", basically because they were not living in their own land! An example of how Zionist-Jews thought about the degeneration of Jews is illustrated by the following quote from the youth magazine "Weltanschauung" from the Zionist youth organization "Hashomer Hatzair":
"The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both physically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligations, knows no order nor discipline."
Such a statement could well make the most fanatic Nazi blush!
Some Zionists thought that if only Jews could live in their own land, they would become "Superhumans", pretty much like the Nazi's "Ubermensch". It's almost unbelievable - that is, if we wouldn't know better - but the founders of the WZO actually dreamt of a "new kind of Jew" who would have blond hair and blue eyes!
Of course, when you realize that all Caucasian Jews are Aryan, and understand where people like the Rothschilds and the Illuminati are coming from, this doesn't really come as a surprise.
Once the state of Israel was created, the strategical reason for endorsing anti-Jewish regimes in order to scare Jews to Palestine fell away.
However, the fact is that after WW2 as a general rule Israel has always sought association with the most extremist fascist anti-democratic regimes and organizations this earth has know. These include the regimes of Chili's Pinochet, Guatemala, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, the dictator Somoza, Idi Amin Dada, South Africa's "apartheid" regime (to whom they sold nuclear arms), and China.
In the first place, these associations were sought for the economic benefit of Israel. But, in light of the bigger picture, one may well conclude that in many cases Israel does the dirty work for the Illuminati Brotherhood, making associations no democratic government in the world would be able to defend to its constituents.
Indeed, Israel has much in common with the extremist countries it associates with. It is very much one big army, headed by army figures. Nothing can happen in Israel without the military knowing about it or controlling it. Most of what is publicised in the Israeli media has previously been approved by the army. Almost all Prime Ministers of Israel have held very high positions in the Israeli army, and in many cases, ex-military men get the best jobs, with the consequence that quite a few companies have crashed due to incompetent management...
Is it any wonder that trying to negotiate a lasting peace with such a violence based group of people seems almost an impossible mission?...
Back to the top.
The Mufti's attempts for a peaceful solution.
Now let's pick up again the thread of the Palestine conflict.
Before turning to the Nazis for help in the 1940s, in 1930 the Mufti had a delegation travel to London in order to find a solution for the problems in the Palestinian region that grew more severe by the day. His arguments were backed by the British's so called "Shaw report" and the "white paper" that was attached to it. These advised to simply limit the sale of land as well as the immigration of Jews. For a while, the British Government followed the advice of the reports, and enforced the restrictions.
Although the Shaw report may have looked like a good solution to some, personally I don't think this type of solution could ever have worked or ever will work for creating a lasting peace. First of all, I'm totally against restricting immigration laws, they be for Jews immigrating to Israel, for Arabs immigrating to the European Union, Europeans and Mexicans immigrating to the USA, Americans to Europe, or other. There is not a single human on this planet who has not some ancestor who was an immigrant. So I think it's scandalous to prohibit people going where they wish to. On the other hand, it's reasonable to demand from immigrants to respect those living in the region they are immigrating to a certain degree of assimilation. The latter is where the Zionist settlers lacked shamefully much, besides the fact that the WZO never intended to integrate with the original population at all, but had as its aim pure unadalterated colonization.
When the British applied the Shaw recommendations, a few weeks of heavy pressure of the Zionist lobby on the Government as well as the media, were enough to have the British government in 1931 go straight against the Shaw advice, and they even created a committee that would represent the Palestinian Jews and their interests, this without creating such a committee for the non-Jewish Palestinians... By that time the Shaw advice definitely belonged to the past, and in 1935 thanks to this Palestinian-Jews committee a proposal got killed that would have enabled the creation of an Arab/Jewish law creating assembly (like the British House of Commons or the USA's House of Representatives).
Rejecting this proposal, clearly shows to what extend the Zionists were not interested in a solution that would be equitable to the Palestinians. Seeing that they were out to colonize the region, the rejection can be understood. Essentially, what they said was: "no, no, we're not going to share..., we want it all!". Time and time again, Zionists have made an equitable peaceful solution impossible. That's why as long as they will go on with the same mentality they will most likely never be completely at peace...
In 1930 another "white paper" was created, called the "Passfield White Paper". This merely determined that the problems in Palestine were caused by the fact that Arabs in Palestine were being subjected to discriminatory labor practices and therefore it recommended that those labor practices be abolished to promote better Jewish-Arab relations. The writers of this report were as perceptive of the real causes of Zionist-Palestinian tension as a blind duck... That's probably why some Zionists like to mention this report so much, instead of (or while minimizing the importance of) the Shaw report, and the conclusion that must be drawn from it: the Zionist's lack of wanting to integrate peacefully.
Back to the top.
The Israeli military occupation.
During the years 1936-1939 there was a 2nd great Palestinian/Arab revolt, which was again repressed with great violence. Had the Mufti and other leaders been able to unify the Palestinians, instead of fighting each other, and had the British not integrated the Israeli terrorist-police forces into their ranks (armed and trained by the British, and financed by the Rothschilds et al), and last but not least, had the surrounding Arab regimes not withheld their support (just like is the case today) in fear of losing the support of the British colonialists, the Palestinians could well have gained control of the situation, seeing their numeric superiority...
Although after 3 years the revolt was crushed, it meant that now the spiral of violence REALLY got started although there was a pause in 1939 (just before WW2) when an agreement was reached based on promises made by the British (again) to limit the numbers of Jewish immigrants and the creation of a federal state where both the Palestinians and Jews would be able to live. Obviously, with time passing by, these promises were never kept, not in the last place because the Zionists would always make sure to postpone the date for the creation of the promised federal state...
In 1936 the British sent a Royal Commission to Palestine, charged with determining the cause of the riots. It was headed by Lord Earl Peel, former Secretary of State for India. In 1937 they proposed partitioning of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, which was the first time such a division plan was proposed. It meant that for the first time the British openly proposed to the Palestinians the creation of a separate Jewish state, which made it clear that any promises made earlier would not be kept - at least not completely. The plan was rejected by both sides for the same reasons as the UN proposal made later in 1947 (more on that below), although the Zionists where somewhat interested in accepting it because up to then it was the closest they ever got to getting their own state. It should be noted that the plan offered more land to the Arabs than the UN nation proposal later. See the map of the Peel plan at
In order to temper the Palestinian's dismay and to avert the growing Arab opposition to British rule both within Palestine (the Arab Revolt association had been renewed) and beyond, in the fall of 1938 the Woodhead Commission published a report wherein the conclusion was reached that partition was not practical.
One of the implications of the outbreak of WW2 was that the Zionist lobby now had again a powerful argument/pretext to (seemingly) force the British to satisfy their demands. Indeed, during the London Crown Conference (also known as the St. James Conference or the Round Table Conference) of January/March 1939, which was called in order to bring Jews and Arabs together, the English confessed to the Arab delegates that they could no longer support Arab statehood as this would offend the Zionist dominated Roosevelt administration whose support for British war aims against Hitler was essential... This meant that although Palestine was not yet a Zionist state, at least it wouldn't become Palestinian.
During WW2, the amounts of Jewish immigrants skyrocketed. Typically, the governments of countries like England, the USA and Canada, all made it as much they could impossible for Jews to immigrate to these countries. On top of that, someone like Churchill demanded from the USA and Canada that the German Jews already living there be encouraged to go live in Israel.
In an earlier section it has been discussed how the Haganah worked with the SS to attain their goals. Some members of this Haganah organization left in 1937 because they thought it practiced "too much restraint", especially towards the Arab Palestinians. So they created the "Irgun Z'vai Leumi" (also called ETZEL), which would become notorious for its terrorist actions against Arab-Palestinian as well as British targets.
One of its members was Menachem Begin, who headed the organization in 1943, during its most active period, and who'd later also become Israel's Prime Minister. Decidedly, Israelis have a taste for terrorist Prime Ministers (remember, Ben Gurion and Ariel Sharon were both members of the Haganah)...
After the declaration of the state of Israel, the Irgun Z'vai Leumi was disbanded while its members were fully integrated into the army (the Haganah organization) of the new state...
In 1939, one of Irgun Z'vai Leumi's commanding officers, Abraham Stern, left the parent organization and formed the Stern Gang (also called Lohamei Herut Yisrael or Lehi), which would soon number some 200 to 300 extremely dangerous fanatics. Like the Haganah, Stern also sought to associate with the Nazis, and even turned to the Italians when possibilities for cooperation with the German Nazis looked small.
After Stern got shot by the British in 1942, the new head of the Stern Gang was Yitzhak Shamir, another terrorist Prime Minister... In the LEHI bulletin of summer 1943 he wrote: "Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat."... (quoted in Facts and Fables, by Gliffor A. Wright, p.46.). I'd say that's a convinced terrorist, indeed...
In 1944 the Haganah, the Irgun Z'vai Leumi and the Stern Gang, stepped up their terrorist actions to drive the British out of Palestine. At the end of January of that year, the Irgun Z'vai Leumi broadcasted their "Proclamation of the Revolt" over the Irgun's clandestine radio station. The many bloody actions of the Irgun included assassinating the British High Commissioner in Egypt, killing the UN mediator from Sweden, dynamiting the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, and many other actions. The Stern gang was
responsible for the shocking murder of Count Bernadotte (who, as a neutral diplomat in WW2, had saved thousands of Jews from Nazi death camps...).
All in all, the Irgun, the Haganah as well as the Stern Gang were responsible for blowing up many buildings (like post-offices) or other places (like railway stations or marketplaces), attacking airfields and radar stations, armories and military posts, wrecking railway lines and even bank hold-ups... In most of these cases many, many innocent civilians died...
Today, if Israelis talk about these organizations who all merged into the Israeli army, they like to call them "fighters" instead of "terrorists". Well, they probably should. But they conveniently forget that the actions of these organizations were nothing less horrible than f.i. those of today's suicide bombers, while they were carried out on a scale that is incomparable with today's Palestinian fighters...
Seeing that the Israeli army was basically founded by fanatic terrorist organizations, the strategy they deploy today causing sheer terror amongst the Palestinian civilians can come as no surprise.
It must also be pointed out that the Zionist terrorist organizations were only able to carry out their attacks thanks to the vast support of the Israeli population as a whole as well as Zionists all over the world. There are streets named after the assassins of Moyne and Bernadotte...
Read more on Zionist terrorism of this period at
After WW2, around 1946, the British gave the Palestine mandate (which was a "mandatary power" given to them in 1922 by the League of Nations, legalizing England's colonizer's past) to the UN which had just (officially) been created, because the British found the case becoming "too complicated"... The reality behind it though, is that for the British, the price in British lives and funds for keeping the Palestinian mandate, simply became too high...
After this, on November 29, 1947, the UN proposed in 1947 the borders for 2 independent states: Palestine and Israel. See the map of this proposal at: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/mapstellstory.html
One of the reasons why the UN received enough support at all for proposing a territory for the Zionist state that comprised some 54% of Palestine, even though the Zionists formed only 31% of the population (630,000 Zionists for 1,300,000 Arabs), was that most people felt it was necessary considering the holocaust of WW2 (although really, that idea is quite silly, I mean, why not then also create a Gypsie, Homosexual or a - for the - mentally retarded state, to name but a few of the groups of people that the Nazis tried to exterminate?). But this proposal and the way it had the region divided was resolutely dismissed by the Palestinians as well as all Arab countries. Neither did the Israelis like it. The Palestinians felt robbed (they wished a territory according to the promises of McMahon, see above), while the Israelis wanted more...
As mentioned earlier, it was the ambition of the founder of the WZO, Theodore Herzl, to occupy ALL the territory described in the OT (see above), which in his view included ALL of Palestine, ALL of Jordan, ALL of Lebanon, 2/3rds of Syria, half of Iraq, part of Egypt (including Cairo) and about 1/3rd of Saudi Arabia (while depending on the interpretation the OT can be said to also include the rest of the Arab peninsula).
Other Zionist leaders have never made a secret of their plan to occupy ALL of Palestine, including the complete expulsion of the Palestinians. In as early as 1937 Israel's future Prime Minister Ben Gurion made it clear during several speeches as well as in his written correspondence to his son that his goal was to conquer ALL of Palestine, as well as neighboring regions. In 1938, he told the World Council of Poale Zion in Tel Aviv: "The boundaries of Zionist aspiration, include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan [West Bank] and the Sinai.".
In light of the above, it must therefore be concluded that any negotiations for "peace" from the side of the Israelis has to be seen as attempts to calm the situation down such as to facilitate the unfolding of their colonialist plans, and definitely NOT for offering a truly peaceful solution. History has clearly shown this to be the case, although as it happens in these manipulative games, some negotiators may have been or will be sincere. Considering their history, if ever the Zionists wish to be credible at peace negotiations, they will have to make a truly great gesture indeed...
For the sake of clarity, it's important to look attentively at what happened immediately after the UN made their proposal for partition.
On November 30th, the day after the new UN proposal was presented, the Haganah calls up all Jews and non-practicing descendants of Jews in Palestine aged 17-25 to register for military service. During the month of December the Haganah launches the so called "Plan Gimmel", designed to destabilize Palestinian population and occupy strategic positions in the country. This consists of killing Palestinians - most of whom innocent civilians - and bombing places...
Meanwhile the Arab League organizes the Arab Liberation Army (ALA), a voluntary force of Arabs, lead by Fawzi al-Qawuqji, to help Palestinians resist partition.
On December 2nd, the Palestinians who rightly not only feel duped by the Zionist organizations and harassed by the numerous terrorist attacks, but also see their land being given away, declare a protest strike. Many riots break out.
On December 5th, the USA announces an embargo on arms shipments to Palestine and Arab states. However, for the Zionists the effects of this are negligible, considering the fact that they are already well armed and manage to conclude an arms deal with Czechoslovakia in the following month.
On December 8th, Britain recommends to the UN that the Palestine Mandate be terminated on May 15, 1948, and that independent Jewish and Palestinian states be established two weeks later.
The following days the Arab League formally declares partition of Palestine illegal and it resolves to provide 10,000 rifles, 3,000 volunteer (including 500 Palestinians) and additionally 1,000,000 pounds.
On December 15, the British turn policing of Tel Aviv and Petah Tikva over to Jews and that of Jaffa to Palestinians. In other words, they are implementing the UN proposal without all parties involved agreeing to this. That same day, in the Arab village of Yehiday, nearby Petah Tikva (which just came under Zionist authority), Jewish terrorists arriving in British Army patrol cars spray bullets into a Palestinian crowd gathered in the coffee house. 7 Palestinian civilians die, and many are wounded.
On December 19, the Haganah attacks the village of Khisas (on the Lebanese Syrian border) killing ten Palestinians civilians, mostly women and children. The following day they attack the city of Qazaza where five Palestinian children are murdered in cold blood when Jewish terrorists blow up the house of the village Mukhtar (Alderman).
On January 1st, 1948, in the night of new year's eve, around two hundred Haganah terrorists armed with hand grenades and machine guns sneak into the small village of Al-Sheikh (5km South East of Haifa). They attack the houses on the edges of the village with hand grenades and round things off with their machine guns, killing over 40 Palestinians, all mere civilians...
As it becomes clear from the facts mentioned above, while after the UN proposal the Palestinians were basically rioting which resulted in a certain number of Jews as well as Palestinians being killed, and while they were organizing their military capacity, the Haganah, Israel's future army, was already stepping up its MILITARY - TERRORIST interventions in areas where there were NO ACTIVE Palestinian militants. There were far more actions than those mentioned above.
So, finaly, on January 9, 1948, on their turn, some 1000 Arabs did their first large scale organized action and attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine, whereby 4 Israeli soldiers and two Palestinians were killed. The casualties seem to be pretty low, seeing the number of people involved. After this, other attacks by the Palestinians followed.
Meanwhile, the Haganah continued with all sorts of actions, mostly against mere civilians. They were explicitly aimed at chasing Palestinians out with military force or by psy-ops. One of the villages that was emptied by them of its Palestinian inhabitants was Qisariya, on February 15.
On April 3rd, the Haganah bundled forces with the other terrorist organizations, and launched "Operation Nahshon". The campaign that followed meant that (as good as) ALL the Palestinians were evicted from the areas the Zionists wanted to have by applying BRUTAL FORCE and many atrocities.
According to a former director of the Israeli army archives: "in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes...".
One of the worst crimes of the Nazis was their unbelievable cruelty towards Jewish children. The book and big-budget motion picture "Sophie's choice" - which is about a Jewish woman who escaped the Holocaust after escaping from a concentration camp - gives an example of this. Before boarding the train that would carry the main character Sophie to the camp, a German officer makes her choose which of her 2 children she wishes to bring along. Thinking that she will save the child she doesn't chooses, she gives the officer her new-born baby. The officer then violently smashes her baby's head against the train wagon to pieces, in front of its shocked mother...
Such unspeakable crimes were committed by the Nazis. And only a few years after them, such unspeakable crimes were committed by the Zionist-Jews themselves. Worse, they were committed for the same reasons: exterminating a people and cruelty.
During the Dawayma massacre of 29 October 1948, terrorist-soldiers of the Haganah, later ZAHL, i.e. Israel's official army, "killed between eighty to one hundred Arab men, women and children. To kill the children they [the soldiers] fractured their heads with sticks...". This is quoted from a soldier-terrorist with a conscious who participated in the horror. The Haganah troops were highly disciplined and such killings were part of the general orders. Obviously, it will take a long time before we will see a big-budget Hollywood picture about it...
Official Zionist history claims that the actions in April of the Haganah were its first "military response" to the organized attacks of the Palestinians in January of earlier that year, and of course the actions were a matter of "self defence"... In other words, they claim - and this you will see to be the case for every Zionist source - that the Palestinians on January 9th started the war that eventually led to the proclamation of the state of Israel. However, from the overview above of the months following the UN proposal, it's clear that this is a blatant lie, not to mention the fact that the Zionists wilfully let things escalate to this situation for more than half a century...
Nevertheless, it must be noted that typically, some Arabs DO claim that they started the war, as exemplified by Jamal Husseini, who told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:
"The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight...".
However, in light of the facts mentioned in this article, this can hardly be seen as the reality of things. It must be concluded that such a statement could only be made in an attempt to claim the "honor" of having taken the initiative, once the war was there...
On May 14th, 1948 the Zionists proclaimed the state of Israel by their own authority.
That day, the Israelis had STOLEN about 90% of the land they now proclaimed to be theirs. To see a map of the territory occupied by the Israelis at that moment, see:
http://i-cias.com/e.o/fpalswar.htm this map clearly shows how much territory the Israelis stole.
http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/invade.html a map of the final result.
Some Zionists like to point out that really, they didn't steal anything, or "practically nothing", since practically all the land they then occupied was so called "Crown land", meaning that it was "owned" by the British crown (while in reality, the British stole that land just as much as the Israelis after them did...).
However, besides this being completely untrue, it's also a real fallacy.
There are quite a few different figures circulating on the internet concerning who owned how much land. While most of the sources for them are quite unclear, one source should stand uncontested in this case: the Jewish National Fund (JNF).
The JNF, which in 1954 was incorporated into the Keren Kayemeth le-Yisrael, or "Perpetual Fund for Israel", was an organization established with the sole aim and role of buying land from the Arabs. Yet, in spite of these efforts, only a small percentage of land passed into Jewish hands, mostly by Arabs who at the time lived in neighboring Arab countries, such as Lebanon and other.
As quoted by Lehn and Davis, in "The Jewish National Fund", in its publication called "Jewish Villages in Israel" on page xxi the JNF describes the land ownership situation of 1949, after the armistice. Seeing that from 1948 to 1949 as good as no land was legitimately bought by Jews from Arabs, it can be seen as being completely representative of the situation of 1948. The JNF mentions that:
Of the entire area of the state of Israel only about 300,000 to 400,000 dunums [67,000-89,000 acres, about 2%] ... are state domain which the Israeli government took over from the Mandatory regime [the British Mandate, therefore this was the so called "Crown" land]. The J.N.F. (Jewish National Fund) and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunums [445,000 acres, i.e. about 10%]. Almost all the rest [i.e., 88% of the 20,225,000 dunums - 4,500,000 acres - within the 1949 armistice lines] belongs in law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country.
Thus, only 2% was so called "Crown land". And if the British would have kept their promises to the Palestinians according to the MacMahon negotiations, all "Crown land" would have been owned by the Palestinian government. Therefore, it's a fallacy to say it wasn't Palestinian, not to mention the fact that if anyone should own that land, it should be its original population, i.e. the Palestinians and a handful of original Jewish inhabitants.
Much of the 10% land owned by the Zionists was actually transferred to Zionist organizations by the British Government directly, and was not sold by Arab owners. Therefore, it can be said that the Zionists only legitimately owned some 6% of the Palestinian land...
Once the military occupation of Palestinian territory was a fact and the state of Israel was declared, the fact that the Zionists legally owned so little land was seen as something that had to be changed urgently. Therefore, in the years that followed, they designed law after law that enabled them to seize all the land they wanted from the Palestinians who were thus denied the most basic human rights. This is when the theft of Palestinian land really started and actually got legalized. More on this in a next section.
Some sources for the info above:
http://www.deiryassin.org/ on the Deir Yassin massacre of April 9, 1948, where some 250 civilians were killed.
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ch04.htm a chapter from Ralph Schoenman's "The Hidden History of Zionism" with some chilling accounts of the Deir Yassin and other massacres.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Haifa/al-Tantura/Story560.html on the Tantura massacre of May 23, 1948
http://www.palestineremembered.com/al-Ramla/al-Lydd/Story761.html on the biggest massacre of this period at al-Lydd and Ramleh, in April 1948.
http://resistance.jeeran.com/massacres/gallery.htm a large collection of pictures of Israeli massacres from the 1940s until today that clearly show the bestiality and cowardice of the Israelis. These pictures are very explicit, be warned.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story680.html on the looting and plundering by the Israelis.
It has to be noted that according to "official" Israeli history, the story sold is that especially in the period 1947-1948 the Palestinians left the region out of their own "free will". This is an outrageous lie, comparable to saying that Jews living in Germany during WW2 left there just because they "felt" like it... The truth is that close to 1,000,000 Palestinians fled the region to save their lives, and often out of sheer terror because of Israeli massacres and military violence in general.
The fact that the Zionists from the late 1930's onwards specifically decided to simply throw the Palestinians out, can be understood by the following quote from Ben-Gurion, where on July 12, 1937 commenting on the partition plan proposed by the British Peel Commission he wrote in his diary:
"THE COMPULSERY TRANSFER OF THE [PALESTINIAN] ARABS FROM THE VALLEYS OF THE PROPOSED JEWISH STATE could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is more than a state, government and sovereignty ---- this is national consolidation in a free homeland."
(Emphasis mine) Source: "Righteous Victims", p. 142, by Benny Morris.
Read a whole many more quotes concerning this "transfer" / deportation of Palestinians at
Israel's current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon too, during the intifada of 1987-1988, declared that the uprising "would lead inevitably to war with the Arab states and the necessary expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and the Galilee." (New York Times, April 1, 1988). How convenient...
A recent Gallup poll showed that presently 44% of all Jewish Israelis are in favour of what is the "transfer" of the Palestinians, which would come down to expelling about two million Palestinians across the River Jordan.
The day after the Zionists proclaimed the state of Israel, the Arab countries Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq decided to attack and recapture the Palestinian territory. However, this Arab operation achieved the opposite to what was desired as the net-result was that when finally in 1949 all parties agreed to an armistice, Israel controlled even more territory than before the operation...
In the mean time, on October 1st, 1948, in Gaza, Haj Amin al Hussaini, the Great Mufti of Jerusalem, and the Palestine National Council proclaimed Palestinian independence, adopting the old green, white, black and red banner of the Arab Revolt as the flag. On that moment the Gaza strip was occupied by the Egyptian army. Read more and see a map of the Gaza strip at
At the Jericho Conference of December 1948, Sheikh Mohamed Ali A'Abari who presided the conference proposed unifying the West Bank and Jordan. From then on the West Bank was under Jordan administration. This merging of the Palestinian people with Jordan was exactly along the line the Zionists always wanted, albeit their wishes didn't include ceding the West Bank region, which they view to belong to "Greater Israel". In fact, the merging of the Palestinian people into Jordan is only seen as a temporary fase by the Zionists, as in the long run they plan bringing Jordan under Israeli authority as well.
Until 1988, Israel's only negotiations concerning the Palestinian problem was with Jordan.
See a map of the West bank + Gaza strip at http://www.ramallah-city.org/wbmap.htm
Even if under Jordan authority, the Palestinians didn't renounce their own independent state and continued fighting for it. This led King Hussein of Jordan in 1970 to chase the PLO out of his land, in the process killing 5,000 to 10,000 Palestinians.
Back to the top.
Racism and the theft of land.
When the Zionists proclaimed the state of Israel in 1948, they occupied Palestinian land, but there was one problem for them: they didn't legally OWN it. So, that same year the brand-new government passed the so called "Land Law", which stipulated that any land not being actively cultivated for three years, was considered "neglected" ("matruk") and, upon the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, its ownership was passed on to another party.
The benefits of this procedure came from the criminal cooperation between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Israeli Military Administration. It allowed to seize all the lands of the Palestinians who fled the Zionist violence. The Palestinians who had not fled or had not been expelled during the 1948 war, but remained on their land within the Israeli state, were placed under administrative detention by the Israeli Military Administration. They were denied freedom of movement and were thus kept from cultivating their lands. These lands would later be declared "neglected" by the Ministry of Agriculture and would pass into Jewish ownership. Again, it's good to know Israelis stick by the "law"...
However, the "Land Law" didn't produce results fast enough, so in 1950 they adopted another law, the so called "Absentee Property Law". This law was part of a set of laws that also included the "Law of Return". The latter law defines who will qualify as actual or potential Israeli citizens and who will not, while the first decrees that the lands of those called "absentee" may be confiscated by the Israeli government.
The "Law of Return" states that "every Jew has the right to immigrate into the country" and become a full-blown Israeli citizens upon immigration into the country, with all the rights that come from this. It's a 100% racist law, if not THE most racist law in the world, seeing that it excludes ALL non-Jews from having the right to become an Israeli citizen, including some 3,000,000 people, the 1948 Palestinian Arabs and their descendants, who were exiled as a consequence of the 1948-1949 and the 1967 wars, and who are thus denied the rights of citizenship.
What would happen if European countries or the USA would adopt laws that specifically allows non-Jews (i.e. heretics, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, a.s.o.) to become citizens, but would exclude Jews? I think it would lead to some pretty nasty comments from Jewish factions all over the world. Anyway, this is precisely what happened during WW2. While most people in the world seem to have learned from this, the Zionists found nothing better than to reinstall such notions...
Having made impossible for Palestinian refugees and landowners to return to Israel, the next move was to adopt the "Absentee Property Law". This convenient law, thanks to the fact that it denies any citizenship and related rights to the Palestinian refugees also made it possible to deny their land ownership and seize any land they owned, putting these under the control of the Minhal Mekarkaei Yisrael, Israel's "Lands Authority".
The law was in fact, preceded by the emergency regulations of 1949, which contained many of the elements of the law of 1950. Both emphasized the idea of "Jewish presence" and "Palestinian absence". But the "Absentee Property Law" law defines the concept of an "absentee" so loosely that not only are the millions of war-refugees given this term, it is also given to those who leave the city where they originally live for another city in Israel, as it has been the case for many. The law allows the Israeli government to confiscate all land of all those who can be said to be "absentee". So, when the Zionists wish to confiscate land that belongs to Palestinians, all they have to do is force the Palestinian landowners to move to another place and put them under the tight control of the Israeli Military Administration. This then, earns them the status of "absentees" and their land can be taken away! It's great to see how law-abiding the Israelis are...
When combined in usage with other laws, the Zionists are able to confiscate ALL lands not presently inhabited, while by making these laws they also created a complex problem of "present absentees" and "internally displaced Palestinians".
Typically, although the Palestinian's right of return and the right to obtain Israeli citizenship is universally recognized in international law and in several UN resolutions (beginning with resolution 194-III, 11 December 1948) this right is defined in Israeli law as "non-existent". And these exiled Palestinians are termed as "absentees", which excludes them by law from actual or potential citizenship in the Jewish state. By the way, children of "absentees", whether born inside or outside the state of Israel, are also classified as "absentees", while Jews (or their non-practicing descendants) living outside Israel are not...
Other laws make it that land cannot be leased to a non-Jew, nor can the lease be subleased, sold, mortgaged, given or bequeathed to a non-Jew. Non-Jews cannot be employed on the land nor in any work connected with cultivation. If these conditions are violated both fines and the abrogation of the lease, without any compensation, ensue. In order to be entitled to live on land, to lease land, or to work on land one must prove at least four generations of maternal Jewish descent...
All these laws and many other laws that shamelessly discriminate against Palestinians could only be adopted because there are as good as no Palestinians who can vote against them, being excluded from the government... by law. There are only a few Israeli Palestinians, mostly Christian, who have the right to vote laws, and no Palestinians from the West-Bank and Gaza.
Isn't it amazing to see how the people of a nation claiming to have the only "real" democracy in the Middle East and on the African continent as a rule treat the Palestinians or any other non-Jews as non-citizens, not granting them many of the most basic citizen's and human rights the Jews enjoy? Since 1948, Palestinians have never been able to even move freely through the country, often being detained in their cities or refugee camps, where in many cases they were easy targets for Israeli violence.
Back to the top.
In 1950 the state of Israel was recognized by England. After this, the other countries followed suit although most Arab countries have never recognized the Israeli state. Up to this date the only Arab states recognizing the state of Israel are Egypt and Jordan.
One would think that since the state of Israel was recognized throughout the world the Zionists would be concentrating on making an exemplary democratic state, and look for ways to peacefully resolve their arguments with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, this is not in their line of action, as the previous sections illustrate.
Not only did the Israelis adopt the most conning laws so they could steal the land of the occupied Palestinians, they also chose to adopt laws that make it possible to arrest any Palestinian on no substantial ground whatsoever. Almost every Palestinian male older than 16 and living in Israel or the occupied territories has been arrested at least once in his life and detained for a certain time.
Amnesty International records Israel as the country where there is proportionally the most torture of any other country in the world. That is more than in Chile under the regime of Pinochet, and more than in China...
The most impressive accounts I have read until now of Israeli torture are those collected by the author Ralph Schoenman in his book "The Hidden History of Zionism". His chapter on this subject gives a complete picture. Instead of giving here some excerpts or quotes, I recommend to read it at http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ch10.htm .
When Israeli police succeeds in catching demonstrators or adolescents who throw stones, it's standard policy to break their hands and/or underarms, so they will not be able to use them...
As shown earlier, the Zionists want their country free of ANY Palestinian. Those Zionist who say they don't, generally view it so that in that case the Palestinians should be slaves... This is not biased anti-Jewish claptrap, Zionists really think this, as is f.i. shown in quotes of Ariel Sharon as given below.
Seeing that the Palestinians don't endure their role as slaves, the Zionists have a "problem", so they will do anything possible to remove the Palestinians of the land the Zionists so much desire to dominate.
To achieve this, the general strategy is to provoke the Palestinians so that the Zionists can strike back with disproportionate violence in order to intimidate and scare the Palestinians away.
That the Israelis wilfully provoke the Palestinians for this purpose is clearly mentioned in Israel's ex-Prime Minister Sharett's published diary (see earlier sections).
As Sharett mentions in "the Personal Diary of Moshe Sharett" (Yoman ishi, Maariv, Tel Aviv, 1979):
"I have been meditating on the long chain of FALSE INCIDENTS AND HOSTILITIES WE HAVE INVENTED and on THE MANY CLASHES WE HAVE PROVOKED which cost so much blood, and on the violations of law by our men all of which have brought grave disaster and determined the whole course of events."
In his diary, Sharett also makes it perfectly clear that the violence perpetrated by the Israelis has nothing to do with "self-defence" or "security measures". Initially thanks to the support of the British, later thanks to being heavily armed and funded by the USA, the Zionist leaders know they have never had to fear anything from the Palestinians, while bomb attacks by Palestinian activists could have ended by genuine peace negotiations.
Already in 1974 did the PLO drop its goal of dismantling the state of Israel, which was communicated to the Israelis through secret channels. Had the Israelis reacted in a genuinely peaceful way, it would have been the end of violence from the PLO and related groupings and avoided the loss of many lives.
Bomb attacks by Palestinian organizations like the Hamas which claims to strive for the complete dismantlement of Israel, could also have been avoided. The truth about the Hamas movement is that it has been created - or perhaps better said: it's creation was "facilitated" - by the Israelis themselves. This was for at least two reasons: 1) so that there would be a party that would oppose the moderate PLO, and thus take away from their power and sabotage a peacefully negotiated solution, and 2) so that the Israelis could enforce their "right to defend themselves" thanks to the Hamas strikes, which are generally more aggressive and destructive than those of the PLO related actions and always occur on moments that are very opportune for the Israeli plans.
It remains to be seen to what extend the Hamas is under direct control of the Israelis, but it's probably far-reaching. One shouldn't be misled by the fact that Israelis lately have bombed the organization, this can all be part of the manipulation. And typically, while the most destructive and frequent bomb attacks of the last few years amongst the Israeli population have been actions of the Hamas, the Israelis have waited for months before targeting them, instead first attacking Arafat's HQ and innocent civilians in the West Bank. It's a clear sign that the Hamas has served the Zionist agenda well.
On the other hand, just days before the Israelis started the bombing, the Hamas issued a statement in which they declared to be ready to stop the suicide bomb-attacks if Israel would leave the Gaza strip and West Bank. This obviously didn't fit in the Zionist plans, so a few days later they threw oil on the fire and started bombing...
Israel has also nothing to fear from its Arab neighbors, whose lands the Zionists also wish to colonialize or control through puppet-regimes, which is in complete agreement with the NWO-Illuminati agenda of Global domination. Because of their military superiority and the support of the Illuminati and the countries they control, like the USA and Britain, the Zionists have been able to provoke and attack Palestinians and Arab countries alike, virtually unpunished.
In order to strike Palestinians with disproportionate violence, provocations don't always seem necessary, seeing the many massacres during the 1950s like those in the refugee camps, and the villages of Gaza and the bloodbaths of the last months.
On October 18, 1953, in the village of Kibya, lying at the border in Jordan, north-west of Jerusalem, a massacre was committed by a unit under the direct command of Ariel Sharon, Israel's present PM. His unit consisted of 700 Israeli troops. Using mortars, machine guns, rifles and explosives they blew up 42 houses, the local schools and the mosque. Every man, woman and child found by these criminals was killed. Seventy five innocent villagers were murdered in cold blood.
Units under Ariel Sharon's direct command were also responsible of massacres at Rafah and Khan Yunis, and Sharon was also responsible for the infamous massacre at Sabra and Shatila, where over 3,500 Palestinians were massacred in 40 hours, and which was done with the help of the Christian Phalangists and by about a dozen of Israelis operating undercover. The author and activist Ralph Schoenman was present during this massacre and personally photographed Israeli tanks and soldiers. You can read more on the massacre in a chapter of his book "The Hidden History of Zionism" at http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ch08.htm and at http://www.indictsharon.net/massacres-frame.html
Another typical example of an unprovoked Zionist massacre was given at the Israeli village of Kafr Qasem, on October 29th, 1956. Israeli border guards (Ha-Mishmar Gvool) started at 4:00 PM what they called a tour of the Triangle Villages. They told the Mukhtars (Aldermen) of those villages that the curfew from that day onwards was to start from 5:00 PM instead of the usual 6:00 PM. Yet they reached Kafr Qasem only around 4:45 PM and informed the Mukhtar (Alderman) who protested that there were about 400 villagers working outside the village and that there wouldn't be enough time to inform them of the new times. But an officer assured him that they would be taken care of. Well,... "taken care of" they were...
The guards waited at the entrance to the village. Forty three of Kafr Qasem's inhabitants were massacred in cold blood by the army as they returned from work. Their only "crime" was violating a curfew they did not know about. On the northern entrance of the village, 3 more were killed and 2 were killed inside of the village. The Israeli lieutenant Danhan was touring the area in his jeep reporting the massacre, on his wireless he said "minus 15 Arabs" after a while his message on the radio to his H.Q. was "it is difficult to count".
This trick of imposing last minute curfews or giving contradicting instructions about WHEN there will be curfew has repeatedly been applied during the last couple of months. It has been the excuse to kill a pregnant mother who tried to go to the hospital, a young boy who thought it was safe to go out and buy some chocolate, and many other innocent civilians...
Books can be filled about the massacres and cruelties committed by the Israelis AFTER the state of Israel was founded in 1948, as well as about those before that time. And there are many websites reporting on them, like those found at the links named in the section on the Israeli military occupation. Instead of reporting other massacres in this article, let's look at what goes on in the heads of the men who commit these crimes.
When in 1956 Ariel Sharon was interviewed by "General Ouze Merham" because of an Israeli soldier who got killed during the massacres at Rafah and Khan Yunis committed by his units, he commented with statements such as:
- "I don't know something called 'international principles'."
- "I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child [that] will be born in this area."
- "The Palestinian woman and child is [sic] more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child existence refers [to the fact] that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger."
- "I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him." [here Sharon clearly displays a cruel and sadistic mind, commenting way beyond any strategical considerations]
- "With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians [in Rafah, 1956]."
- "I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."
It would be a mistake to think this man has since changed or tempered his views... It would also be a mistake to think that Sharon is an isolated fool, seeing that he succeeded in becoming Prime Minister, after successfully provoking the Palestinians by visiting the Temple Mount, thereby igniting a new intifada.
The Zionist cruel mindset is also well illustrated by the court records of a case concerning the Kafr Qasem massacre mentioned above.
From these records - Judgments of the District Court: The Military Prosecutor vs. Malor Melinki et. al., Rokach, p.66 - we learn that the Israeli brigadier Shadmi, the commander of a battalion responsible, told the commander of a frontier guard unit, Major Melinki, that the curfew had to be "extremely strict" and that "it would not be enough to arrest those who broke it – they must be shot." He added:
- "A dead man is better than the complications of detention."
Melinki informed the assembled officers that ... "their task was to impose the curfew in the minority villages from 17.00 to 06.00 [5pm to 6am] ... Anyone leaving his home, or anyone breaking the curfew should be shot dead. He added that there were to be no arrests and that if a number of people were killed in the night this would facilitate the imposition of the curfew during succeeding nights."
Lieutenant Frankanthal asked him: "What do we do with the wounded?" Melinki replied: "Take no notice of them."
A section leader, then asked: "What about women and children?" to which Melinki replied: "No sentimentality." When asked: "What about people returning from their work?" Melinki answered: "It will be just too bad for them, as the Commander said."
As you see from these few examples, the total absence of human considerations towards the Palestinians is not only held by a few isolated maniacs, it is institutionalised by the Zionists. What can prove us this same mindset isn't held towards ALL non-Jews in general...? And what right do Zionists have to accuse those who pose such questions of "anti-Semitism" (that meaningless term), when they are themselves so shamelessly anti-human?
Back to the top.
The spiral of violence lingers on.
In 1967, after several small military attacks on some of its kibbutzes and Egypt's closure of the Straits of Tiran which effectively cut off Israel's oil supply, Israel took the opportunity to invade and occupy under the pretext of "self-defence" practically all that was left of the Palestinian territory, including the West Bank, which was until that moment under Jordan's control, and the Gaza strip.
See the map of this at http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/maps/cease.html
Since then, the spiral of violence has lingered on, while there have been many other military operations and at one point something called "the Oslo agreement" through which Israel is supposed to have promised to gradually grant the Palestinians their independence. However, the real goal of the Oslo agreement was to turn the PLO into Israel's enforcer of its occupation and calm the situation down until a better opportunity occurs for expulsing the Palestinians completely... That's why today Israel refuses all negotiations with Arafat, who refuses to do certain things the Israeli ask, such as complete surrender...
The results of the Oslo agreements have therefore been extremely meagre for the Palestinians. And at present, it looks more like Israel will try to continue keeping the entire territory under their own control. Worse, at the time of this writing there are reports that Sharon et al are seriously considering invading Jordan (again) and Syria, while removing the Palestinians even from these zones (read more on this at http://www.rense.com/general24/mide.htm ).
The independent state of Palestine was officially proclaimed for the second time on November 15, 1988, by the Palestine National Council meeting in Algiers (in exile), while there was another ceremony for this in front of the Al-Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem, the capital of the new state. Land was granted by Egypt, which gave the Gaza strip, and Jordan, which ceded to the PLO all Jordanian claims to the West Bank territory in response to the accumulated pressures (from its mainly Palestinian population) and the months of intifada demonstrations by Palestinians in the West Bank.
The Palestinian state is recognized by all Arab countries, but most of the Western countries don't yet recognize the state. All in all there are currently 100 (of 152) countries recognizing it (obviously, Israel doesn't recognize the Palestinian state).
A Palestinian passport only got created in 1995.
Zionists like to say that Palestine lacks the fundamental qualifications of a state under established international law. However, this is simply a lie. Read more on this at the following links:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BOY204A.html by the same author, Francis A. Boyle, whom as a legal consultant played a key role in the 2nd proclamation of the Palestinian state, of which this article is a fascinating account.
In 1988 the PLO made the concession of accepting partition of Palestine into two states. This was reaffirmed on numerous occasions, and certainly in the Oslo documents.
Manipulative as ever, Israelis like Sharon and Netanyahu like to say they gave away "too much" at the Oslo agreements. In reality though, through that agreement ONLY the Palestinians explicitly recognized the notion of partition. Israel NEVER HAS (and recently, Sharon's political party, the Likud, even voted against there ever being a Palestinian state). This is why there are now more than 170 settlements on Palestinian land (with over 140,000 Jewish settlers in just the West Bank, controlling 40% of the territory), why there is a 300-mile (Israeli) road network connecting them to each other while totally impeding Palestinian movement, and it's also why no Israeli prime minister has ever conceded any real sovereignty to the Palestinians, and why the settlements have grown on an annual basis. The merest glance at the map found at the link below reveals what Israel has been doing throughout the peace process, and what the consequent geographical discontinuity and shrinkage in Palestinian life has been. In effect, Israel considers itself and the Jewish people to own all of Palestine. There are land ownership laws in Israel itself guaranteeing this, but in the West Bank and Gaza the settlements, roads and refusal to concede sovereign land rights to the Palestinians serve the same function.
See the map of what remained of the Palestinian territory before the recent Israeli military operations at
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/mapstellstory.html (map on the right)
Amazingly, or perhaps in a supreme effort for a peaceful solution, in the Oslo agreement Arafat didn't even demand from Israel to declare itself willing to give up title to Palestinian land (even though the Israelis stole the Palestinian lands it declared into the state of Israel - some 80% - for which he neither asked compensation), nor did he ask that Israel be required to deal with any of its responsibility for the sufferings of his people.
Israel has also never granted the Palestinians the right to allow the approx. 3,000,000 refugees to return back to Palestine, based on their convenient "Absentee Property Law" (see above). A particularly stinging fact, considering that Israel is almost entirely populated by what could be considered as being Jewish refugees.
It shouldn't be too difficult to understand that even for the moderate Palestinians like the PLO there will never be real full satisfaction unless Israel gives back (or cedes) at least the land that was allotted to the Palestinians by the UN, back in 1947, though many would even be content with the restoration of the borders of before the Israeli invasion of 1967, while the Palestinians made huge concessions since, as stipulated in the Oslo agreements.
And what's the answer of the Israelis to this wish? Extermination of the Palestinians, and/or deportation, with the motto that "they're just terrorists". The truth is that it's pure ethnic cleansing, in its essence no different than the holocaust of WW2, while the only limits to Israel's aggression towards the Palestinians seems to be dictated by where the red line lies of worldwide public opinion, in fear of a massive anti-Jewish/Zionist reaction (that's why most of its aggressive actions are executed in the most stealthy of ways, while everything is done to keep objective media reporters out of the zones where military operations are underway, as was the case in Jenin, not to mention the fact that all the major news outlets in the world are controlled by pro-Zionist entities).
The violence inflicted upon the Palestinians by the Israeli's more than anything else erases for most Palestinians all thoughts of giving in to Israeli conditions for peace and motivates some Palestinians even to strive for nothing less than Israel's complete anihilation, which would definitely not have been the case had the Israelis offered genuine peaceful solutions to the Palestinians instead of provoking them by all means and pursuing the expansion of their territory at all cost.
While the Hamas movement (the extremist brother of the PLO) is said to not recognize the UN partitioning of 1947 at all, and have made it known they will never stop fighting until Israel COMPLETELY ceases to exist, it can not be said to represent all the people with a similar opinion, as the more violently the Israelis act, the more general the hate grows towards them, very comparable to the occupied European's hate of the Nazis during WW2.
As mentioned in the previous section, the creation of Hamas organization was greatly facilitated by the Israeli authorities. Probably, if the Israelis would get their way, the PLO would be eliminated, and the Palestinians (those still alive) dropped in Jordan with a Hamas Israeli-puppet government! Which would also mean Hamas would conveniently forget their vows for creating the Palestinian state in its original region.
Seeing the fact that the Illuminati always control all sides of a conflict (so they are sure of its outcome), you can bet the farm on it that somehow the PLO is also manipulated by them. While the Illuminati's control of the PLO is not as obvious as f.i. the Illuminati's complicity to Zionism, it has f.i. been shown that there has been some degree of cooperation between certain members of the PLO and the CFR (the Council of Foreign Relations, an organization that plays a highly important role in the execution of the Illuminati brotherhood agenda). This has been discovered by Barry Chamish and Joel Bainerman who found out that during a certain period, secret meetings were taking place on the campus of the Harry S. Truman Peace Institute of Hebrew University (after it was said to be abandoned) with members of the PLO, orchestrated by David Kimchi, whom the researchers connect to the CFR.
This means that most probably, to a certain extend the PLO is infiltrated by Illuminati Brotherhood activists, which may be the reason for Israeli and US (parrotting) demands that Yasser Arafat must go. They know and hope that if such would happen, chances are great that, with time, they will succeed in getting elected a chairman who will be ready to play the Illuminati Brotherhood's game.
On the other hand, it may well be that a connection between the PLO and organizations such as the CFR must be put in the same category as the (fairly desperate) attempts during WW2 by the Grand Mufti to gain support for the Palestinian cause from the Nazis, who, just as today the Illuminati, had no real appetite to give their full support, but were willing to do some gestures to create "goodwill".
In any case, it's clear that even if the PLO wouldn't be infiltrated, under the present conditions it can only be successful with the help of those organizations or countries that are controlled by the Illuminati.
Some useful links:
A good and interesting overview of the Zionist movement and its part in the oppression of the Palestinians can also be found at
To understand part 2 of this article it's not necessary to read it first. Not that it doesn't mention the Rothschilds and the role they played for Zionism at all. Therefore, make a mental note of remarks made earlier above in this article, like f.i. those concerning the relationships between the Rothschilds and people like Theodore Herzl en Chaim Weizmann.
The book "The Hidden History of Zionism" by Ralph Schoenman, contains a thorough analysis of the policies of the Zionists and Israelis. It can be found online at
http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/english/zionism/ use this link if the first link doesn't work.
The booklet "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict" is written by "Jews for Justice" and shares most (but not all) of the basic tenets of the present booklet. I include it mostly because it offers a picture of what the standpoints are of peace oriented Jews who are critical of the Zionist policies and past actions (while this is also the case for the links named at the beginning of the 2nd section). It can be found at
http://www.wrmea.com/jews_for_justice/ use this link if the first link doesn't work.
Sites of the WZO itself:
http://www.wzo.org.il/ main site of the WZO.
http://www.us-israel.org/ educational (and propaganda) site of the WZO.
An interesting source is a book called "Myths & Facts Online - A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict" which is published by the Jewish Virtual Library of an organization called "the American-Israeli cooperative enterprise". Its main goal is clearly propaganda for the Zionist cause. It remains nevertheless interesting to read the book (and so is visiting the rest of their site), if only to see if you have the information that holds up to the disinformation that is advanced in it (obviously, not all is covered in this limited article)... Find it at
A useful link is that of the Lexicon of the Orient, found at
=== End of Part 1 ===
Back to the top.
PART 2 - The True Goals of Zionism.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Just mentioning the title of the text known as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" can have you brandished as an "anti-Semite" (what they really mean of course is "anti-Jew"). Hitler referred to it in "Mein Kampf", and while it is for sale in many ex-communist countries, like in Moscow, or Arab countries, it's not allowed to be sold in the EU.
For those not familiar with this text: it is supposed to be a record of about 20 secret meetings of a Jewish freemason-style group, during which an "Elder of Zion" gives a speech to Jewish leaders presenting a plan for total control of humanity. The objective is to become the "Masters of the World" once the complete destruction of all monarchies and Christian civilisation has been realized. The plan to achieve this consists of using violence, trickery, war, revolutions, industrial modernization, capitalism, disorder, disease, poverty, social injustice, and much more, to completely abolish the existing order, on the ruins of which a new Jewish rule would be installed.
When reading the text, you can not but get an odd feeling of how accurately it describes many aspects that are typical of the way the NWO has unfolded over time. In many cases, what is said seems like pure prophecy, made a long time ago, which today we can see being realized.
But.......... it's a hoax. Although it's very well possible that it's based on information from some type of secret society source.
Several stories go around on who or what could have written the Protocols, while there are several versions of it.
In 1921 already it was shown by Philip Graves, reporter for the London Times, that the work strongly resembled 2 books published in the 19th century, namely Goedsche's "Biarritz" published in 1868, and Maurice Joly's "Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu", or "Dialog in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu", published in Brussels in 1864, and that therefore it was most likely a forgery. A simple comparison of the texts, line by line, gives ample proof of this.
The first version or "forerunner" of the Protocols was published in 1872. It appeared in a pamphlet created by a Russian anti-Jewish group, possibly under the supervision of the Tzarist secret police. It's probable that the text was written by the German anti-Jewish author Hermann Goedsche, who was a spy for the Prussian secret police.
When he was a German postal clerk. In 1848, he fabricated a couple of letters of which the purpose was to prove that Benedic Waldeck was conspiring to assassinate Frederick William IV, the King of Prussia. After it became known that they were forgeries, he was removed from his job, and he began writing under the pseudonym, Sir John Retcliffe (later John Retclif).
His work "Biarritz", which consists of a series of novels, features a chapter called “In the Jewish Cemetery of Prague”, in which the "princes of the twelve tribes of Israel" gather at the cemetery to meet with Satan and report the progress of their world takeover schemes. However, the secret proceeding was witnessed by two men, who then dedicated their lives to fighting the Satanic Jewish plot.
Although it's not proven, it may be that Goedsche, after publishing his novels made an adaption of this chapter, combining it with "Dialog in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" by Maurice Joly. The French author Joly was anti-Bonaparte and a monarchist(!), and wrote his book in order to show how this emperor and his associates were conspiring to destroy French society.
Using Joly's work Goedsche made a master move. All he had to do was to change the words "France" by "the world" and "Napoleon" by "the Jews". Then he simply combined the setting of his own "Biarritz" with the speeches of Machiavelli in Joly’s book, and... Voila!
Goedsche's text, which was much shorter than the text that would later be known as the Protocols and not yet published, subsequently made its way to Russia, maybe brought there by the Tzarist secret police. There it was published in an anti-Jewish pamphlet, where it was presented as "fiction based on fact". It was reprinted in 1876 and 1880. In July, 1881, the story was published in the French paper Le Contemporain as fact, and all of the speeches by each of the Jewish "princes"/tribal heads were consolidated into a single speech, supposedly made by a chief rabbi in a secret meeting of influential Jews. To substantiate the claim, it was said to have been taken from a forthcoming book by English diplomat, Sir John "Readclif" (another version of Goedsche's pen name), called Annals of the Political and Historic Events of the Last Ten Years.
In 1891, the story appeared in the Russian newspaper Novorossiysky Telegraf, which "established" that the speech was made in 1869 by a rabbi to a secret Sanhedrin (possibly referring to the First Congress of Reformed Judaism, held in Leipzig). Its authenticity, again, was "supported" by the fictional Sir John Readclif. Afterwards, the text becomes known as "The Rabbi's Speech".
Much later, in the October 21, 1920 issue of La Vielle France, that newspaper even said there was a striking analogy between the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which had been published by that time) and the discourse of Rabbi Reichhorn, pronounced in Prague in 1869, over the tomb of the Grand Rabbi Simeon-ben-Ihuda.
While it has never conclusively been proved that it was actually Goedschel who made the first verion of the Protocols besides the resemblance with some of its passages to his published novel, in the middle of the 1990s proof was found of who was responsible for the final version of the Protocols, by Mikhail Lepekjine, a Russian researcher and expert on Russian publicists of the period of the rules of Alexander III (1881-1894) and Nicolas II (1894-1902).
When he was searching on one of these publicists through French archives of that period which were stored in Moscow and kept locked away until 1992 (after the fall of the Communist government and files were generally given public access) he found irrefutable evidence of the fact that the Protocols had been worked on by Mathiew Golovinski, assisted by someone named Manuilov.
From the 1890s until 1917, Golovinski worked as a journalist, mostly as a secret agent of the Tzar, where it was his mission to write stories in favor of the authorities, or to denounce journalists who didn't stick to what was "expected" of them. He was basically an informer and a fraud, but also a talented writer of articles. Due to the fact that after the Russian Revolution he smoothly managed to change camps and became an important party-member, the incriminating evidence found by Lepekjine was kept secret for the entire duration of the Communist regime and that's why it was found only recently.
Coming from an aristocratic family, after briefly having studied law, Golovinski joins the "Holy Brotherhood", a secret society with anti-Jewish views that routinely published forged newspapers and tracts in its battle against the revolutionary elements in Russian society.
At first, he worked for Constantin Pobiedonostsev, district attorney of the Holy Synod and who seemed to be appreciated by Alexander III. This Pobiedonostsev was fanatically anti-Jewish and seemed to have been fearing a conspiracy by Jews to take over the country, as he seemed to find them "smarter" and "more talented" than the average Russian. Pobiedonostsev kept a press agency where Golovinski became 2nd head-editor.
After the death of his direct boss Mikhail Soloviev, and Nicolas II becomes the new Tzar, things change. Golovinski is unmasked by Maxime Gorki as being an informer who betrayed many colegues and he flees to Paris, which he frequently visited before, and where he finds a new "job" thanks to an old acquaintance of the Holy Brotherhood, Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky, who is the head of the Russian political (secret) police in France. Golovinski's mission consists of influencing journalists in order to get the Tzar a favorable press and sometimes writes their articles (as you see, nothing of today's practices is new).
Rachkovsky, like Pobiedonostsev, was convinced of the idea that there was a Jewish conspiracy to topple the Tzar, whom he desperately would like to convince of this fact. But Nicolas II seemed to have been rather more preoccupied with criticism from the West on his anti-Jewish policy, then about a conspiracy by them.
This got Rachkovsky to think up a plan to convince the Tzar of the correctness of his basically anti-Jewish views. Influenced by Ivan Goremykine, ex-secretary of the interior who fell from grace, they seemed in particular to want to remove Serguei Witte, reformer and leader of the modernizations within the government. The idea was to create "irrefutable" proof that the industrial and financial modernization of Russia was the result of a Jewish plan to rule the world.
And so, Rachkovsky orders from Golovinski a document that would do the job. For Golovinski, it would be just one forgery amongst many others. The idea was to give the forgery to the mystic priest Serge Nilus, of whom it was said at that time that he would be the next confessor of Nicolas II. This way, the document would eventually land in the Tzar's hands.
Around 1900-1901 Golovinski works on the document. Probably Rachkovsky suggested he'd use Goedsche's original "Rabbi's Speech" text. Basically, Golovinski revisited Joly's original work and expanded the text considerably, making several adaptations.
It's not difficult to see why the final result was so convincing. While Goedsche wrote from a fanatically anti-Jewish perspective, the original text of Joly was written from a deep political conviction, and came from the heart. It's the Joly section that brought in the prophetic insights describing so accurately current developments.
What will probably forever remain the real question is: did Joly only write down his own incredibly deep insights and analysis of the situation or was he informed through a secret society source, like the freemasons or the Illuminati? Seeing the accuracy of the texts, the latter may well be the case. However, the text of the Protocols can only be correctly understood by changing the words "the world" and "the Jews" back to their original, i.e. "France" and "Bonaparte", while it's clear that if the text applies to France and Bonaparte, then chances are great the text also applies to the world in general and the secret societies behind its rulers...
Another possibility is that Joly in his turn plagiarized his novel from a book called "Les Mystères de Paris", by Eugène Sue, published in 1843. Interestingly, in Sue's work, the plotters are Jesuits, an organization that has been conspirational from its conception. In that case, it could be that Sue obtained some inside information from a highly placed Jesuit...
On the other hand, in his novel, Joly presents the reader a dialogue between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, both of whom were great strategists and manipulators. Actually, Machiavelli was the favorite author of folks like Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin... Generally his books are about what are the best strategies for social and political control, general warfare and how to occupy and colonize a country. His theories are still higly valid, and can still be seen applied in todays NWO strategies. It's only logical that Joly put words in Machiavelli's and Montesquieu's mouths quoted from their own works, and that these are still highly relevant to today's political and social situation in the world.
Yet, about half of the text of the Protocols can't be traced back to Joly's "Dialog" or Goedsche's "Biarritz", and it is as "prophetic" and convincing as the rest. It may therefore well be possible that in an attempt to make the Protocols as convincing as possible, secret society "inside" information was brought to Golovinski via Rachkovsky or other members of the Russian secret police.
Around 1901, once Golovinski had the job finished, Rachkovsky passed the text to Nilus. But notwithstanding all their efforts, their plan failed as in the end Nilus would not become Nicolas' new confessor.
Nilus, however, was fascinated by the text and kept it. He seems to have said to count Alexander of Chayla:
"Suppose these are a forgery. Can't God use these to discover the iniquity of what is to come? Can't God, for the sake of our faith, transform the bones of a dog in a miraculous relic? Surely he can put the truth in the mouth of a liar!"
In 1905, Nilus, who was also a writer, publishes the text as an appendix to his book entitled "Velikoe v Malom" or "The Great thing in the Small thing" with the subtitle "The Antichrist as a near political possibility". This subtitle was referring to the Protocols appendix. From then on, the Protocols text started to lead its own life.
The Protocols were part of a propaganda campaign which accompanied the pogroms of 1905 provoked by the Okhrana, the Russian secret police. A variation of the Protocols text was published by George Butmi in 1906 and again in 1907. The edition of 1906 was found among the Czar's collection, even though he had already recognized the work as a forgery, which is not a surprise considering to what extent most royals are informed on the subject of "world domination" (although in the Tzar's case, apparently this didn't suffice, seeing that 10 years later he was overthrown...).
In 1917, a crucial event occurred when Alfred Rosenberg had a strange experience. Being a student, he was working when suddenly a stranger walked into his room, slammed a book on his table, and left as abruptly as he came, without saying a word. The book contained the Protocols. The strangeness of the story may indicate that some odd manipulation occurred, possibly by a secret society network.
However, Rosenberg saw it as a mysterious but divine sign. Once he returned to Germany, he presented the text to the Thule Society members Rudolf Hess and the Satanist Dietrich Eckard, who was Hitler's most important Satanic-spiritual mentor. They became wildly excited on reading it. Very soon the Protocols viewed its first German edition. Like most, Hitler took the text by the letter, which boosted his anti-Jewish ideas.
Since then, it has indeed been a relic, on one hand for far-right extremists and many Muslims, who take the text literally, wrongly accusing "the Jews" for the diabolical plan the text describes, on the other hand by those studying the NWO, who generally see it for what it really is: an adaptation of something that is based on truth, while the term "Jews" should be changed into "secret societies" (or perhaps "the Jesuits"...).
The text is a valuable document, but only if it is disassociated from "the Jews" and Zionists in general. When this is done, whether it be the fact that the text contains inside information or that Joly or Sue was a genius with prophetic insights (and even if Joly was a monarchist), reading it can lead one to a much deeper understanding of the forces at work in today's society...
The text of the Protocols can be found at
http://home.earthlink.net/~mcasale/PZION.htm contains a few comparisons of the text of the Protocols with Joly's Dialogue.
More on the Protocols, Golovinski, Joly, Rosenberg, a.s.o. at
http://www.viewfromthewall.com/fwch5.htm on the background of the Protocols (though without some of the latest info) and some excerpts.
A short bio of Bonaparte III can be found at
If you read French, an article with additional information can be found at
Even if you don't read French, you'll be able to find some pictures there from Golovinsk, Rachkovsky and Mikhail Lepekjine.
Back to the top.
The previous section shows how the story of a "Jewish" or "Zionist" conspiracy was released unto the world, while in its anti-Jewish version it was a pure fabrication. Throughout the centuries, stories of Jewish conspiracies have circulated, that's probably why the Protocols were accepted as fact so easily.
Personally, I don't believe in an exclusively Jewish "conspiracy" to rule the world for a second. But there may be elements involved that make matters rather more complicated than they may seem at the surface, especially as far as Zionism is concerned.
Could it be that there is some plot behind Zionism that goes far beyond that of merely creating a Zionist state? If so, what is it? And what is the relationship between the Jewish community and what is known as the NWO-conspiracy?
In order to answer these questions, we first have to take another look at those who played such a crucial role in the Zionist expansion: the Rothschilds.
The origins of the Rothschilds are NOT Semitic-Jewish, contrary to what most people think they know. They are on the other hand white Caucasians, and therefore share the same origins as most Semite-Jews, being Aryan (see part 1).
As David Icke explains in his books, the Rothschilds - at least some of them - are part of a bloodline of people who are what you could call "carriers" or vessels for Reptilian entities. These entities are probably living in a dimension slightly different from our basic 3rd dimension, where they'd operate from somewhere between the 3rd and 4th dimension... While there are Reptilians who take possession of people, there are also Reptilian humanoids who, much like a cameleon, can take the shape of humans, going as far as copying exactly someone's physical traits.
Now for some readers who are new to these ideas this may be stretching things a few bridges too far. However, Icke shows in his books in a convincing way (at least in my opinion) how there are people who have witnessed things that prove this is indeed the case for certain people, while on the other hand he shows how all over the world there are indications - as found in religious artwork and in ancient stories - that there have been reptilian humanoids on this earth since tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. (see the links of Part 1 for more on this).
It's the Anunnaki of these Reptilian humanoids who actually became the "Gods" of practically all the major Religions of this world.
Simply said, these Reptilian entities are alien and extraterrestrial entities who since many thousands of years have been devoted to subduing life on this planet for their own benefit. One of the things about their way of operating is that they execute their plans over many, many years, generations and even thousands of years.
To read more on this, check the following links:
http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/aliens.html an interview with David Icke that gives a quick overview.
http://www.davidicke.net/emagazine/vol6/spectmutwa.html an interview with African Shaman Credo Mutwa on this subject.
According to the author Fritz Springmeier, the Rothschilds would be direct descendants of these reptilian entities and would keep a secret genealogy that would prove this.
The problem with this information is that although it may well be a possibility, it's extremely hard - if not impossible - to verify.
In my view the Rothschilds only gradually became involved with these Reptilian entities. In the middle ages the Bauer family seemed to have been notorious for their occult practices, i.e. witchcraft. It may be that already at this time they attracted certain entities from dimensions beyond our usual 3rd dimension. (In conventional scientific terms, we are said to live in 4 dimensions, i.e. 3 space dimensions and the dimension of time. In esoteric terms however, our dimension is called the 3rd dimension).
However, I feel that it was their descendants, named Rothschild, who took things to the next level when they started to see European Royalty and when some of them joined the Illuminati and Masonic secret societies.
Their magick practice must have become of a higher order, and some may have started to be posessed by Reptilian-demonic entities. While many people would call what these Rothschilds are into, "Satanism", they are actually worshipping and messing around with Reptilian multi-dimensional entities.
In practice, this means that where one Rothschild may do certain things that advance the agenda of these Reptilian entities, another Rothschild may do other things for that same agenda, even if at first glance the activities of both are seemingly unrelated. The concerted effort of both, combined with that of other bloodlines is supposed to slowly but surely attain all of the Reptilian goals.
That's why one Rothschild (Edmond) may have been mainly interested in buying land in Palestine, without being particularly interested in the political application of Zionism, while another Rothschild (Lionel Walter) took up the task of getting the British to support the creation of a Zionist state (see the Balfour letter), while yet other Rothschilds were involved in financing schemes, manipulating the flow of information through the media, and so on .
The Rothschilds also played a crucial role in bringing Hitler to power (whom, in all probability, also was a Rothschild - even if he confiscated much of the property of the German branch of the Rothschilds - read on this f.i. the appendix of D. Icke's "Children of the Matrix" or see http://www.davidicke.com/icke/articles/hitler.html ). Obviously, Hitler was hardly a defender of the Jews, although initially, oddly enough, he did support the Zionist case (see part 1).
So, would the Rothschilds - of a Reptilian/Illuminati bloodline, who are only interested in acquiring power - REALLY be wishing to have a Jewish state? Of course not! They wouldn't care if it was Jewish or Scientology, as long as it serves their own interests.
It seems that one of their real goals concerning Palestine/Israel was to create their own fiefdom, a country they could consider their own. However, I think this goal was connected to the broader agenda which consisted to give the Zionist state an extremely great military capacity while making sure the population basically lives in a perfectly religious and manipulated discipline, with a very high "brainwash" capacity.
Thus, Zionism has also been used as an instrument for creating a "uniform" Jewish group of people, wherever it lives in the world, with the advantage of being able to manipulate this in a perfectly centralized way.
As such, it's a fact that the Illuminati/Reptilians have no interest in having a religiously strong group of people when these are not under their own control. This is why in the next years or decennia it's fair to expect that slowly but surely all the main religious currents will be dismantled, and that there will be created one "world-religion". This is the context in which one should see the anti-sect laws (as recently installed in France), besides the fact that these laws also make it possible to arrest, harass and neutralize all individuals who deviate from the generally accepted "norm", or who might be dangerous to the Illuminati.
Read more on the Rothschilds at
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/slavery.htm a good biography on how the Rothschilds built their wealth
http://www.newnetizen.com/globalelite/bloodlines/rothschildbloodline.htm on the Rothschild's Satanic background. Please note I don't endorse everything that is said in the article, but it offers nevertheless much interesting input.
Back to the top.
The beginning of the Jewish Diaspora.
Through the ages, the Jewish community has been a very dispersed community, but nevertheless an extremely tight and "identity rich" community. Also, from about the 6th century BC, it has always been a community with a greatly developed scientific and technical culture.
Besides the Hyksos episode in Egypt followed by their escape, the dispersion of the Jewish (Hubaru) community started in the 8th century BC when the Kingdom of Israel was invaded by the Assyrians (see part 1). However, two centuries later many exiled Jews were allowed to return under the Persians. In the 2nd century BC the Jews restored the Kingdom of Israel, calling it Judea. But 80 years later it was integrated in the Roman empire.
Nevertheless, the Romans just didn't manage to completely subdue the Jews who kept revolting (doesn't this sound like the role the Palestinians are in today?). This is seen as the main reason why the Piso family invented Christianity - a project that was carried out by at least three generations of Pisos from the 1st to the 2nd century (for the complete story on that, see http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso/ and http://members.tripod.com/~ReuchlinA/ ). The idea was to get the Jews to convert themselves to this new religion, which would have taken away the power of the Jewish Rabbis while transferring it to the Pope who was appointed by the Romans themselves. Also, Christians would have been more "soft", and therefore easier to bring under control.
Read more about the the Bar-Kokhba Revolt of the Jews against the Romans at
To understand what happened from then on, we must first look much earlier in history when during the Sumerian period (approx. 5,000+ to 4,000 years ago), the Reptilian Sumerian "God-kings" appointed some of their subordinate priest-kings amongst those whose descendants later would become the Hyksos and the Hebrews. These carried Reptilian genes.
Later, from the time the Hebrews were captured and brought to Babylon in the 6th century BC, descendants from the Hyksos and the Egyptian priest-class began writing the Old Testament (the typical "Jewish" name "Cohen" actually comes from the Egyptian name for priest or prince, "Cahen"), which amongst other things was to guarantee veneration of the bloodline of the Sumerian/Reptilian God-Kings and the continuation of the Sun-cult of the Babylonians AND the Egyptians, while reforming religious practices into a monotheistic cult (see part 1).
Some of these Levites, like some of the later Rabbis, carried the Reptilian genes, and they were part of the ruling classes. This is why you find Rabbis amongst the genealogy of certain Illuminati/Reptilian bloodlines.
During the period of the Roman occupation, the conflict between the Romans and the Jews probably mainly concerned Rabbis who weren't Reptilian. This is illustrated by the fact that the descendants of certain Rabbis merged into the bloodlines of the Roman rulers who were of Reptilian bloodlines.
These non-Reptilian Rabbis somehow acted against the Reptilian agenda, which probably meant that their followers resisted Roman (Reptilian) domination and/or occupation.
Thus, one could say that initially there were some Jewish-Reptilian "top-guns", but that at one point in time the Jews "fell from grace". This would be the reason why, after the Roman period, not only were they dispersed, they were many times hunted down and cursed for many centuries. In many instances this would be provoked by others than the Jews, like when they were accused of having caused outbreaks of the Plague.
On the other hand, it could well be that there was a specific and astute Reptilian manipulation in order to get the Jews in the situation of being hunted down throughout the centuries - with a tragic climax in WW2 - in order to instigate an enduring fear amongst the Jewish people, which is THE number 1 tool for manipulation of the mind.
It's also said - and this may well be possible - that some of the pogroms (which mainly involved non-Semitic Ashkenazi Jews) were actually provoked by Jewish high priests, such as to offer a massive human sacrifice (a common practice amongst the early Hebrews, see part 1). In the same way, for the Reptilian/Illuminati, war is a huge opportunity to offer human sacrifices. That's why WW2 and the holocaust must be seen as a gigantic human sacrifice that were provoked by them, besides the fact that they also allowed them to attain some practical goals.
Note that the murder of some 6 millions Jews is called a "holocaust" or "Shoah" in Hebrew. Both words mean "burnt offering" or "ritual sacrifice". It's no coincidence that these words have been chosen for what otherwise would simply have been termed a "massacre".
As said earlier, the Rothschilds played a major role in bringing Hitler to power (although they were far from being the only ones). And they must therefore be seen as having had a big hand in that sacrifce.
Before the Rothschilds appeared, there have probably been many Illuminati/Reptiles who manipulated the Jewish community. However, the Rothschilds may have been amongst the most successful ones.
Back to the top.
Creating the "Untermensch".
It is well-known that the Illuminati/Reptilians prefer blonds (as given by the stereotype image of the Aryans). But apparently, this has no importance where using the Jewish population for the Illuminati agenda is concerned. Anyway, as we saw in Part 1, most Jews ARE Aryan, and therefore there are also Jews who are blond! There are also many red-haired Jews (and by the way it's said that red hair indicates a blood relation with Charlemagne, a Reptilian gene carrier).
Although no secret to the Jews, the fact that there are no blond or red-haired Jews is yet another myth that the Illuminati HAVE to maintain for the general public, if the idea that the Nazis did their WW2 holocaust because of racial matters should persist. However, this is definitely not the reason why 6 million Jews were kidnapped and killed.
It is said that the Nazis were experimenting in the concentration camps in search of creating an "Ubermensch" or "Superhuman". Well, the truth is that - besides exterminating people - they were especially trying to create an "UNTERmensch" or "Underhuman"! In practice, this meant that the "scientific" research that was being done in the camps by people like Joseph Mengele, was especially concentrating on mind control and on the creation through biological ways of a creature that would be half human and half animal. Besides these, there were also some experiments for "practical" matters - like finding out at what temperature a living human body starts to freeze or boil to death - but they were not the main focus.
If they would have succeeded at creating a creature half human / half animal, then it would sort of have had half the intelligence of a human. This, as it was presumed, would make it easy to control. In case the animal half would have been that of a particularly strong animal, like a horse, then they would have gotten... an ideal "workhorse"!
Fortunately, the biological experiments resulted in nothing really useful. But the mind control experiments, on the other hand, seem to have given very much useful knowledge, of which, by the way, the written and filmed reports have vanished in the CIA vaults (could it have been otherwise?). Someone like Joseph Mengele was after WW2 actually brought to Argentine and later to the USA where he lived a long and gruesome life going on with torturing people for the Illuminati/Reptilians in order to create mind controlled slaves... (Read a report on the latter in an e-book on mind control mentioned further below).
As is usual for the Illuminati, the Nazi concentration camps served SEVERAL goals at once:
a) for the execution of a massive human sacrifice (while this is probably not what motivated most Nazis, including Hitler, who were manipulated into it).
b) for the research on how to create an "Untermensch".
c) for the removal and liquidation of "useless eaters" (a term invented by Kissinger - a Reptilian "Jew").
d) for the removal and liquidation of a group of people who were economically in the way of the (top-) Nazis.
Hitler probably knew of himself that he had Jewish origins. Therefore it's very improbable that he started the holocaust because of what he might have thought to be a "racial purification", while he may have come to think that the Jews had to be exterminated purely because of economical, cultural and behavioral reasons (see in part 1 what was said about the process that led him to taking the decision).
And whatever one can say about the rest of the Nazis, they were NOT completely stupid (although...?). Even they could think up the fact that the physical resemblance between white-Jews and what the Germans considered to be Aryans was too great to consider these people as being from 2 different races. This is why they followed certain criteria in order to establish if someone was a Jew or not, while these criteria by their very nature showed the limits of the possibility to establish racial purity. One of the criteria to characterize someone as being "Jew" was f.i. that he/she had to have origins that were for at least 1/8th Jewish up to the grandparents. In order to be accepted for the SS, one had to prove ones Aryan (while they really meant "non-Jewish") ancestry to as far back as 1750.
Actually, the stereotype blond and blue-eyed "super-being" the Nazis had as their ideal is from a Nordic race which probably has extra-terrestrial origins, possibly coming from places like the Pleiades, the Lyra constellation, Aldebaran, and other. It was with people of this race the Sumerian Anunnaki reptilian kings prefered to procreate. Through times, the bloodlines of the Nordic race mixed with that of the Caucasian Aryans, which is why many (but not all) of them are blond. incidentally, the Caucasian Aryans may well have come from Mars (some readers will think such an idea madness, but there are many indications - which I will not discuss here - that this could indeed be the case). The name "Aryan" actually comes from the word "Arri" which means "noble one". As such, this name or title was also used for the tall blond Nordic people as well as by the Sumerian kings, while the very name Sum-er, is derived from Sum-Arri.
Thus, the attempts of the Nazis to obtain a pure "Aryan" race were based on wrong premisses from the outset.
How difficult, or better said, how impossible it is to define a gene that characterizes Jews, is proven by the fact that notwithstanding years long research even the Israeli scientists have never been able to prove the genetic identity of Jews in such a way that it would f.i. be possible to discern Jews from Palestinians. This is something that Zionists forcefully try to cover up, as it's very important for them to keep the myth alive that the Jews are a "chosen people", different from all other human races. And it's the basis of why they think they have the right to have their own state, at the cost of the Palestinians.
During WW2, not only the Nazis, but even the Zionist organizations encouraged distinguishing a Jewish "race", as appears f.i. from a long memo of the leading German Zionist organization sent to Hitler in the 1930s where they offered formal collaboration with the Nazis (see Part 1 of this article). In this memo one can read: "... On the foundation of the new state [Israel], WHICH HAS ESTABLISHED THE PRINCIPLE OF RACE, we wish to fit our community into the total structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible...".
One of the main reasons why the Nazis chose for the idea of a "racial purification" is that it was extremely easy to "sell" to the population. Not only were there widespread anti-Jewish feelings, the German population, who was stuck in a serious economical depression, could use a story that told them how much they were superior to others very, very well. Also, the Jews were made into the perfect scapegoats of the economical problems. And in the words of Goebbels: "Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the 'truth'..."
In the end, Hitler and the Nazis took a direction that was more and more their own, and less and less that of the Illuminati agenda. Although perhaps one should say that the Illuminati simply saw greater opportunities in letting the Allied forces win. In any case, losing the support of the Illuminati/Reptilians was the element that determined the final outcome of the war, and that's the ONLY reason why the Allies actually won!
At the end of WW2 some 6,000,000 Jews and tens of millions non-Jews had been killed. This served the Reptilian agenda in more than simply that of an extreme sort of ritual sacrifice. The special focus on the Jews, and the fear it instilled in the Jewish community was phenomenal, and - as said before - fear is the number 1 ingredient for controlling people, the most important objective of the Reptilians.
Back to the top.
Mind control and Zionism.
It looks like it that nowadays, just as 5,000 years ago, the Illuminati/Reptilians again see excellent use of the Jews for their agenda. Not only are several major Jewish leaders Reptilians, Reptilian possessed or in one way or another closely connected to the Illuminati, the Illuminati/Reptilians probably also see as an advantage of the Jews their culture, and the consequences it has on the Jewish individual, while it also has to be noted that, so to speak, now they are working with a "new team", since about 90% of all Jews worldwide are Khazar-Ashkenazis, not Semites (see part 1). What's more, these Jews are of pretty pure Aryan blood, seeing that traditionally they prefer not to mingle with non-Jews.
On one hand Jewish culture has been shaped by the Sumerian-Egyptian-Levite religious laws. On the other hand it has been shaped by the fact that the Jews have been persecuted and hunted down throughout the centuries, which has left a deeply rooted fear within the Jewish community, leaving it in a basically deeply traumatized state. Through fear, people can be made to do almost anything.
Thus, both of these main ingredients make the Jewish culture extremely "conditioning". In other words, the degree of "brainwash" is very high, and therefore it's an ideal group to subject to mind control.
To get an example of the degree of mind control that the Jewish community is subjected to it's enough just to listen to a couple of interviews of Jews from Israel or anywhere else, and to hear how natural they (or at least most of them) think it is f.i. to repress or kill Palestinians, or to take Palestine away from the Palestinians. Although polls show that 70% of the Israelis believe settlements that are in areas densely populated by Palestinians should be removed, and 52% agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, still 72% supported the military actions recently carried out by Sharon while 44% is for expulsion of the Palestinians to Jordan or even further away (which is rather contradictory with the first percentage given, but that's how polls can be).
What's more, recent polls show that when a general question was asked about a return to the 1967 borders in return for peace, 56% of the Israelis that responded were opposed. But when the question specified that Israel would give up the Golan, the Jordan Valley, and the Old City under such an arrangement, objections skyrocketed to almost 80%. And when the right of return for Palestinians was figured in, only 4% of the Israelis supported the idea. Practically 2/3 of those surveyed said they would oppose a Palestinian state if it were possible to do so.
These numbers clearly show that presently very, very few Israeli Jews would ever say that perhaps the Palestinians have a somewhat legitimate reason for THEIR actions...!
Some would say that this is merely the expression of a collective violent and greedy nature, but personally I can't believe for a second this is true seeing the fact that I consider those character traits as "unspontaneous", i.e. "provoked", and not in accord with true human nature.
Rather, at present, much of the Israeli-Zionists and Jews throughout the world are collectively behaving like a child who has been sexually abused and molested. In many cases such children grow up to be abusers themselves. This is why it's being done so extensively in Illuminati, Reptilian and (other) Satanic circles. Likewise, the survivors of the Nazi hunt now end up behaving like Nazis themselves (also see Sharon's quote above). Just this fact alone is a strong indication of the fact that there is indeed a Reptilian scheme going on specifically aimed at the Jewish community.
"Milder" forms of mind control are carried out through the manipulation of the information that circulates.
When the World Zionist Organization was created, one of the items put on the agenda was doing "propaganda" to the Jewish community (they didn't at that stage mention the rest of the world). When you read the report of the session it doesn't say "promotion". No, they chose to use the word "propaganda". This is a word that fits the way how people like Goebbels presented the Nazi goals to the population or how the Stalinist-Communist Soviets presented theirs. It's a word that implies lies and fraud and purposefully misleading people for achieving ones goals. In other words, it's about mind control.
Read this fact yourself on the "educational" site of the World Zionist Organization, at
http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/100/time/1897.html (see point 4.)
As an example, even today the Zionists don't hesitate to falsify history and teach children those things that will serve their agenda and promote hate towards Palestinians. For this, it's enough to look at what Israeli schoolbooks teach about the Palestinians and the Palestinian conflict. Their content in just a few words: the Palestinians are backwards, lazy, killers and thieves (hmmm.... where did I hear THAT theme before?... Wasn't it in....... "The Eternal Jew"??? - see Part 1). While the Israelis are basically out on a "humanitarian" action when they occupy the territory that belongs to the Palestinians... It seems that schoolchildren are being told that confiscation of land belonging to Palestinans is "the redemption of the land" from those who do not belong there...
Read more about this at http://www.arabia.com/news/article/english/0%2C11827%2C186070%2C00.html
However, there's not only physical and political mind control, many cultural and social reflexes also get "programmed". Thus, to give an example of this, generally, someone who is Jewish and who didn't take a distance from his/her religion (f.i. like a Catholic who stops going to church) will seldom, if ever, marry someone who is non-Jewish. Would he/she do this, in many cases his/her family would reject this decision profoundly, and this can result in the new "member of the family" simply being "boycotted". This mentality (and the fear of rejection it causes) results in a behavioral pattern which leads to mind control. Mind you, there are exceptions to this rule! But in the great majority of cases, this is the situation. As much as I'd wish this not to be true, I have personally been able to observe it several time, so I simply can't deny it... While as such, it's fairly normal for members of a certain group of the population to be drawn to other member of that same group, in the case of the Jewish community, it must be acknowledged this is decidedly more the case than many other groups.
Other mind control is brought about by rigid religious discipline which creates a disassociated mood, resulting in an alienation of the "self", and therefore in mind control.
This - besides gaining control on a purely organizational level - is one of the main reasons, why the same Rothschilds who finance the Zionist movement have also financed religious sects like the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons and the Catholic Church. Otherwise, why would someone pretending to be Jewish do this? It's definitely not due to an excess of "religious democracy" consciousness...
Sects like the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons impose an extremely strict and rigid religious discipline upon their members. Most of the discipline is enforced through fear (generally, the fear is about being rejected by "God", and in many cases merely being rejected by the sect itself). Besides this fact, their leaders and some of their priests are in reality ritualistic Satanists, who indulge in the ritual sacrifice of human beings and practices of mind control (f.i. in order to create sex-slaves).
Other religious cults, generally, are also no more than mind control operations. Extreme examples of this may be found in people like Billy Graham (a Satanist and pedophile rapist) and the Pope (ex-representative for the Zyklon-B producer IG Farben).
The Order of the Jesuits has from the moment it was founded by Loyola Ignatius (who before creating the order was a mercenary) not only been a mind control operation, but also a cover for the enrichment of the Illuminati and bringing under control people in key-positions and the world as a whole - a truly autonomous NWO operation!
Nevertheless, this doesn't take away the fact that within all the religious organizations you'll find many truly beautiful people, with honest, good and sincere intentions. It's just that at the top, things are a truly a mess...
To get the full story concerning mind control and also how this occurs in religious groupings see the "must read" book by Fritz Springmeier: "The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave." (parts 1 & 2) at
http://www.heart7.net/mc.html (free ebook) or at
Please note this book is not for the weak at heart as some of the content is quite shocking.
Back to the top.
The Zionists and the NWO conspiracy.
Now, without dwelling extensively on examples of mind control, in my opinion, these days the Reptilians/Illuminati love to work with those who are Jewish or of Jewish origins due to the opportunities of mind control offered. Besides a natural kind of nepotism that is sometimes carried to the extreme, this is the reason why one finds - proportionally to other religious and non-religious groups of people - so many people of Jewish origins in key-positions.
This is also the case for positions at the (major) news outlets. This is why it can happen that the control on the media by Jewish/Zionist representatives is such that when f.i. the Israelis killed hundreds of refugees (simple civilians) in one or two days as was the case in Jenin, this story remained totally unreported for as long as possible and was immediately put on the background when there was another kamikaze attack which killed "only" 8...
Which Hollywood movie has ever depicted the Palestinian viewpoint or Israeli terrorist actions of the 1940s?..... Right... not a single one of them! (While there are Palestinian film makers operating through other channels, but who don't have the same production and distribution capacity as the Hollywood movies). And how many movies have there been made about the fate of the Jews during WW2 (most often beautiful and moving pictures, it must be said) or about "terrorists" (most often Arab and generally depicted as complete nutters) who hijack a plane or do some other hideous deed? ..... Exactly....., INNUMERABLE amounts!
While regularly new movies are being made that in one way or another have something to do with the WW2 holocaust - at least a few big-budget productions a year - besides the fact that no movies are made about the Palestinian's suffering, the Jewish Holywood clan apparently also can't be bothered about the tens of millions of victims of World War II ally, Stalinist Russia, nor the tens of millions of victims of China's Maoist regime, or the 12 to 14 million generally not Nazi affiliated or sympathizing Germans, victims of the flight and expulsion of 1944-1949, of whom some two million lost their lives. The movies about Vietnam's Pol Pot regime who murdered about 8 million people (at least one third more than there were Jews killed during WW2), or the dictatorial regimes of Chili and Argentine, who also killed millions, can be counted on the fingers of one hand...
As you'll note, this favoring of the WW2 holocaust over other tragedies of such proportion or greater, doesn't only applies for movies, but for all media in general...
A company that has played an important role in Hollywood growing into the film centre of the world was MGM, which stands for Metro(politan) Goldwyn Mayer. James Goldwyn, whose real name was Shmuel Gelbfisz (which means "goldfish") and Louis. B. Mayer who both founded MGM were Jews, while MGM was actually owned by Loew's Incorporated, owned by Marcus Loew and the brothers Nicholas and Joseph Schenck, of whom the latter also became president of United Artists and then founded 20th Century Pictures with Darryl Zanuck (one of the few prominent non-Jewish producers in the Hollywood pantheon).
Other prominent Jewish film producers are Carl Laemmle who created Universal Pictures, Harry Cohn who created Columbia Pictures, William Fox (William Fried) of the Fox Film Corporation, the Warner brothers, Adolph Zukor who created Paramount Pictures with Jesse L. Lasky, to name a few of them...
When looking at what actors, directors, writers, musicians, etc... are Jewish, you sort of get the impression that ALL of them are..., which isn't true of course, but still, you won't see many Arabs or Indians on the list of successful filmmakers, while Africans are also pretty underrepresented...
This is not to say that the fact there are so many Jews in the film industry is a bad thing. Quite on the contrary, seeing that many great movies have been made by them. It's just that the Jewish domination of the industry is responsable for a definitively political and cultural bias that is quite questionable at times, as shown above.
Find a limited overview of names of Jewish film makers at
http://abbc.com/islam/english/toread/names.htm (the rest of this site is fiercely anti-Jewish, and I dont particularly agree with much of what is advanced or the way it said; however, the list found at this link has some interesting names that I haven't found on other sites).
http://abbc.com/islam/english/toread/names.htm which also offers other information on Jewish film makers.
Who owns today one of the biggest movie- and record companies in the world, Universal? Well, it's the Bronfmans, a Jewish family that got its wealth from organized crime, also known as the Mafia.
By the way, most of the first organized crime syndicates in the USA were Jewish, not Italian, as most people believe. The most notorious Mafiosi being people like Arnold Rothstein, Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegal, Dutch Schultz, Abraham Twist Kid Reles, Pep Strauss, Mendy Weiss, Gurrah Shapiro, Red Levine while there were many others... You can read all on this in Rich Cohen's book "Tough Jews".
In Russia too, organized crime has been greatly in control by Jews, as is reported by Jewish authors such as Yuri Brokhin, in "Hustling on Gorky Street", and Konstantin Simis, in "USSR: The Corrupt Society".
And since we're looking at the crime sector, it has to be said that throughout the ages, Jews have also played a most prominent role in the slave and prostitution trade. It's not that the rest of the world hasn't been involved in these, but the Jewish community has played its own "remarkable" and in many cases decisive part.
At one time it was even so bad that the emperor Theodosius II (408-450 AD) had to made an edict - the "Codex Theodosianus" strictly prohibiting Jews from owning, selling and circumcising Christian slaves (while he later prohibited other religions than Christianity altogether).
Today, it seems that the trade in sex-slaves from the Eastern European countries has been fully under control of Jewish organizations, as has been the case for the last 200 years. By the way, many of the women who are thus abused are Jewish... Read more on this in Edward J. Bristow's "Prostitution and Prejudice, The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery 1870-1939" or online at
Looking at the other end of organized crime: it's also an established fact that the Jewish community has a decisive influence in American political life, as was made obvious during negotiations concerning Palestine during WW1 and WW2 (see Part 1). Even Sharon mentioned this fact during a radio broadcast by Israel Radio on 3 October 2001. At the time Sharon was berating Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in Cabinet, saying:
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
He must surely have had some good reasons for making such a statement... Is it therefore strange that the USA has not intervened in the Palestinian conflict? Of course not. And they won't interfere on the Israelis anytime soon, at least not until the Bush's and Cheney's oil-interests will be at stake...
Recently, the wife of the President of the European Central Bank, W. Duisenberg, mentioned publicly that that it's the American Zionists that cause the suffering of the Palestinian people, as the only reason the Americans don't take a stronger position against the Israeli repression of the Palestinians is because of the fact that the influence of the Zionist lobby in America is too strong. The next day the Dutch Jewish Federation started a lawsuit against her, suing her for "anti-Semitism" while the World Jewish Congress threatened that they would make sure her husband would not be welcome in the USA if he wouldn't distance himself from his wife's statements... Perhaps they should sue and boycott Ariel Sharon as well...
Besides their important presence in the political and entertainment world, obviously, the Jewish community is vastly represented in the banking world and financing in general, as demonstrated by the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs, the Loebs, a.s.o.
Of course, the Jewish community is also vastly represented in science, industry and many other fields.
Please note, the examples given above are just to show that there is a disproportionate high number of Jews/Zionists to be found in key-positions throughout the world. That this is the case for f.i. the USA has even be confirmed by someone like Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, in his internet article "The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography".
The result of this is that there are certain specifically Zionism related problems. Let the examples given above not be understood to indicate that Jews in general behave in ways less than honorable. As long as this issue can not be looked at without the usual eye-blinders, then there will always be room for false accusations and "racism", exactly the opposite effect of what some people would like to obtain by dismissing the info mentioned above as simply "anti-Jewish". Looking at some disturbing facts concerning the Zionists and the Jewish community isn't being "anti-Jewish", not any more than f.i. criticizing the criminal record of the Bush family would be "UN-republican"... (read more on the Bush family's crimes at http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm ).
It's precisely the facts described above - and not clarifying them - that brings certain people to the conclusion that there would be something like a "Zionist conspiracy", as was claimed by Hitler and is still claimed by many neo-Nazi organizations. But this, however, is simply NOT true. The Zionists fulfil a role in a conspiracy that is much, much wider: the Reptilian/Draco conspiracy. And most have no clue that this is so...
Whatever will come out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, under the present circumstances it seems that in all probable cases the Reptilians/Illuminati will benefit from it: if the Israelis can continue their aggressive strategy without any intervention, then they will go on expanding their territory and control on the region, and Israel will be like a "pit bull" which the Reptilians/Illuminati will be able to use for a whole range of things, like backing up the USA for the upcoming war with Iraq or gaining domination over oil interests; if it should happen that the UN will deploy its troops in Palestine, then not only will they have succeeded in bringing the entire region under UN (and therefore Reptilian/Illuminati) control, it will also have been shown that conflicts, such as that in Palestine, can be solved "only by the UN", and therefore that the only acceptable authority in the world is the UN. In both cases the NWO will again have come dangerously closer...Hoping for better times,
July 24, 2002
Last updated: August 7, 2002
Back to the top.
If you think that some essential info or link is missing on this page, please, let me know!
Total amount of visits to this website:
Send this page to a friend!
Click here or on the ET.
If it's not automatically inserted in your message, please copy + paste this URL: http://3rdDimension.online.fr/ .
[ Home - Articles | Links]
Copyright © 2002-2003 3rdDimension