The Struggle for the Jewish Legion
and The Birth of the IDF
By Jerry Klinger
From a recruitment poster1
If we defend ourselves, we are attacked. If we don’t defend ourselves we are attacked. What is worse? When those attacking Jews for defending themselves are the Jews themselves
– Judith Rice
A Father’s Blessing
Go, my child, and prepare the way for the liberation of your unhappy people. Go, and let your courage make your people proud. As for you, O my child, my wish is that you may rise higher and higher, until you attain the heights of Judah Maccabee. May your name be perpetuated to the end of time as a source of pride to our family and our people. I thank you, my beloved son, for having brought me so much honor. May you be able before long to receive your mother and me in the land where the sun is so warm and bright. I also wish your comrades, the heroes of the Jewish Legion, who are leaving with you on February 28, 1918, that the Guardian of Israel may watch over them and you and protect all of you so that you may reach England safely. Then, I am sure, you will fulfill the holy mission you have undertaken.
H. Gordon, New London, Connecticut2
Gordon’s son, 17 year old Maurice, was too young to serve in the American armed forces. With his parents blessing, he volunteered at the British recruiting office in New York to serve with the 39th Royal Fusiliers to liberate Palestine from the Turks. The 39th was part of what later would be known as the Jewish Legion.
Colonel John Henry Patterson was the commanding officer of the 38th Royal Fusiliers, the first unit of the Jewish Legion. Encountering a prominent British Jewish leader bitterly against the Legion Patterson wrote later:
“I happened by chance one day to meet a prominent member of the Sanballat3 deputation to the War Office, and, in the course of conversation, I asked him why he objected so strongly to the formation of a Jewish Regiment. He replied that he had no faith in the Russian Jews, and feared they would bring discredit on Jewry. I said that, from what I have seen in Gallipoli of the Jew from Russia, I had more faith in him than he had, and that I felt confident I could make him into a good soldier. He was kind enough to remark, “Well, perhaps under you they will turn out to be good soldiers, but then they might win Palestine, and I don’t want to be sent there to live.”4
“The Jewish Legion was the name for five battalions of Jewish volunteers established as the British Army’s 38th through 42nd (Service) Battalions of the Royal Fusiliers. The initial unit, known as the Zion Mule Corps, was formed in 1914-1915 during World War I, when Britain was at war against the Ottoman Turks, as Zionists around the world saw an opportunity to promote the idea of a Jewish National Homeland.
In December 1914, Zeev Jabotinsky and Joseph Trumpeldor raised the idea of the formation of a Jewish unit that would participate in the British military effort to conquer Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, and by the end of March 1915, 500 Jewish volunteers from the Jews in Egypt who had been deported there by the Turks had started training. The Zion Mule Corps served on the Gallipoli front, as for political reasons the British opposed the participation of Jewish volunteers on the Palestinian front, but ultimately, in August 1917, the formation of a Jewish regiment was officially announced. The soldiers of the 38th and 39th Battalions of the Royal Fusiliers, made up almost entirely of Jews from Britain, Russia, the United States and Canada and later, the 40th Battalion, composed of Jews from the Ottoman provinces of Palestine and other areas, served in the Jordan Valley and fought the Turks some 20 miles north of Jerusalem.”5
“Vladimir Jabotinsky was born in Odessa, Russian in 1880. He was raised in a Jewish middle-class home and educated in Russian schools. While he took Hebrew lessons as a child, Jabotinsky wrote in his autobiography that his upbringing was divorced from Jewish faith and tradition.
Jabotinsky’s talents as a journalist became apparent even before he finished high school. His first writings were published in Odessa newspapers when he was 16. Upon graduation he was sent to Bern, Switzerland and later to Italy as a reporter for the Russian press. He wrote under the pseudonym “Altalena” (the Italian word for ‘swing’; see also Altalena Affair). While abroad, he also studied law at the University of Rome, but it was only upon his return to Russia that he qualified as an attorney. His dispatches from Italy earned him recognition as one of the brightest young Russian-language journalists: he later edited newspapers in Russian, Yiddish, and Hebrew.”6
In 1903, when he witnessed the shattering aftermath of the Kishinev pogrom, Jabotinsky realized that a Jew would never be more than a despised stepson in Russia. “When rumors reached him of impeding excesses in Dubossary, a small town ear Odessa, he helped to organize one of the first Jewish self-defense groups Russia. The dreaded massacre did not take place, but Jabotinsky had taken his first step as an active participant in Jewish life. It was then that he first began to frequent the Besyeda Club. Zionism was beginning to claim his serious interest; and the Jewish people and its heritage became his main concern.” 7
“His interviews with the leading Young Turks had convinced him of the futility of political negotiations with them. He realized that Zionists could expect no more from that regime than they could from the crafty, grasping old Sultan. No large commercial transactions and no amount of substantial bribes would induce the Turks to grant the Jews the autonomous status they were seeking in Palestine. The Turks, themselves a minority in the far-flung Ottoman Empire, could not risk aggravating the threat to their hegemony by granting independence to the Jews.”8
Herzlian Zionism centered on the proposal that the Jews would assume the Turkish debt in return for autonomy in Palestine. Jabotinksy knew it would never work. He knew that only a conflict, with Turkey on the losing side and the Jews on the victorious side, would change the future of Zionism.
Russian forces broke across Central Europe toward Germany, through the Pale of Jewish settlement, racing to create a second front for the Germans. Jewish communities along the battlefront were ravaged by both German and Russian armies. The Russian army was particularly vicious with the Jews in its path, looting, murdering, raping and then deporting en-mass Jews. Starvation, desperation and death became the Jewish reality. Ultimately a mini-Holocaust with the death of hundreds of thousands of Jews ensued.
Jabotinsky was a journalist in Belgium when the German invasion began. He escaped to France and followed the fleeing French government to Bordeaux when the news of the Turkish alliance came through. He was elated.
“A Jewish Legion, fighting on the side of the Allies would spell the beginning of the end of this persecution. Jabotinsky did not yet know how to give his idea flesh and blood, but it was imperative for him to get supporters and fighting men. Time and again he was rebuffed, but undaunted; he traveled to Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt. On December 14, 1914, he was on his way to Alexandria; casting about for ways of recruiting men for the Legion….The Turkish regime unwittingly came to Jabotinsky’s aid. On December 14, 1914, claiming exigencies of war – a substantial number of Palestine’s Jews were of Russian origin and hence enemy aliens – the Turks issued an edict expelling these Jews from Palestine.” 9
“Joseph Trumpeldor was born in Pyatigorsk, Russia. His father, Wulf Trumpeldor, served as a cantonist in the Caucasian War, and as a “useful Jew”, was allowed to settle outside the Pale of Settlement. Though proudly Jewish, Trumpeldor’s upbringing was more Russian than traditionally Jewish. Originally in training as a dentist, Joseph Trumpeldor volunteered for the Russian army in 1902. During the Russo-Japanese War, he participated in the siege of Port Arthur, where he lost his left arm to shrapnel. He spent a hundred days in the hospital recovering, but elected to complete his service. Trumpeldor was truly dedicated to his country. When he was questioned about his decisions and told that he was heavily advised not to continue fighting given his handicap, he responded “but i still have another arm to give to the motherland”. When Port Arthur surrendered, Trumpeldor went into Japanese captivity. He spent his time printing a newspaper on Jewish affairs and organized history, geography and literature classes. He also befriended several prisoners who shared his desire of founding a communal farm in Palestine. On return from captivity, he moved to St. Petersburg. Trumpeldor subsequently received four decorations for bravery including the Cross of St. George, which made him the most decorated Jewish soldier in Russia. In 1906 he became the first Jew in the army to receive an officer’s commission.
Due to his handicap he began to study law. He gathered a group of young Zionists around him and in 1911 they emigrated to Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire. When World War I broke out, being an enemy national, he was deported to Egypt.10
Though the Yishuv professed loyalty to the Turks and offered their young men to serve in the Turkish army, Palestinian Jews were increasingly terrorized by the Turkish and Arab majority. Eventually, 11,000 brutalized Palestinian Jews passed through Alexandria seeking safety. Many other Palestinian Jews began fleeing for their lives, abandoning their homes and dreams of Zionism.
Turkey may have been known as the sick man of Europe but her leaders still had visions of military expansion and Empire. Mid- January 1915, Jamal Pasha, the ambitious military ruler of Palestine, assembled an army to invade British Egypt and conquer the Suez Canal for Turkey. He gathered 35,000 troops from Syria and another 20,000 from Mosul. His plan was direct. He would invade through the Sinai desert and attack across the Canal before the British could react. Jamal Pasha relied upon Arab “intelligence “sources, giving British General Maxwell false information, to keep him in the dark.
February 2-4, 1915, Jamal Pasha’s army was crushed by British artillery and combined British and French naval forces. He struggled back, badly bloodied but not submissive. He still controlled Palestine from the Sinai to Damascus.
As the Jewish refugees arrived in Alexandria throughout December, the British erected two refugee camps for them, Gabbari and Mafruza. Conditions were difficult and the British did the best they could for the refugees. Every few days, fresh boat loads of desperate Jews arrived from Palestine. Some were transported from Jaffa on the U.S.S Tennessee, an American armored cruiser that had been sent to the area to protect American citizens.
Jabotinsky arrived at the camps late in December. 1,500 Palestinian Jewish refugees had already arrived. He immediately began organizing them, becoming a very useful liaison for the British. March 3, 1915, he called a meeting of Palestinian Jewish leaders in the Gabbari Barracks. The purpose of the meeting was to create a Jewish response to the Turkish banishment from Palestine. At the meeting Jabotinksy met the one armed Trumpeldor. The meeting was stormy. But the Jewish leadership “voted to recruit, from among the young men in the camps, a Jewish unit to fight on the side of the British Army on the Palestinian front for the liberation of Eretz Yisrael.
….One week later, 200 young men met in a converted stable in Mafruza to consider their options. Jabotinsky argued, “It is impossible to sit here with folded arms and subsist on charity. On the other hand, there is no doubt that sooner or later the British will march on Palestine. The news from Jaffa is dismal. The Turks forbade Hebrew signs. Although he is German born, they deported Dr. Arthur Ruppin, writer, sociologist and director of the Zionist movement. Meir Dizengoff and and other Jewish leaders were arrested. It was decreed to prohibit Jewish immigration after the War. Well, then…”11180 volunteers stepped forward immediately.
A new committee was organized, including Jabotinsky and Trumpeldor who was described as “tall, broad-shouldered, lean, with tranquil Nordic features and a special touch of dignity lent by his empty sleeve, Trumpeldor could not fail to impress the British administrators”12. They left for Alexandria to present their case to General Maxwell.
“I have heard nothing of an offensive against Palestine,’ he said,’ and I doubt whether such an offensive will be launched at all. Also, the law doesn’t admit foreign soldiers into the British Army. I can make only one suggestion – that your young men enlist in a mule transport unit for some other sector of the Turkish front. I cannot do more than that.” 13
Jabotinsky was insulted. He wanted to be a soldier, not a mule driver. He wanted to fight in a Jewish unit, not be a backup for others. Trumpledor, the experienced soldier, understood what Maxwell was saying to them. He understood that Maxwell could not tell them what, where and when the British plans were developing. They wanted men. He was offering them an opportunity.
Trumpeldor told Jabotinsky, after they left Maxwell, “to get the Turks out of Palestine, we’ve got to smash the Turk, on which front you begin smashing is a question of tactics. Any front leads to Zion.”14
The arguments between Jabotinsky, Trumpeldor and the committee continued bitterly through the night. In the morning, Trumpeldor had carried the majority. He explained the dangerous and vital role of supply during battle. It was not as glamorous but it was vital to the war effort. Jabotinksy refused to join the proposed and renamed, Zion Mule Corps. He returned to Europe to pursue his dream of a direct, Jewish fighting unit to liberate Palestine. Trumpeldor reported the committee’s agreement to Maxwell to support the Zion Mule Corps. The Jewish committee members, the British and Trumpeldor’s task became to convince the young Jewish refugees to volunteer for the Corps.
General Maxwell had not suddenly come up with the supply project. Planning had been underway for awhile. Maxwell knew of a major proposed operation to crush the Turks by striking directly at the heart of the Turkish territory. The sea born invasion and the battle of Gallipoli were being planned. The British needed men. Maxwell had investigated and concluded that foreign volunteers to a supply corps were not technically enlistees of the British army. A Jewish Mule Corps did not violate the law. Maxwell had already selected the man to command the Mule Corps.
John Henry Patterson, DSO (November 10, 1867 – June 18, 1947), was born in 1867 in Forgney, Ballymahon, County Westmeath, Ireland, to a Protestant father and Roman Catholic mother. Young Patterson joined the British Army at age seventeen, rose quickly through the ranks, and eventually attained the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel in the Essex Yeomanry. In 1898, then Lt.-Col. Patterson was commissioned by the British East Africa Company to oversee the construction of a railway bridge over the Tsavo river in present-day Kenya. He arrived at the site in March of that year. The project was threatened with failure by man-eating lions, having killed 135 workers. In a feat of personal daring, Patterson faced and killed the lions. He wrote about his exploits in a book that brought him world recognition in The Man-Eaters of Tsavo. His courageous confrontations in East Africa were made into Hollywood movies. Most recently, 1996, Val Kilmer starred in the academy award winning production of The Ghost and the Darkness.
Patterson’s reputation collapsed when he was accused in the suicide/affair of a fellow officer Audley Blyth and his wife. He was leading them on a safari mission. Patterson retired from the army in 1911. With the outbreak of World War I, Patterson rejoined the British army, at first serving in Flanders. Unable to secure a stable commission because of his alleged impropriety, Patterson traveled to Egypt to seek an assignment through Generals Dudley and Maxwell whom he had known while serving in the Boer War. Fortuitously, he arrived in Alexandria as Jabotinsky converged from the West and Trumpeldor from the East.
Maxwell, understaffed, desperate for experienced officers, offered Patterson the command of a Mule Corps. Patterson, eager to get back into the fighting, accepted. It was to be a fateful decision for him and for Zionism.
“It was strange, therefore that I, so imbued with the Jewish traditions should have arrived in Egypt at the psychological moment when General Sir John Maxwell, the C-in-C in Egypt, was looking for a suitable officer to recruit a Jewish unit. A Jewish unit had been unknown for 2,000 years, since the day of the Maccabees, those heroic sons of Israel who fought so valiantly, and for a time so successfully, to wrest Jerusalem form the Roman Legions…. It is curious that General Maxwell should have chosen me (to command a Jewish unit), because he knew nothing of my knowledge of Jewish history and my sympathy for the Jewish race. When as a boy I eagerly devoured the records of the glorious deeds of the Jewish military captains, such as Joshua, Joab, Gideon, Judas Maccabee, I never dreamed that I in a small way would become a captain of a host of the Children of Israel.” 15
March 19, 1915, Trumpeldor returned to the Marfuz Stables. Appealing to the Palestinian volunteers skeptical about enlisting in a Mule Corps, he said to them “A new and bright era rises for our people, an era which will enable us to fulfill the dream and vision of our prophets and our own vision of redeeming our land from the hands of strangers and to rebuild it. And we will do it with our own hands and not with the hands of strangers. History is giving us an opportunity which has not been given us in almost all the centuries of our exile… We will be the first to fight with our blood for the liberation of our land. We will be followed by thousands of other young Jews….”16
For the Christian Patterson and the Jewish Trumpeldor, both men knew that they were part of a momentous event. For Patterson, the Zion Mule Corps was imbued with Biblical and prophetic overtones. For Trumpeldor, the Zion Mule Corps was a historic opportunity of Jewish endeavor. For the men who volunteered, it may have been both.
“In a solemn ceremony on April 1, 1915, 500 volunteers were sworn in by the Grand Rabbi of Alexandria, Raphael Della Pergola, in the presence of many dignitaries and a mighty crowd which did not hide its enthusiasm. Lt. Col. Patterson assumed command; Joseph Trumpeldor, Captain became second in command………..The commands were given in Hebrew as well as in English. The uniform was British, but the badge was the Star of David.” 17
“On Saturday afternoon, April 17, the Zion Mule Corps or Zion Muleteers, as they were also known, sailed from Alexandria for Gallipoli under the escort of British warships. Some distance away in the harbor, the band of the USS Tennessee, which chanced to be there, played a farewell march. The Muleteers were electrified. Suddenly, from the Hymettus, singing could be heard. The song echoed over the sunlit Egyptian harbor, over the masts of the fishing craft, over the stacks of ocean liners, over the towers and superstructures of the British men-of-war. It was a song of sorrow, dignity and all-encompassing hope, destined to become the anthem of a nation to be reborn a little over thirty years later – the HaTikva.”
The Gallipoli campaign took place at Gallipoli peninsula in Turkey from 25 April 1915 to 9 January 1916, during the First World War. A joint British and French operation was mounted to capture the Ottoman capital of Istanbul and secure a sea route to Russia. The attempt failed, with heavy casualties on both sides.
Gallipoli was one of the Allies great disasters in World War One. Gallipoli was the plan thought up by Winston Churchill to end the war early by creating a new war front that the Central Powers could not cope with.
Gallipoli was a failure, costing almost 133,000 lives on both sides. The Allies withdrew. The Zion Mule Corps returned to Alexandria and was slowly disbanded. Col. Patterson, seriously ill, was invalided back to Britain. Captain Trumpeldor assumed command of the dwindling Zion Mule Corps. Within a matter of months, the Zion Mule Corp was down to a fraction of its original size.
Jabotinsky had refused to join the Zion Mule Corps. He returned to Europe to begin his long, lonely ordeal to raise awareness and support for a Jewish Legion. He had failed in Egypt and then subsequently failed in Italy. By the spring of 1915 he was in Paris trying to interest the French in the opportunity. Baron Edmond de Rothschild was not interested in promoting the idea. Through Gustave Herve, Jabotinsky was introduced to Theophile Delcasse, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs who rejected the idea. Delcasse’s rejection of the Jewish Legion idea and Jabotinsky also ended France’s opportunity to have a direct say in the future of Palestine.
Defeated three times, Jabotinksy went to London. At least in London, Chaim Weizmann was sympathetic but followed the Zionist official policy of outward neutrality. The Zionist community was deeply concerned about being perceived as taking one side or the other. Jews were fighting in all armies and against each other in this war. The Zionists, reasonably feared, that repercussions would be taken against the indigenous Jewish populations of Britain or France if the Germans should win. They also reasoned, if the Allies should win the Jews in Germany, Austria and other Axis states would be in danger. Jabotinsky ignored them and pushed ahead.
In England he met with Field Marshall Lord Kitchener, the British Secretary of War. Kitchener was not interested in “fancy battalions”. He summarily rejected Jabotinsky. Kitchener had no problem with Moslem or Hindu battalions.
“Jabotinksy sought to meet Herbert Samuel, a (Jewish) member of the Asquith Cabinet. Weizmann wanted to introduce Jabotinsky to Samuel, but the idea was vetoed by the prominent members of the (Zionist) Inner Actions Committee. However, Samuel became interested of his own accord after reading a report on the Zion Muleteers in the Jewish Chronicle. At a meeting, he asked who Jabotinsky was, but Dr. Moses Gaster, the Chief Rabbi of Britain’s Sephardic Community, who was related to Samuel, merely replied: “Oh, just a talker.”18
June 1915, the Executive Committee of the World Zionist Organization was meeting in Copenhagen. Jabotinsky wrote to his old friend Dr. Victor Jacobson to help argue his case at the meeting. Jabotinsky understood that the Legion project was to be discussed and the Russian Zionist delegation, led by Menachim Ussishkin, was adamantly against it. Ussishkin forcefully argued that the Jews owed a historic debt to the Turks. They had provided a safe haven, a welcoming refuge to the Jews exiled by the Spanish inquisition. He ignored the fact that Turkey was at war with Spain at the time.
Jabotinsky responded that because of the mistreatment of the Jews of Palestine by the Turks, any debt of gratitude had been forfeited. “If the Jews in Palestine were not slaughtered wholesale, it was not due to Turkey’s humaneness towards the Jews but to the presence of Ambassador (Henry) Morgenthau in Constantinople and of two American cruisers off Jaffa, which demonstratively served us. And if the German Ambassador in Turkey advised the Turks not to quarrel with the Jews in Palestine, it was also due to his fear of the Americans.” 19 He further argued that the Europeans did not know or care about the Jews with the exception of the British. If the Jews wished to have a representation in the future of Palestine after the Allied victory, they had to take part in the fight for it.
Three key members of the committee, Otto Warburg, Ussishkin and Alfred Klee were opposed to the Legion. They demanded, even before the committee meeting in Cophenhagen commenced, that the Legion issue be dealt with. It must not put on the agenda.
“Jabotinsky was invited to a private conference by Tschlenow and Jacobson, who were briefly joined by Arthur Hantke. For three hours, the three men (particularly Hantke) tried to convince Jabotinsky that Germany would win the war that the Zion Mule Corps was a grave mistake and that further propaganda for a Jewish Legion would destroy Zionism.”20
- That every undertaking of this kind is in sharpest contradiction to the entire character of Zionist activities:
- That the Zionist Organization will have nothing in common with any such undertaking;
Therefore, the Actions Committee demands that no Zionist should under any circumstances participate in or support any such undertaking.”
The World Zionist Organization had disowned Jabotinsky and declared him persona non-gratta.
“In Odessa, his home, where, back in 1903, he had organized the self-defense unit that had helped, spread his name throughout Russia, he was ostracized, and he was branded a traitor from the pulpit of the Yavneh Zionist Synagogue. Ussishkin stopped Jabotinsky’s mother in the street and said to her: ‘Your son should be hanged!”21
Even without organized Zionist support, Jabotinsky’s efforts in London slowly advanced. Arthur Henderson, a Laborite and head of the British Board of Education, made a second attempt to get Lord Kitchener to change his mind about the Jewish Legion. He failed.
British Jewish opposition to the Jewish Legion increased. It came from three areas of British Jewry. “The assimilationists, mostly wealthy and titled Jews, were opposed to any exclusively Jewish unit ‘because they could not permit Jews to be singled out as a distinct entity the British national body.’ The official Zionists, under the influence of Tschlenow and Nahum Sokolow, who then resided in London, strongly opposed the plan because it ran counter to the official policy of the World Zionist Organization. The opposition from these ranks was given further prestige by the voice of Ahad Ha’Am, the philosophers of cultural Zionism.” 22
The strongest opposition came from London’s East End, the Whitechapel Jews. They were predominantly recent Russian Jewish immigrants. They felt no obligation to fight for Britain in a war they did not understand and deeply, bitterly refused to fight in any war that benefited the hated anti-Semitic Russians, Britain’s ally.
As the charnel house of war destroyed men on the battle field, the British need for manpower increased. The Home Secretary, Sir Herbert Samuel, met with representatives of the Whitechapel Jews. Samuel had proposed deporting to Russia any Russian Jew who refused to enlist in the British cause.
“Gentlemen,” he asked them, “What else could I have done? Those Russian subjects refuse to enlist voluntarily, and resentment against them is growing. Can the Government stand idly by, watching that resentment degenerate into downright anti-Semitism? And, looking straight at Jabotinsky, he asked for his opinion.” 23
Jabotinsky responded to Samuel calmly and logically. If the government wanted the Jews to volunteer do not threaten them with deportation to Russia. Give them a positive reason to enlist. Give them a reason to fight that they will value, a Jewish Legion to free Palestine.
Samuel was sufficiently swayed by Jabotinsky’s argument that he withdrew his threat of deportation to Russia. He was not swayed enough to bring the matter before the Cabinet. Jabotinsky had been defeated again.
Early June 1916, Jabotinsky received a note from Lieutenant Colonel John Henry Patterson. The two had written but had never met. Patterson was in London recuperating from a severe illness he incurred while leading the Zion Mule Corp in Gallipoli. Patterson had been keeping up on what was happening with Jabotinsky’s efforts for a Jewish Legion. Jabotinsky had been kept informed of how Patterson had been as a leader of the Zion Mule Corps.
The soldier’s convalescent hospital, located at 40 Upper Grosvenor Street24 was run by Lady Violet Brassy. Patterson had begun writing his third book, With the Zionists in Gallipoli there. He concluded that Gallipoli had been a defeat but that the terrible cost had been worth it. The British had nearly destroyed a “magnificent” Turkish Army and by so doing gave invaluable help to the Russians. Patterson hoped his book would arouse public support for a Jewish fighting unit in the British army.
Back in Egypt, the Zion Mule Corps was ordered to Ireland to help suppress the Irish fighting the British for independence. The volunteers refused to go. They had volunteered to fight the Turks not suppress the Irish struggling for their freedom. March 26, 1916, the Zion Mule Corps was disbanded. 120 of its former members agreed to join Trumpeldor and stay together as a unit if they could create a separate Jewish fighting force within the British Army. The War Office ignored the offer.
Patterson had been promoting the idea of a Jewish Legion as well. “The commanding officer of the Australian and New Zealand Expeditionary Force, General Birdwood, thought a Jewish legion was a great idea, Patterson wrote. He had even suggested to Patterson that he should work to help form one. “Nothing would give me greater gratification,” Patterson concluded, “than to raise, train and command a Jewish fighting unit.” 25
Jabotinsky called on Patterson at the hospital. He met a “tall, thin man of youthful middle age, with intelligent and cheerful eyes, the personification of what the English called Irish charm, but with no hint of those so-called Irish qualities of gloom and hair splitting. He was soon to learn that Patterson was a great student of the Bible.”26
“Of course,” said the Colonel.”27
The hand of fate or the hand of providence intervened. Within a matter of days of Jabotinsky and Patterson’s meeting, Lord Kitchener, the enemy of the Jewish Legion, was dead. On a mission to visit with his counterpart in Russia, his ship hit a German mine. June 5, 1916, Lord Kitchener drowned. His body was never found.28
Colonel Patterson and Jabotinsky climbed into a cab. Patterson took Jabotinsky to Parliament. Waiting in a hall between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, Patterson wrote out a note and handed it to an attendant. Five minutes, later a small man in a military uniform came out to greet them. Patterson introduced Jabotinsky to Captain Leopold Amery. The meeting was fateful for the future of the Jewish League. It was even more fateful for the future of Zionism and the yet to be born State of Israel.
Six months after their meeting, Captain Amery became Lloyd George’s secretary and eventually Colonial Secretary. He along with Lord Milner wrote the most crucial piece of legislation in Zionist history, the Balfour Declaration. The Declaration has long been erroneously credited solely to the Foreign Secretary, Lord Arthur Balfour. Captain Amery had direct access to the British Cabinet to promote the Jewish Legion.
A 1999 study by Professor William Rubenstein claimed that Captain Amery had been a secret Jew. His mother had been a Hungarian Jewess. She had converted to Protestantism and was an observant, practicing Anglican all her life, as had been most of her family. Rubenstein asserted that Amery hid his Jewish background fearing anti-Semitism and discrimination. Leopold Amery never talked of his Jewish background. He was to all who knew him an observant Christian and a thorough Englishman. Prior to his death, he completed his auto-biography where he mentioned, in a passing manner, some of his family background. He married as a Christian and he was buried as Christian. His Jewish identity was of no identifiable consequence in his public life. In his private life, there is no way to evaluate his Jewish identity.29
Amery had two sons. One son he completely disowned. In a horrific twist of life, his son, John became a Nazi sympathizer, as was the one time King of England Edward VII, later the Duke of Windsor. John Amery went to Germany during the War, having become a rabid anti-Semite and ardent Fascist. He broadcast propaganda for the Nazis aimed at weakening British moral. John Amery became a favorite of Adolph Hitler and even attempted to organize a British Nazi unit to fight against the Allies. He was executed, as a war criminal, by the British in December, 1945.30
The Russian and East European immigrant Jews continued agitating against Jabotinsky in Britain. Jabotinsky continued to press the issues. His argument was simple. They could join in a British Home defense unit or a Jewish fighting unit for Palestine. Jabotinksy called the campaign “Home or Heim.” The Home part existed. The Heim part did not.
Jabotinsky’s efforts, in June went into July. Feelings ran high in the immigrant community. The immigrants had conscious memories of enslavement in the Russian armies. They were not comfortable with British identity as they had not been naturalized. Many, traditionally, lived in fear trying to stay below the visibility of authorities. The Jewish immigrant community had been uprooted from its shtetl identification; religious leadership was being marginalized in the freer air of the West. Radical alternatives to Jewish suffering, such as Anarchism, Communism, Socialism, played on their search for new identity in Britain. What was uniform among the immigrants was an almost total, pathological hatred of the Russian megalith. Periodically, Jabotinsky required a personal body guard. Fears of Jewish violence against him, as he promoted British service, were real. His meetings were regularly disrupted by organized Jewish protestors blowing whistles. He was pelted with rotten tomatoes but still he pressed on.
Little by little, his message touched the souls of the Jewish world. Emotionally they were willing to sacrifice for Zion. The immigrants were not willing to die for Flanders or the Czar. The idea of a Jewish Legion amongst the immigrant Jews was slow to be accepted. They did not trust the British to honor their word. The non-Jewish world had betrayed them so many times in the past, over so many years and in so many lands. They continued to refuse to fight in any way that would benefit the Russians.
Mid July, 1916 the remnants of the Zion Mule Corps reached London. The Corps, still under the command of Captain Joseph Trumpeldor, was greatly reduced. After reenlisting in Alexandria, their transport ship back to England was torpedoed by an Austrian submarine. The ship sank off of Crete. The survivors were promised, although the Mule Corps was disbanded, that they would be kept together. Trumpeldor knew it was absolutely essential that the nucleus of the Jewish Fighting Unit must remain together. The British military would destroy their cohesiveness, their unified identity, without any care.
“The very next day (after landing in Britain), Trumpeldor appeared at Jabotinsky’s Chelsea home with a message from Nissei Rosenberg, a former Zion Mule Corps sergeant: “We arrived yesterday. There are 120 of us. Come to see us at the London Barracks.”31
“There were moves to disperse them, but both Patterson and Amery lobbied hard and they were all placed in a separate troop in the 20th London Regiment.”32 Jabotinsky enlisted as private in the unit.
Whenever possible Jabotinsky continued making personal contacts that would prove beneficial to the creation of the Jewish Legion. Over the next few months, he became friendly with editors of mainline newspapers and periodicals such as the Liberal periodical, The Nation, Charles P. Scott, publisher of the Manchester Guardian and Henry Wickham Steed of the Times. Steed had been a personal friend of Theodor Herzl. Steed published in the Times an editorial supporting the Jewish Legion idea. Inside the British government Jabotinsky continued cultivating relationships that would prove vital up and down the administrative line, such as Joseph King, Director of the British Propaganda office. King viewed the formation of a Jewish Legion as good propaganda for the war effort.
Trumpeldor “and Jabotinsky, with Amery’s help, presented a formal petition to the Prime Minister, Lloyd George, requesting the formation of the Legion. Jabotinsky then acted remarkably courageously. He signed up as an ordinary soldier in the Zion Mule Corps men’s unit, 20th London. The War Cabinet considered the petition, (early in 1917), approved of the proposal in principal and instructed the War Secretary, Lord Derby, to discuss the details with the signatories.”33
“In April 1917, while Private Jabotinsky was on Passover leave in London, a War Office messenger brought him a handwritten note from General Woodward, Director of Organization, requested him to report at the War Office two o’clock that very afternoon for an interview with Lord Derby. It was clear from the tone of the letter – the salutation was “Sir” – that the General had no idea he was addressing a mere buck private.
In a hurried conference with Trumpeldor, Jabotinsky thought that it might be preferable for Trumpeldor, as a Captain, to go instead, for the sight of a mere army private about to confer with the Secretary of War was likely to cause unpredictable consternation. However, Trumpeldor felt that his English was not adequate. In the end, Trumpeldor and Jabotinsky decided to chance it together.
“Trumpeldor smiled disarmingly and remarked: ‘If it is to be just a regiment of Jews – perhaps. If it will be a regiment for the Palestine front – certainly. If, together with its formation, there will appear a government pronouncement in favor of Zionism – overwhelmingly.”34
Lord Derby, the Minister of War, gave the project his approval. He assigned General Geddes to direct recruiting and arrange for the formalities of a Regimental uniform and identifying badge as a Jewish unit.
‘At a later meeting, Geddes asked Jabotinsky whom he would recommend to command the Regiment. He had already consulted Patterson on this point, who considered a Jewish Colonel should be found. But Jabotinsky knew that there was only one man who had the necessary tact, commitment and obstinacy for the job. A man he hoped, in due course, would be the General of a Jewish Brigade. Patterson was offered and accepted the command on 27 July 1917.”35
“There was opposition to the Regiment, not from the host community, nor from the anti-Semitic quarters, but from sections of English Jewry who were assimilationists. They feared that a separate Regiment with aspirations for a homeland would prejudice the position of those Jews who were totally at ease in England and regarded it as their home. Also coming from poor East European Jews living in Whitechapel might fail to distinguish itself.
To resolve the problem, Patterson called a meeting at the War Office of Jewish leaders from both sides, and government representatives, August 8, 1917. Present, amongst others, were Chaim Weizmann, Jabotinsky, Mark Sykes, Leopold Amery, in favor, Lionel de Rothschild and Edmund Montefiore in opposition.
Patterson stingingly rebuked the opposition to the Jewish Legion by refuting their claim that the British government intended to send the East End recruits to Flanders to “exterminate” them. Presented with the facts on that ground, General Allenby was in fact fighting in Palestine and at that moment was locked in battle outside of Gaza, did not sway the opposition. Finally, as the discussions became unpleasant, Patterson pointed out that the Legion was official British policy. Anyone not prepared to support the government’s plan should leave the room. No one did.
“On August 30, 1917, a delegation headed by Lionel de Rothschild and Lord Swaythling called on Lord Derby demanding the cancellation of the Jewish Regiment plan. They frankly questioned the courage and ability of the Russian Jews as fighters. In reporting to the War Cabinet on September 3, Lord Derby said: “The deputation had urged that some 40,000 Jews had served with distinction in the British forces, and that it was not fair to them to stake the whole reputation of English Jews as fighters on the performance of this regiment.”
While Lord Derby refused to cancel the Jewish Regiment plan outright, he agreed to deprive the unit of its Jewish character and its exclusive field of service – Palestine. This surrender to the plutocrats provoked an immediate and violent reaction among the supporters of the Legion. Colonel Patterson sent a blistering letter of resignation.
Crownhill Barracks, Plymouth
6th September, 1917.
I was informed by the Adjutant-General that the Secretary for War has decided to rename the Jewish Regiment, to abolish its Jewish badge (The Star of David) and to treat it in every way as an ordinary British unit.
In the first place this is a distinct breach of faith and will be looked upon by the Jews as both dishonest and dishonorable-and rightly so.
The real Jews received the announcement officially made by the War Office, at the end of July, re this Regiment, with gladness. They held that the name “Jewish Regiment” and badge (The Star of David) were excellent in every way and showed a touch of imagination which greatly appealed to the sentiment of every real Jew.
This bait of a ‘Jewish Regiment’ was held out to the Russian Jews all the time they were making up their minds as to whether they would serve with the British Army or return to Russia. The vast majority decided to remain and serve here with a Jewish Regiment. Now that the period of the option of returning to Russia has passed the War Office are about to announce that there is to be no Jewish Regiment.
I assured many of these people-who come daily to the War Office to see me on this point-that there would be a Jewish Regiment for them to join and pointed out the War Office announcement. Many expressed the fear that this was but a trap to make them remain in this country instead of filling up ships to take them to Russia. I assured them that their fears were quite groundless as, however stupid, we were at least honest and our word was our bond. It now turns out that, after all, the pledge given to these people is to be treated as a mere “scrap of paper.”
I consider the action now about to be taken highly improper and most dishonorable and it· is impossible for me to identify myself with this sudden extraordinary change of policy in any way.
I beg, therefore, to be relieved of my command at the earliest possible moment.
The unit now proposed to be raised under these new conditions (where no esprit de corps can possibly exist) will form a most disastrous failure and be utterly worthless from a military point of view.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant
J. H. Patterson
From the Officer Commanding
The Jewish Regiment
Weizmann and Major Amery went at once to see Lord Milner, who was then a member of the War Cabinet. Milner had a long talk with Lord Derby, and as a result, the War Minister consented to receive a counter-delegation to effect a compromise. Mindful of the influence of the press, Jabotinsky went to see Steed, the foreign editor of the Times. The next day The Times denounced the War Office and, while agreeing with Patterson’s motives in resigning, suggested that he withdraw his resignation. The editorial was effective. The second delegation was assured by Lord Derby that the unit would be Jewish and would be sent to Palestine, but that its men would have to earn the honorable title “Jewish” on the battlefield. If they distinguished themselves in action, they would be granted a Jewish name and Jewish insignia. Until then, they would carry the no less honorable designation of Royal Fusiliers( R.F.)
This promise was kept. After the defeat of the Ottoman, the Legion was granted the official name of Judean Regiment and the Menorah with the Hebrew word Kadima, meaning ‘Forward’ as well as ‘Eastward,’ became its badge. But in fact the Legion had its distinctive Jewish insignia from the very outset. The Jewish colors of blue and white fluttered alongside the Union Jack; the Star of David was worn by all officers and men on their sleeves-each battalion in a different color. The color of the first battalion, the 38th Royal Fusiliers, consisting of the East End ‘tailors,’ was red. The War Office and the Jewish assimilationists notwithstanding, the Jewish Royal Fusiliers were referred to in official correspondence, in the press and in literature, as official correspondence, in the press and in literature, as “Legion” won out over “Regiment” and became the historic title of the Jewish Army that fought alongside the Allies in World War 1.”36
“In retrospect, it is easy to see that these bitter, unimaginative, narrow-minded opponents succeeded not only in limiting the number of men in the British Jewish battalion, but also in influencing the attitude of many non-Jewish British officers towards the Jews…… The Jewish Legion, the Jewish people, and in the end Britain herself, all were to pay a heavy price for this myopic prejudice.”37
The Balfour Declaration was issued November 2, 1917. The possibility of a huge reserve of Jewish fighting men adding to Allied forces was a factor in its acceptance. Following the issuance of the Declaration, the 38th Royal Fusiliers ranks swelled to 800 men.
“On February 2, 1918, the 38th Battalion of Royal Fusiliers, their bayonets gleaming in the winter sun, marched through the city of London and Whitechapel, a purely Jewish unit marching to liberate its people from oppression, persecution and shame. “38
“Tens of thousands of Jews crowded the streets, the windows, the balconies, the roofs. Blue-white flags were over every shop door; there were women crying for joy and old Jews with fluttering beards murmuring the prayer of thanksgiving: ‘Blessed are Thou, O Lord our God, Who hast permitted us to live to see this day.” Patterson was on his horse, smiling and waving, wearing a rose which a girl had thrown him from a balcony, and the boys, those ‘tailors,’ shoulder to shoulder, each step like a clap of thunder, clean, proud, their enthusiasm raised to fever pitch by the national anthems, intoxicated with the noise of the crowds and with a sense of sacred mission…”39
In America, a parallel brigade of Jewish, and even a few non-Jewish volunteers was formed, the 39th Royal Fusiliers of almost 2,500 men. Jerusalem fell to the British December 1917, almost exactly to the day that Reverend William Hechler, Theodor Herzl’s first Christian Zionist supporter, his personal advisor and friend, prophesized twenty two years earlier that it would. 1,000 liberated Palestinian Jews volunteered to form the 40th Royal Fusiliers. The 38th was deployed in battle under Colonel Patterson. They bravely fought the Turks, with distinction, playing a central role in the eventual liberation of all of Palestine to the benefit of Jew, Christian and Muslim alike.
The Jewish Legion was an important transitional step to the creation of organized, trained, Jewish defense units. Without the creation of the Jewish Legion, the Jewish Brigade of World War II, from which so many of Israel’s trained military leadership emerged to lead battles of the 1948 War of Independence, might never have been formed. The vision of Jabotinsky, Trumpeldor and Patterson were directly, linearly, responsible for the creation of the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF, of today.
Not far from Netanya is a small moshav, Avihayil. It was founded by members of the Jewish Legion. A museum was built there in the 1960’s and was recently expanded. It is called Beit Hagdudim – the Jewish Legion Museum. Colonel Patterson’s uniform and sword are displayed with honor in the museum.
Colonel Patterson died in Los Angeles in 1947, one year before the establishment of the State of Israel. His final wishes, according to his grandson Alan Patterson, were that he and his wife should be buried in Israel with his men. The Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation, with Alan Patterson, Canadian representation and Beit Hagdudim are seeing if they can honor his last request.
Jerry Klinger is president of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation.www.JASHP.org
2 War and Hope, A History of the Jewish Legion, Elias Gilner, Herzl Press, 1969 pg. 167
4 The Seven Lives of Colonel Patterson, Denis Brian, Syracuse University Press, 2008, pg. 125
7 War and Hope, A History of the Jewish Legion, pg. 16
8 Ibid. pg. 17
Structure of the story – vlad, trump, Patterson, come together in Alex. Mule corp, then the struggle for the legion- Jews fight them. Kitchen dies. Allenby Bols, and destiny or the hand of God.
9 Ibid. pg. 21
11 Ibid. pg. 37
12 Ibid. pg. 38
13 The Story of the Jewish Legion, Jabotinsky, New York, 1945. Pg. 19
15 The Seven Lives of Col. Patterson pg. 86-87
16 Hadani ‘am beMilhamto p.18
17 War and Hope, pg. 41
18 Final report to the Inner Actions Committee on Jabotinsky’s participation in the sessions of the Greater Actions committee, June 10-11, 19015, signed by Dr. E.W. Tschlenow
19 Jabotinsky’s letter from London to Dr. Victor Jacobson, May 4, 1915.
20 War and Hope, pg. 86
21 Ibid. pg. 87
22 Ibid. pg. 89
23 Ibid. pg. 90
24 Some sources note the home was on Dover Street
25 The Seven Lives of Colonel Patterson, pg. 104
26 Ibid. 106
27 Jabotinsky, The Story of the Jewish Legion, pg. 70
31 The Seven Lives of Colonel Patterson pg. 107
32 Mad for Zion, a Biography of Colonel J.H. Patterson, by Patrick Streeter, Matching Press, Harlow, Essex, 2004, pg. 101
33 Ibid pg. 101
34 War and Hope pg. 100
35 Mad for Zion pg. 101-102
36 War and Hope pgs. 109-111
37 Ibid. pg. 112
38 Ibid. pg. 112
39 Jabotisnky, Slovo O Polkoo, pg. 95,
~~~~~~~from the October 2010 Edition of the Jewish Magazine
Armed Jewish underground organization, founded in 1931 by a group of Haganah commanders, who left the Haganah in protest against its defense charter. In April 1937, during the Arab riots, the organization split—about half its members returned to the Haganah. The rest formed a new Irgun Zeva’i Le’umi (abbr. Etzel), which was ideologically linked with the Revisionist Movement and accepted the authority of its leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky.
Etzel rejected the “restraint” policy of the Haganah and carried out armed reprisals against Arabs, which were condemned by the Jewish Agency. Many of its members were arrested by the British authorities; one of them, Shlomo Ben Yosef, was hanged for shooting an Arab bus. After the publication of the White Paper in May 1939, Etzel directed its activities against the British Mandatory autorities.
At the outbreak of World War II, the organization declared a truce, which led to a second split (see Lohamei Herut Yisrael). Etzel members joined the British Army’s Palestinian units and later the Jewish Brigade.
From 1943 Etzel was headed by Menachem Begin. In February 1944, Etzel declared war against the British administration. It attacked and blew up government offices, military installations and police stations. The Jewish Agency and the Haganah moved against the Etzel in a campaign nicknamed the Sezon. Etzel joined the Jewish Resistance Movement and after its disintegration in August 1946, Etzel continued attacks on British military and government objectives.
In April 1947, four members of the organization were hanged in Acre prison. In May 1947, Etzel broke into the fortress at Acre and freed 41 prisoners. In July 1947, when 3 other Etzel members were executed, the I.Z.L. hanged two British sergeants.
After the Declaration of Independence, the Etzel high command offered to disband the organization and integrate its members into the army of the new Jewish state. Full integration was achieved in September 1948.
Sources:The Pedagogic Center, The Department for Jewish Zionist Education, The Jewish Agency for Israel, (c) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, Director: Dr. Motti Friedman, Webmaster: Esther Carciente
Abu Ghraib and the Jewish Century
“The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century…Modernization, in other words, is about everyone becoming Jewish.”…Jewish historian Yuri Slezkine of the University of California
“[Obama] is a born-again neocon.” …Bill Kristol, editor of the neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard
[Editors Note: Dear readers, This is another major article from one of our new writers that I highly recommend. Our VT readers expect us to be helpful in connecting the dots and providing framing for the geo-political brawl we seem to find ourselves in everywhere we look. How much of it is forced upon us, and how much we bring upon ourselves are some of the themes addressed by Jonas below. A well researched piece with a 144 footnotes, it is worth a good read…Jim W. Dean]
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie of the Union for Reform Judaism wrote an article in the Huffington Post last month basically saying that there is no such thing as a secular Jew. Jewish intellectual Sam Harris indirectly proves the rabbi right by standing with Israel’s crimes.
In his best-selling book The Moral Landscape, Harris argues that in many places in the United States corporal punishment is used in public schools, and in those public schools a teacher is allowed “to beat a child with a wooden board hard enough to raise large bruises and even to break the skin. Hundreds of thousands of children are subjected to this violence each year…”
It looks like Harris is interested in alleviating suffering and eliminating torture. But the simple fact is that it is very easy to posit huge claims, but it is not easy to marshal convincing evidence for the same claims.
Harris gave us no evidence for this particular claim. But let us grant him the premise here that he is right. How is this consistent with torture which Harris has advocated for years both in writing and during public appearances?
Harris is very much concerned about spanking a child with a wooden board, and yet the same Harris is not concerned about torturing, raping and sodomizing grown-ups.
What was more interesting was that many of those who were tortured turned out to be innocent. The brutal acts that happened in Abu Ghraib included rape, sodomy, homicide, and even urinating on detainees and having them masturbate.
Using the evidence that had blown out in the open in 2010, the Washington Post told us that “hundreds of other cases in which prisoners were subjected to electric shock, sodomized, burned, whipped or beaten by Iraqi authorities.
The Pentagon condemned the release but did not question the authenticity of the files.” Whipped or beaten? Where is Harris when you need him? Beating children is wrong but beating grown-ups should be justified? How does that logic work?
We all know by now that these acts of torture have occurred in Abu Ghraib between the periods of 2001-2004 by the U. S. army after the Iraq War—a war that was spearheaded by the neoconservative movement which, as we saw in a previous article, is a Jewish political and intellectual movement. There were at least 400 cases of these alleged abuses during that timeframe.
Many of the detainees in Abu Ghraib were even forced to have sex with each other. What may or may not be a surprise to some is that many of the abusers were “third country nationals,” individuals who were joint citizens of America and Israel. In fact, many of the soldiers responsible were trained in Israel.
One doctor who examined one detainee “did find scars on his wrists and noted what he believed to be an anal fissure.” The army tried their best to get away with it, but evidence again showed that the detainee had been abused, and some detainees had died in the process.
At one occasion, pepper was even used on the eye of at least one prisoner. An FBI agent declared that,
“On a couple of occasions I entered the interview room to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor, with no hair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 or 24 hours or more.” Another prisoner was found “almost unconscious” where the temperature was “probably well above 100 degrees.”
Similar abuses can also be found in places such as Guantanamo, where many of these have been reported even by the FBI.
Decent Americans and fellow citizens must ask themselves these questions: What would decent men such as Washington do? Would they be followers of this neoconservative madness which has infected some of the leading figures in America? Would they be in favor of tormenting human beings for getting soi-disant information?
As we have demonstrated in the article entitled “The Founding Fathers vs. the Zionist Machine,” Washington in particular would have vomited this Zionist madness out of America.
As Jane Mayer argues, the war on terror has turned the American government and politicians in particular into savage people—and this war on terror has reversed the traditional American ideals which were strictly based on the rules of law. As we shall see in an upcoming article, this so-called war on terror is a hoax cooked up by the neoconservative/Zionist regime.
The neoconservative and Zionist regime complain that they are fighting terrorism, but at the same time both Israel and America supported Terrorist groups such as the MEK and the Syrian rebels.
In other words, we are progressively losing the rules of law that held America strong for more than two hundred years. That law has been reversed right after the “Jewish Century” began to take a toll on the West in general. Now, if you capture an infamous enemy, you just have to kill him and throw his body in the depth of the sea, where historians and scholars will never know what exactly happened.
How in the world is that compatible with the West? Isn’t Ted Kaczynski still in prison? Or what about Anders Breivik?Why don’t we just kill those people and throw their bodies in the depth of the sea? Once again, the neoconservative machine has reversed and inevitably challenged the cherished ideas that kept America strong.
Even one particular FBI agent was appalled by what he saw in the military and declared, “When I became an agent, I swore to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.”
But when he actually saw what was happening, he cried out that it was “not the same Constitution that I read.”
As we shall see in subsequent articles, this new constitution is essentially Jewish and theologically Talmudic. It certainly has changed our American military, which inevitably led to massive abuse in Iraq and in major parts of the Middle East.
Some men are even quitting the military precisely because they found themselves killing civilians as opposed to killing terrorists. Other Marines such as Timothy Kudo found themselves in similar situations, where years later they still had to struggle with the moral issues.
In the end, the neoconservative dream always revolves around a Talmudic view of the Middle East, which is quite consistent with what many rabbis have been saying for years. For example, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef of the Shas Party, which is also part of Netanyahu’s governing coalition, declared unequivocally in the summer of last year that Palestinians are “evil, bitter, enemies” who need to be “perish[ed] from this world.”
As such, one “is forbidden to be merciful” to those rotten scoundrels because they are “evil and damnable.” How should people deal with this evil? Yosef continued to say that “you must send missiles to them and annihilate them.”Annihilate them?
This could be taken as metaphorically, but not according to another famous rabbi named Manis Friedman. Friedman, who “has won the hearts of many unaffiliated Jews with his charismatic talks about love and God,” put it bluntly in 2009:
“The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle).”
This is called ethnic cleansing in its metaphysical and literal sense. Where are the news channels when you need them most?
Where are CNN, Fox News, ABC, MSNBC, and a host of others? As Glenn Greenwald of the Guardian has recently pointed out, “The US media, over the last decade (at least), has repeatedly acted to conceal newsworthy information it obtains about the actions of the US government.
In each instance, the self-proclaimed adversarial press corps conceals these facts at the behest of the US government, based on patently absurd claims that reporting them will harm US national security.”
The good rabbi moved on to declare, “I don’t believe in Western morality. Living by Torah [the Talmud, of course] values will make us a light unto the nations who suffer defeat because of a disastrous morality of human invention.”
I must say that the rabbi has some courage to implicitly put the metaphysical question into proper perspective here, that at their eventual roots Western rules of law is the antithesis of what the Zionist regime politically and theologically represents.
Moreover, the destruction of the Palestinians is to be viewed as “a light unto the nations,” which is another way of saying that as long as the Palestinians continue to live, the nations are in darkness. As we shall see in a subsequent article, Israel began to “enlightened” the nations during its formation, when hundreds of Palestinians were uprooted from their homes and left desolate.
If the neoconservatives do not believe in any of this, if they see this as complete nonsense, why don’t they join us in fighting this madness? Why hasn’t anyone in the movement pointed those facts out? Why have they not reprimanded Yosef and Friedman? (Incidentally, the two rabbis are far from alone. As we shall see in a later article, this has been a pattern since the formation of Israel in 1948.)
Why is it that once a person opens his mouth to criticize Israel, all of a sudden he is an anti-Semite? One of the answers again is that the neoconservatives, whether they like it or not, are double agents of Israel.
This became very clear when George W. Bush asked his father to give him a descriptive definition of neoconservatism: “What’s a neocon?” he probed. His father responded,
“‘Do you want name or a description?’ ‘Description.’ ‘Well, I’ll give it to you in one word: Israel.’” Scholars such as Stephan Halper and Jonathan Clarke note the same thing, arguing that for the neocons, there is “a keen interest in the affairs of Israel.” Benjamin Ginsberg likewise writes that one of the central focuses of the neoconservatives is “their attachment to Israel…”
Abe Foxman of the ADL for example is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post. Do you think he would rebuke Yosef and Friedman in the post? The answer is a resounding no. In fact, to him people like Pat Buchanan are full-blown anti-Semites.
Yosef specifically wants nothing but the destruction of Iran. He declared, “When we say the blessing over the dates at our Rosh Hashana meal this year, and we ask God to ‘bring an end to our enemies,’ we should be thinking about Iran, those evil ones who threaten Israel. May the Lord destroy them.”
If Iran or any Middle East country even remotely approaches such languages, the news would spread like wild fire in the Western world with great spins. Yet things like that do not make it on CNN or Fox News and other media outlets.
What got reported over and over was that Iran wanted to wipe Israel off the map, a complete forgery cooked up by the Zionist regime. The only person in Israel who saw that the rabbi’s languages are closer to what neo-Nazis would have said was Nimrod Aloni of the Institute of Educational Thought in Tel Aviv.
Netanyahu, for his part, declared some years after the 9/11 attack,
“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” and these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”
He certainly has a point. Right after the 9/11 attack, at least 60 Israelis were arrested in the U.S. for what was proved to be illegal activities, but no one prosecuted them due to fear of anti-Semitism.
In other words, the only people who are benefitting from the 9/11 attack are “King Bibi” and his regime, not America or the Muslim countries. Thousands upon thousands of people lost their lives on that day, and millions upon millions of lives have been lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and this is all for foreign potentate “King Bibi.”
Yet none of these things seems to bother Harris, who always defends Israel. We see similar rigorous logic and intellectual honesty in his previous book The End of Faith.
Harris goes on page after page lambasting the whole fabric of Christendom as something immorally repugnant for crimes in the past, for “torturing scholars to the point of madness for merely speculating about the nature of the stars,” a statement that is a complete fabrication cooked up by people like Harris and his Jewish comrades such as Carl Sagan. But the statement has no historical validity and scientific enquiry.
Yet in the same book, Harris declares, “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live.” Well, Christianity cannot get that right. Only Harris can possess that moral turpitude.
Here is Harris again at his best: “Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible but necessary.”
Sure. But again Christianity was wicked because Harris can find instances of Christian torture in the past. How can Harris live with such an obvious contradiction and still remain rational? Keep in mind that Harris wants “to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms.”
Under Harris’ cogent logic, water-boarding is a fair game, despite the fact that nothing was gained from this torturous crime, despite the fact that it has resulted in the death of at least two detainees. The C.I.A., the F.B.I. and other official agencies finally revealed that water-boarding was indeed a crime and the United States had to abandon it. But the Obama administration forbade anyone to prosecute the abusers.
Harris is indeed one of the intellectual geniuses of the twenty-first century because he is able live in two mutually exclusive worlds: the world of intellectual contradiction and moral dishonesty and the world of reason. Harris claims to be moved by reason alone but when reason stands in his way, Harris moves reason out of the equation and sticks with his ideological bent.
He postures himself as “an equal-opportunity offender critical of all religious faith.” Harris certainly needs to explain his own internal contradiction before he writes his next book.
Harris writes in Letter to a Christian Nation, “We desperately need a public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith.”
Is religious faith going to be blamed for Harris’s own internal contradiction too? When Albert Camus was asked to explain why he remained silent during the French invasion of Algeria, he declared, “I believe in justice, but I will defend my mother above justice.” It seems to be the case with Harris.
It is not very often that one finds a knocked-down argument in moral and ethical issues, but Harris makes our job very easy. When sexual abuse happens in the Catholic Church, Harris is on the march saying that the Vatican must be arrested and brought to justice because those children have been tortured by the Catholic Church and the Vatican is an accomplice.
But when prisoners are raped and sodomized in Abu Ghraib, it is righteous, and it is just. We need to get important information from those scoundrels in order to save lives, and therefore they need to be water-boarded and tortured.
This is beautiful logic in the twenty-first century, and we need to abandon Plato and Aristotle and embrace Harris’ wonderful induction.
What maybe a surprise to some is that 70 to 95 percent of the prisoners were detained by “mistake.” That too does not give Harris a second thought.
This is the essence of being a genius in the twenty-first century, or shall we dare say, in “The Jewish Century.” This was one reason why atheists and anthropologists such as Scott Atran provide a vigorous critique of The Moral Landscape.
In his critique of The Moral Landscape, Philosopher Troy Jollimore wrote that the book is good only to people who are unfamiliar with Harris’ premise, but “has little to say to those people who actually do know what the arguments are, and it will not help others become much better informed.” Other philosophers such as Kwame Anthony Appiah viewed TheMoral Landscape in a negative way.
Scientist and historian of science Kenan Malik had this to say about the book:
“Imagine a sociologist who wrote about evolutionary theory without discussing the work of Darwin, Fisher, Mayr, Hamilton, Trivers or Dawkins on the grounds that he did not come to his conclusions by reading about biology and because discussing concepts such as ‘adaptation,’ ‘speciation,’ ‘homology,’ ‘phylogenetics,’ or ‘kin selection,’ would ‘increase the amount of boredom in the universe.’ How seriously would we, and should we, take his argument?”
Harris continued to receive negative reviews from John Horgan of the Scientific American and evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr. Most of the people who praised Harris for his books are his only crowd: Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, Lawrence Krauss, etc. As one critic pointed out, Harris is “an intellectual joke…”
Harris tears the inquisition to shred, but he loves Abu Ghraib. The inquisition was a crime against humanity, but the war in Iraq for “humanitarian purposes.”
Torture and War in the “Jewish Century”
Recently, the European court of human rights found that the CIA tortured, sodomized, and shackled a German citizen of Lebanese origin by the name of Khaled el-Masri. Masri was thought to have had terrorist links and was arrested in 2003. Masri was incarcerated and tortured for four months.
When it was later “discovered” that Masri was not a terrorist, he was dumped in Albania. The U.S. had refused to put the CIA agents on trial.
We are progressively seeing is that the “Jewish Century” has produced Abu Ghraib, devastation in Iraq, devastation in Afghanistan, devastation in Libya, devastation in Syria, and this has been hailed as a sort of heaven on earth by the neoconservative fifth column and the Zionist regime both in Israel and America.
How many deaths are accounted for during the Spanish Inquisition? According to the prestigious and erudite historian Henry Kamen, the number is around 2,000. Other historians estimated it to be around 1,500 to 4,000. That indeed is a lot, but keep in mind that this happened over a long period of time: around 356 years, 1478-1834.
Now consider this: the many lives that have been lost in the war in Iraq alone have been estimated to be between 100,000 to 600,000 deaths, including thousands of civilians. In 2003 alone, at least 12,000 civilians had lost their lives during the war.
The first three years of the war produced between 104,000 to 223,000 civilian deaths. When it was over, it forced 2.3 million Iraqis to flee from their homes and towns; by 2008, another 2.7 million Iraqis were displaced; and probably half a million civilians ended up losing their lives, which means that those who remained alive had to weep for their families and love ones. Thousands upon thousands of other people went missing by 2008. We also need to keep in mind that Iraq had about 30 million people during the war.
When the war was over, sectarian violence and car bombings were rampant—almost every day. When Mark Kukis went to Iraq to report what happened, he said he heard between two to five car bombs every day. The Iraq war, says Kukis, shook the entire nation and created havoc even by 2006. Factions of society that once coexisted were dismantled. In a nutshell, Iraq was decay. Buildings and farmlands were destroyed.
In addition, what are some fringe benefits of the war? Between 300,000 to 360,000 veterans were said to have brain injuries. Some of those injuries are often overlooked. By 2005, more than 6,000 suicides took place among our precious soldiers serving in Iraq.
In 2012, the number of soldiers who committed suicide was higher than the soldiers who died in combat, and 2012 was the worst year for those soldiers. Moreover, it has been reported that the United States has used indiscriminate ways of killing children. Of course, we are told by the Zionist media that those children are terrorist shields.
The war in Iraq itself has sent the American taxpayers a $3 trillion bill, combining that the debt ceiling keeps rising almost every six months or so. The U.S. national debt has reached $16 trillion by the end of 2012. It was speculated that a war with Iran will cost at least $2 trillion in the first three months.
And since we need to police just about every country in the Middle East and elsewhere, we need billions of dollars to do that. Therefore, by the end of 2012, Obama signed a defense spending for 2013 that would cost $633 billion.
Just recently, Steven Erlanger of the New York Times wrote an article entitled, ‘Two Years After Revolt, Libya Faces a Host of Problem.” The article should have been named “Two Years After the Neoconservative/Zionist Dream in Libya, The Country Faces a Host of Problem.” Lest you doubt this statement, when Obama declared war on Libya, it was Bill Kristol and the neoconservative crowd who supported him—or even pushed the war in the first place.
Long before Gaddafi was slaughtered, Bill Kristol told one interviewer, “No, we cannot leave Gaddafi in power. And we won’t leave Gaddafi in power….We need to get rid of Gaddafi.” Sure enough, the neoconservatives got rid of Gaddafi, and by that time Kristol was shouting victory.
After the event, Kristol declared that Obama “had rejoined—or joined—the historical American foreign policy mainstream.” What Kristol is referring to here is not the traditional foreign policy as advocated by the Founding Fathers, but the Jewish neoconservative foreign policy.
Kristol went out of his way to laughingly and seriously declare on Fox News that Obama “is a born-again neocon.” Remember President Obama in 2008? He gave speech after speech declaring that he was going to “talk with Iran.” All of a sudden he became a “born-again neocon.” How did that happen?
The reason is pretty simple: every American president is now handcuffed by the neoconservative dream. Some may have good intentions for peace in the Middle East, but the neoconservative machine always became the dominant worldview.
It has been argued by journalist Glenn Greenwald (and for good reason) that Obama has been viewed by the Muslim World as more aggressive than Bush and Cheney by 2011.
Greenwald has also pointed out the fact that the Muslim world in general (particularly the young) does not hate America but they despise the American foreign policy, a foreign policy that is under the guiding hands of our blessed neoconservatives.
By all accounts, the vast majority of politicians and world leaders thought that Obama was going to make a difference with respect to perpetual wars. Not so. Our beloved president prematurely received a Nobel Peace Prize. (I think there should be a Nobel War Prize, too.) But even though Obama is a “born-again neocon,” he must not get out of line.
When he does, Kristol is out to chasing him by saying that he does not support Israel. As Rob Eshman of the Jewish Journal points out, Kristol is not helping Israel: “Someone has to say it: William Kristol is hurting Israel.”
Perpetual Wars and our Precious American Soldiers and American People
While perpetual wars are still taking place, how are we doing at home? The Washington Post recently told us that “Fiscal Trouble Ahead for Most Future Retirees.”
The article declares, “For the first time since the New Deal, a majority of Americans are headed toward a retirement in which they will be financially worse off than their parents, jeopardizing a long era of improved living standards for the nation’s elderly, according to a growing consensus of new research.”
In other words, in order to continue perpetual wars, we need to loot the pension funds. Teresa Ghilarducci, director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research, said,
“This is the first time that Americans are going to be relatively worse off than their parents or grandparents in old age.”
Homelessness among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans has more than doubled over the past two years alone, and by the fall of 2012, it was reported that at least “26,531 were living on the streets, at risk of losing their homes, staying in temporary housing or receiving federal vouchers to pay rent…”
In addition, about 307,000 soldiers want to leave the military. About 360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans may have gotten brain injury. Many of those veterans have struggled and are still struggling to find jobs at home.
In less than two years of the war in Syria, more than 60,000 people had lost their lives. At the same time, millions of college graduates are struggling to find a decent job, while they are being suffocated by rapacious usury such as student loans.
At the end of December 2012, refugees in Afghanistan were the ones who had to suffer from the terrible cold weather with no place to go. It was the same thing with the Syrian refugees. By January 2013, it was reported that around half-million Syrians were refugees. By the middle of the same month, a bomb blasted the campus of Aleppo University, which was under the control of the government. It was estimated that eighty-two people were killed and one hundred and ninety-two wounded.
At the same time, the United States continues to give at least $3 billion to Israel. Israel has completed its 150-mile border of fencing with Egypt. What is even more interesting is that America does not have the fund to stop the flooding of illegal immigrants.
From 1949 to 2011, the United States has given Israel $123 billion. As Dave Gibson Fence of the Examiner rightly pointed out, we paid for Israel’s border, but we cannot pay for our own. The Founding Fathers would have been upset about this.
In the “Jewish Century,” these are all “The Better Angels of Our Nature.” Harvard Jewish psychologist Steven Pinker argues in his recent book that crime has declined in the Western world.
Like Harris, Pinker blames crimes in the Middle Ages largely on Christianity, but the devastating wars in the Middle East which the neoconservatives have unleashed upon us all get a free ride.
Like Harris, Pinker agrees that water-boarding can be used to gain so-called information. For Pinker, the Spanish Inquisition was completely wrong and it is one of the heinous crimes committed in Western culture. Listen to Pinker very carefully here:
“By sanctifying cruelty, early Christianity set a precedent for more than a millennium of systematic torture in Christian Europe.
If you understand the expressions to burn at the stake, to hold his feet to the fire, to break a butterfly on the wheel, to be racked with pain, to be drawn and quartered, to disembowel, to flay, to press, the thumbscrew, the garrote, a slow burn, and the iron maiden, you are familiar with a fraction of the ways that heretics were brutalized during the Middle Ages and early modern period.”
Pinker keeps positing that “Sadistic tortures were also inflicted by the Christian church during its inquisitions, witch hunts, and religious wars.” For Pinker, “Medieval Christendom was a culture of cruelty. Torture was meted out by national and local governments throughout the Continent…”
But what about Abu Ghraib? Here is Pinker at his best:
“But the sporadic, clandestine, and universally decried eruptions of torture in recent times cannot be equated with the centuries of institutionalized sadism in medieval Europe…[Torture] did not erupt from a frenzied crowd stirred up in hatred against a dehumanized enemy.”
How does that logic work? Torture was wrong in the Middle Ages but it is not wrong when the neoconservatives are doing it? Can Pinker be serious? Stalin alone was responsible for torturing millions upon millions, resulting in the death of 100 million people. (We are providing a fuller critique of Pinker’s work in an up-coming book.) Pinker certainly needs to provide more explanation for his morally untenable position.
Iran and the Bomb
What we have seen over the past decades or so is that both the neoconservative movement and the Zionist regime have unleashed their heaven on earth upon us, and this has progressively turned out to be chaos on earth for much of the Western world and in the Middle East.
For decades we were told time and again that Palestinians in schools are learned to hate Israel and Jews. This year, a study has demonstrated that this isn’t so.
Moreover, despite what Israel has continued to do over the years, the Arab World for Research and Development took a poll and discovered that 68% of Palestinians are in favor of peace talk.
For more than a decade, the Israelis and Netanyahu in particular repeatedly declared that Iran was going to have a nuclear bomb in the 1990s, then in the 2000s, and then in 2011, or 2012. Now, the Israeli officials have been reported to have said that Iran will not have the bomb until 2015.
What does that tell us? That means that the Israelis and the Zionist regime have been lying to us all along, making forgery after forgery so that the West would lunch an unprecedented or surgical strike against Iran! Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres told the entire world in 1992 that Iran was going to have the bomb in 1999; that was a failure, as Iran had acquired no nuclear bomb.
In the same year, Peres declared that “Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East.”
In the same year, the House Republican Research Committee declared that there was a “98 percent certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components required for two or three operational nuclear weapons.” Lies, lies, and more lies.
I simply don’ get this. If you find out that a car dealer lies to you just one time, you would be cautious in going back to the same dealer the next time you’re buying another car. But the Zionist and neoconservative machine propounds lies after lies about Iran for years, and no one had the temerity to say enough.
In 1995, both the U.S. and Israeli officials postulated that “Iran is much closer to producing nuclear weapons than previously thought,” and all those Zionist geniuses told the entire American people that talked about an “acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program.” But then in 1997, those same geniuses said that Iran would not acquire the bomb in at least ten years later.
That again changed in 1998 when Donald Rumsfeld declared that Iran could actually build the bomb and could hit the U.S. in five years. In 2002, the terrorist group the MEK changed things around when they declared that Iran was building the bomb.
The MEK was supported by both the Mossad in Israel and some of their members were even trained in the United States during the Bush administration. But the MEK again lied about Iran. In 2004, Colin Powell put some spice in the debate by adding that Iran was working extremely hard to get the bomb.
Things got even more intense the following year when the U.S. “presents 1,000 pages of designs and other documentation allegedly retrieved from a computer laptop in Iran the previous year, which are said to detail high-explosives testing and a nuclear-capable missile warhead. The ‘alleged studies,’ as they have since been called, are dismissed by Iran as forgeries by hostile intelligence services.”
Then Propaganda after propaganda was propounded by the Bush administration in 2007, but the NIE blew everything out of proportion when they declared in the same year that Iran had given up its nuclear program. By 2009, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations committee declared that “There is no sign that Iran’s leaders have ordered up a bomb.”
The Zionist regime was so eager in January of this year to propagate falsehood that they pulled an invention from World Net Daily that there was an explosion in Iran at the nuclear site in Fordo.
The article was written by an Iranian exile, so it passed the test of some credibility and went viral. But it was discovered to be a thread-bare hoax in a matter of a few days. Even the White House had to debunk the forgery.
More recently, Daniel Halper of the neoconservative fifth column The Weekly Standard declared that “If North Korea has the bomb, then for all practical purposes Iran does, too.”
How is that for good logic? If your neighbor or friend has a BMW, then by definition you have it too! When Mitt Romney made the preposterous statement that Russia was the number one geopolitical enemy of the United States, Colin Powell declared, “Come on, Mitt, think. That isn’t the case.” This is the same thing we see with those neoconservative geniuses, who keep propounded one preposterous statement after another.
The sober question that everyone should ask is simply this: Who, then, is the real enemy of the West? Certainly not Iran. And it is ridiculous to say that Israel is the victim, as neoconservative David Horowitz would like us to believe. As we shall see in another article, Iranian officials even extended their hands to U.S. officials right after the fall of Saddam saying that they too wanted to fight terrorism!
There are some signs which seem to suggest that the West is slowly realizing that the Zionist dream is not working. In 2011, Europe sent a message to Israel saying that a military strike on Iran was not an option.
More recently, Ahmadinejad has declared that he had no intention of attacking Israel. The overall reaction from the Zionist regime, of course, is that Ahmadinejad is lying. Whatever preconceived notion one may have about the man, we have to think through these issues seriously. So far, he has not lied about his intention. In fact, the Israeli and neoconservative thesis—that Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map—has been weighed and found wanting.
Drones for Me, But Not For Thee
In his State of the Union address, President Obama declared that “The leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution, because a coalition stands united in demanding that they meet their obligations, and we will do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.”
After four years in office, our beloved president knows how to talk the Zionist language by now. He continued, “And we will stand steadfast with Israel in pursuit of security and a lasting peace.”
Lasting peace? Does that include dropping drones in civilian populated areas as well? Does peace include killing innocent civilians in the Middle East? People in the Middle East aren’t stupid. They can recognize ridiculousness. Right after the Newtown incident, the President Obama declared,
“We can’t tolerate this anymore. We are not doing enough and we will have to change.” One Yemeni blogger named Noon Arabia responded, “Our children’s blood is not cheaper than American blood and the pain of losing them is just as devastating. Our children matter too, Mr. President! These tragedies ‘also’ must end and to end them ‘YOU’ must change.” 
As journalist Glenn Greenwald rightly points out, “if you continually bomb another country and kill their civilians, not only the people of that country but the part of the world that identifies with it will increasingly despise the country doing it.
That’s the ultimate irony, the most warped paradox, of US discourse on these issues: the very policies that Americans constantly justify by spouting the Terrorism slogan are exactly what causes anti-American hatred and anti-American Terrorism in the first place.”
South African Bishop Desmond Tutu likewise declared, “Do the United States and its people really want to tell those of us who live in the rest of the world that our lives are not of the same value as yours? That President Obama can sign off on a decision to kill us with less worry about judicial scrutiny than if the target is an American? Would your Supreme Court really want to tell humankind that we, like the slave Dred Scott in the 19th century, are not as human as you are? I cannot believe it.”
In 2009, President Obama dropped drones in al-Majala in Southern Yemen, which took the lives of 14 women and 21 children. The vast majority of Americans are completely oblivious of this, but it had raised much anger in the Muslim world.
When innocent children died in Newtown, we expect parents to get angry—and they should. Yet when innocent children died in the Middle East by U.S. drones, we expect their parents to be happy!
One Yemeni responded, “Our entire village is angry at the government and the Americans. If the Americans are responsible, I would have no choice but to sympathize with al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda is fighting America.”
Another individual who was wounded from the drones declared, “If we are ignored and neglected, I would try to take my revenge. I would even hijack an army pickup, drive it back to my village and hold the soldiers in it hostages. I would fight along al-Qaeda’s side against whoever was behind this attack.”
Former U.S. General Stanley McChrystal questioned that dropping drones and killing innocent people were not as effective as so many thought it would be. One U.S. drone pilot, Brandon Bryant, who quit his military career in 2012 because of killing civilians, lamented,
“I saw men, women and children die during that time. I never thought I would kill that many people. In fact, I thought I couldn’t kill anyone at all.” He continued to say, “I felt disconnected from humanity for almost a week.” And he should have. Practically every decent American would feel disconnected.
Benjamin Netanyahu Lied About Iran
We constantly hear that Iran is amassing enough uranium to build the bomb. Recently the Jerusalem Post tells us that “Iran appears to be advancing in its construction of a research reactor Western experts say could offer the Islamic state a second way of producing material for a nuclear bomb.” But never do those ideologues tell us that Uranium does not necessarily mean building a bomb.
More recently the IAEA has admitted that “Iran had apparently resumed converting into fuel small amounts of higher-grade enriched uranium – thereby reducing the amount potentially available for nuclear weapons – though they had few details and one told Reuters that ‘very, very little had been done’ so far.”
Hello! That’s what Iran has been doing all along! But since the Zionist and neoconservative machine tell us what to think, we have to place more sanctions on Iran. At the same time, Netanyahu told the entire world last year that Iran had crossed the red line and drew even his own cartoon caricature to show the U.N. that Iran is dangerous and is building nukes.
But on February 11th Netanyahu (King Bibi hereafter) came out and said that Iran had not reached the red line that he outlined at the U.N. last year.
What in the world was this man leading the world to believe then? He wanted the Western world to wage war against Iran but now Iran has not reached the red line? And how in the world can the Western world stay silent about this and not dismiss “King Bibi” as a fraudulent potentate and a political joker?
Now “King Bibi” has a new lie around the block: “Netanyahu, speaking to the annual meeting in Jerusalem of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said the Iranians had not crossed the red line he outlined during his speech to the UN in September, but that the faster centrifuges means it will take them less time to do so.”
So he lied the first time, and now we are supposed to take him seriously still. As Zbigniew Brzezinski declared recently, America needs to stop following Israel “like a stupid mule.”
“King Bibi” declared, “I drew a line at the UN, they haven’t crossed that line, but what they are doing is shortening the time it will take them to cross that line. This has to be stopped for the interest of peace and security for the entire world.”
What needs to be stopped is Netanyahu’s lies for the interest of peace in the Middle East. Lest anyone doubts this statement, listen to “King Bibi” once again. He declared that Syria is an “undeveloped country with the world’s most developed weapons.”
Is this man really serious? Does he seriously think that Syria has “the world’s most developed weapons”?
Does he really think that Syria has surpassed the United States in dropping sophisticated drones in civilian populated areas? Does he really think that Syria has hundreds of chemical weapons like Israel does?
Keep in mind that Israel can send its nukes to almost any major city in the Western world, including Rome, according to Israeli military history Martin van Cleveld. It is pertinent to quote Cleveld once again:
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”
As it turns out, “King Bibi” is becoming a laughing stock. He declared that he cannot “sit idly by and let those weapons fall into the hands of terrorists [Iran].”
“King Bibi” supports the Syrian rebels, which are largely composed of terrorists, but now “King Bibi” wants to fight terrorism in Iran. On February 9th, the British newspaper The Telegraph has reported that the jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra has already been taken over in Syria, and this has caused major suffering among the innocent civilians who get caught in the middle of this Zionist war.
Is “King Bibi” going to fight against those terrorists?
But no matter what “King Bibi” does and no matter how many lies he has concocted, he will always get his support in America because Christian Zionists like John Hagee will always back him up. “King Bibi” does not have to work to hard in order to get the American support.
As he declared last year: “I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right [direction]…They won’t get in our way….80 percent of the Americans support us.”
Well, the time is coming where “King Bibi” will no longer be able to manipulate our precious fellow Americans. The time is coming when every decent American will have to say enough is enough. Regardless of one’s position on the “Right” and “Left,” we Americans cannot let “King Bibi” push us once more to a useless and detrimental war against Iran. It will be total chaos for the entire country and much of the Western world.
Whether you are religious or not, Christian or secular atheist or agnostic, a war with Iran is going to send us all into the abyss of economic and political nihilism, a sort of Dante’s infernal where you will be aware of what is happening but you cannot do anything about it because it is too late.
Moreover, what good ally would drag his partner into economic and moral collapse, as Israel is doing to America? You be the judge: can Iran do that?
Editing: Jim W. Dean
 Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004), 1.
 Eric H. Yoffie, “The Self-Delusions of Secular Jews,” Huffington Post, January 15, 2013.
 Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010), 3.
 For further details, see my book Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, vol. I (Bloomington: WestBow Press, 2012).
 See for example Seymour M. Hersh, “The General’s Report,” The New Yorker, June 25, 2007; Julian Borger, “U.S. General Linked to Abu Ghraib Abuse,” The Guardian, May 22, 2004; Luke Harding, “After Abu Ghraib,” The Guardian, September 20, 2004; Luke Harding, “Focus Shifts to Jail Abuse of Women,” Guardian, May 12, 2004; Philip Gourevitch and Errol Morris, “Exposure: The Women Behind the Camera at Abu Ghraib,” The New Yorker, March 24, 2008; Michael Otterman, American Torture: From the Cold War to Abu Ghraib and Beyond (Australia: Melbourne University Press, 2007), see chapters 9 and 10; Philippe Sands, Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 14-16.
 Kate Zernike, “Detainees Describe Abuses by Guard in Iraq Prison,” NY Times, January 12, 2005.
 Greg Miller and Peter Finn, “Secret Iraq War Files Offer Grim New Details,” Washington Post, October 23, 2010; see also Emily Dugan, Nina Lakhani, et. al., “Torture, Killing, Children Shot—and How the U.S. Tried to Keep it all Quiet,” The Independent, October 24, 2010; Robert Fisk, “The Shaming of America,” The Independent, October 24, 2010.
 Ducan Gardham and Paul Cruickshank, “Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos ‘Show Rape,’” The Daily Telegraph, May 27, 2009.
 Robert Fisk, “Abu Ghraib Torture Trail Leads to Israel,” The Independent, May 26, 2004.
 Hersh, “The General’s Report,” The New Yorker, June 25, 2007.
 Darius Rejali, Torture and Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 288.
 Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals (New York: Anchor Books, 2009), 203.
 Hersh, “The General’s Report,” The New Yorker, June 25, 2007.
 Mayer, The Dark Side, 203.
 Ibid., 203.
 See for example Maggie O’Kane, Teresa Smith, et al., “The Torture Trail: What Did General Petraeus’s Special Advisor, James Steele, Know?” The Guardian, October 23, 2010; David Leigh, “Iraq War Logs: Prisoner Beaten to Death Days after British Handover to Police,” The Guardian, October 28, 2010; David Leigh and Maggie O’Kane, “Iraq War Logs: U.S. Turned Over Captives to Iraqi Torture Squads,” The Guardian, October 24, 2010; Nick Davies, Jonathan Steele and David Leigh, “Iraq War Logs: Secret Files Show How U.S. Ignored Torture,” The Guardian, October 22, 2010.
 Helen Pow, “‘Did We Just Kill a Kid?’: The Moment Drone Operator who Assassinated Afghans with the Push of a Button on a Computer in the U.S. Realized He Had Vaporized a Child…and Could Not Go On,” Daily Mail, December 17, 2012; Robert Johnson, “‘Did We Just Kill a Kid?’—Six Words That Ended a U.S. Drone’s Pilot Career,” Business Insider, December 17, 2012.
 Timothy Kudo, “I Killed People in Afghanistan. Was I Wrong?,” Washington Post, January 25, 2013.
 Quoted in Paul R. Pillar, “A Culture of Hatred in Israel,” National Interest, August 21, 2012.
 Quoted in Nathaniel Popper, “Chabad Rabbi: Jews Should Kill Arab Men, Women and Children During War,” Haaretz, June 9, 2009.
 Glenn Greenwald, “U.S. Media Yet Again Conceals Newsworthy Government Secrets,” Guardian, February 7, 2013.
 Popper, “Chabad Rabbi: Jews Should Kill Arab Men, Women and Children During War,” Haaretz, June 9, 2009.
 For further research on this, see for example Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: One World, 2006); Noam Chomsky, Gaza in Crisis: Reflections on the Israel’s War Against the Palestinians (Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books, 2010); Norman G. Finkelstein, This Time We Went Too Far (New York: OR, 2010).
 Quoted in Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy (New York: Scribner, 2007), 219.
 Halper and Clarke, America Alone, 58.
 Benjamin Ginsberg, Fatal Embrace: Jews and the States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 231.
 Quoted in “Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: Pray for the Destruction of Iran,” Jerusalem Post, August 26, 2012; “Shas Spiritual Leader Calls on Jews to Pray for Annihilation of Iran,” Haaretz, August 26, 2012.
 See for example Robert Naiman, “Arash Norouzi Explains the ‘Wiped off the Map’ Controversy—What Iran’s President Never Said,” The Huffington Post, January 19, 2007; Ethan Bronner, “Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?” The New York Times, June 11, 2006; Jonathan Steele, “”If Iran is Ready to Talk, the U.S. Must Do So Unconditionally,” The Guardian, June 2, 2005. It is pretty clear that Ahmadinejad is against Zionism, but to say that he is against all Jews and that he wants to wipe Israel off the map is nonsense. For an article on Ahmadinejad’s tirade against Zionism, see Herb Keinon, “60 Years of Zionism only Brought Humiliation, Destruction,” The Jerusalem Post, June 15, 2011
 Paul R. Pillar, “A Culture of Hatred in Israel,” National Interest, August 21, 2012.
 “Report: Netanyahu Says 9/11 Terror Attacks Good for Israel,” Haaretz, April 16, 2008.
 For more detail, Jonas E. Alexis, Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. I (Bloomington: WestBow Press, 2012).
 Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (New York: Viking, 2006), 105.
 Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Ballantine Book, 1980), 54.
 See for example Ronald L. Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009); David C. Lindberg, “Galileo, the Church, and the Cosmos,” David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, ed., When Science and Christianity Meet (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2003), chapter 2; Lawrence M. Principe, Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of the Natural Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Peter Harrison, ed., The Cambridge Companion of Science and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
 Harris, The End of Faith, 52-53.
 Ibid., 199; emphasis added.
 Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage Books, 2008), ix.
 See for example Greg Miller, “Report finds Harsh CIA Interrogation Ineffective,” Washington Post, December 14, 2012; Philip Giraldi, “The Torture Chronicle,” American Conservative, December 20, 2012.
 Philip Giraldi, “The Torture Chronicle,” American Conservative, December 20, 2012.
 See for example Jane Mayer, “Zero Conscience in ‘Zero Dark Thirty,’” New Yorker, December 14, 2012.
 Giraldi, “The Torture Chronicle,” American Conservative, December 20, 2012.
 Sam Harris, “Losing Our Spines to Save our Necks,” Huffington Post, May 5, 2008.
 Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 87.
 Quoted in Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (New York: Verso, 2001), 3.
 Marc Horne, “Author Sam Harris Joins Plot to Have Pope Arrested,” Sunday Times, May 16, 2010; Sam Harris, “Bringing the Vatican to Justice,” Huffington Post, May 10, 2010.
 See for example Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2004).
 Scott Atran, “Sam Harris’s Guide to Nearly Everything,” National Interest, February 23, 2011.
 Ian Murphy, “Open Letter to Torture Apologist Sam Harris,” http://buffalobeast.com/open-letter-to-torture-apologist-sam-harris/.
 Harris, The End of Faith, 128.
 “U.S. Court Reject CIA Kidnap Case,” BBC, October 9, 2007; Richard Norton-Taylor, “CIA ‘Tortured and Sodomised’ Terror Suspect, Human Rights Court Rules,” Guardian, December 13, 2012; see also Amy Davidson, “Torturing the Wrong Man,” New Yorker, December 13, 2012.
 For a historical documentation and the background of what the Inquisition was, I would highly recommend Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).
 Mark Kukis, Voices from Iraq: A People’s History, 2003-2009 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011),xvii.
 Ibid., xvii.
 Ibid., xvii.
 Ibid., xiii.
 Ibid., xiv.
 Ibid., xiv.
 Gregg Zoroya, “360,000 Veterans May Have Brain Injuries,” USA Today, March 5, 3009; Denise Grady, “Brain Injuries Are Seen in New Scans of Veterans,” NY Times, June 1, 2011; “Mental Health Injuries Scar 300,000 U.S. Troops,” MSNBC, April 17, 2008.
 Lizette Alvarez, “War Veterans’ Concussions Are Often Overlooked,” NY Times, August 25, 2008.
 Armen Keteyian, “VA Hid Suicide Risk, Internal Emails Show,” CBC News, July 30, 2010.
 Allison Churchill, “The Military Is Losing More Troops to Suicide than Combat,” Business Insider, October 25, 2012.
 Kelley Vlahos, “Surviving War, Falling to Suicide,” American Conservative, January 1, 2012.
 “UN Group Says US Attacks, Air Strikes Kill Hundreds of Afghan Children in Recent Years,” Washington Post, February 7, 2013.
 Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (New York: W. W. Norton, 2008).
 See for example “A threat to Cost Taxpayers Money,” The Economist, April 12, 20111; Kathleen Hennessey, “Obama Tries to Shoot Down GOP Talk of Debt-Limit Threat,” L.A. Times, December 5, 2012; Mary Williams Walsh, “Debt Ceiling Rises Again as Threat for the U.S.,” NY Times, December 21, 2012; Moran Zhang, “U.S. Economy 2013: If ‘Fiscal Cliff’ is Avoided, What About the Debt Ceiling?,” International Business Times, December 21, 2012;
 Simon Rogers, “U.S. Debt: How Big Is It and Who Owns It?,” Guardian, October 2, 2012.
 Jennifer Rizzo, “Putting a Price Tag on War with Iran,” CNN, November 19, 2012.
 See for example David Alexander, “House Approves Bill Authorizing $633 Billion in Defense Spending,” ChicagoTribune, December 20, 2012; Dave Boyer, “Obama Signs Defense Measure he Once Vowed to Veto,” Washington Time, January 3, 2013.
 Steven Erlanger, “Two Years After Revolt, Libya Faces a Host of Problems,” NY Times, February 12, 2013.
 Quoted in David Edwards, “Bill Kristol Calls for U.S. Ground Forces in Libya,” Rawstory.com, March 20, 2011.
 William Kristol, “You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby,” Weekly Standard, March 28, 2011.
 Glenn Greenwald, “Obama, the U.S. and the Muslim World: The Animosity Deepens,” Guardian, February 15, 2013.
 Rob Eshman, “William Kristol—Bad for Israel,” JewishJournal.com, January 30, 2013.
 Michael A. Fletcher, “Fiscal Trouble Ahead for Most Future Retirees,” Washington Post, February 16, 2013.
 Gregg Zoroya, “Homeless, At-Risk Veterans Double,” USA Today, December 27, 2012.
 Kelley Vlahos, “surviving War, Falling to Suicide,” American Conservative, January 1, 2013.
 Michael A. Fletcher, “Veterans of Recent Wars Confront Grim Employment Landscape,” Washington Post, December 30, 2010; Kimberly Hefling, “Iraq, Afghanistan Veterans Struggle to Find Jobs,” Washington Post, March 11, 2011; “Female Veterans Struggling to Find Jobs,” CBS News, April 7, 2012.
 See for example Anne Barnard, “Syrians Killed in Gas Line; U.N. Raises War’s Casualty Figures,” NY Times, January 2, 2013; Matthew Weaver, “Syria Conflict: U.N. Says 60,000 Dead-Wednesday 2 January 2013,” Guardian, January 2, 2013.
 See for example Meagan Pant, “For Millions of College Graduates, Degrees Aren’t Paying Off,” Denver Post, February 6, 2013.
 Rod Nordland, “Winter’s Deadly Bite Returns to Refugee Camps of Kabul,” NY Times, December 29, 2012.
 Rana F. Sweis, “Syrian Refugees Strain Resources in Jordan,” NY Times, January 2, 2013; Liam Stack, “Winter Brings Misery to Syria Refugees,” NY Times, January 10, 2013; Jodi Rudoren, “A Desert Cold and Wet Multiplies the Misery of Syrian Refugees,” NY Times, January 12, 2013.
 “UN Body: Around Half-Million Syrians Now Refugees,” Seattle Times, January 2, 2013.
 Hwaida Saad and Rick Gladstone, “Dozens Killed as Explosions Hit Syrian University,” NY Times, January 15, 2013.
 Dave Gibson, “We Can Pay for Israel’s Border Fence But Not Our Own,” Examiner, January 6, 2013.
 Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (New York: Penguin Books, 2011), 15-16; emphasis in original.
 Ibid., 132.
 Ibid, 130.
 See for example Jean-Louis Pannee, Andrzej Paczkowski, et al, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).
 Isabel kershner, “Academic Study Weakens Israeli Claim That Palestinian School Texts Teach Hate,” NY Times, February 3, 2013.
 Jason Ditz, “Poll: 68 Percent of Palestinians Support Peace Talks If Settlement Frozen,” Antiwar.com, February 21, 2023.
 Sheera Frenkel, “Israel: Iran Slowing Nuclear Program, Won’t Have Bomb Before 2015,” McClatchy Newspaper, January 28, 2013.
 Quoted in Scott Peterson, “Imminent Iran Nuclear Threat? A Timeline of Warning since 1979,” Christian ScienceMonitor, January 8, 2011.
 Ali Gharib, “How Israeli Government Officials Fueled A Conspiracy Website Story About Iran,” Daily Beast, January 28, 2013.
 Dan Ephron, “White House Debunks Iran Nuclear Explosion, But Iran Denies Planting Story,” Daily Beast, January 29, 2013.
 Daniel Halper, “Iran’s Already Got the Bomb?,” Weekly Standard, February 15, 2013.
 “Colin Powell to Romney on Foreign Policy: ‘Come on, Mitt, Think,’” Atlantic, May 23, 2012.
 David Horowitz, “Why Israel Is the Victim,” Frontpagemag.com, February 12, 2013.
 Ariel Zirulnick, “Europe to Israel: Military Strike on Iran Nuclear Program Not an Option,” Christian Science Monitor, November 11, 2011.
 Jack Khoury, “Ahmadinejad: Iran Already a Nuclear State, But Has No Intention of Launching Attack on Israel,” Haaretz, February 6, 2013.
 Quoted in “Obama Pledges to Stand with Israel, Stop Iranian Bomb, in State of the Union,” Jewishjournal.com, February 13, 2013.
 David Zucchino, “Drone Strikes in Pakistan Have Killed Many Civilians, Study Says,” LA Times, September 24, 2012; Glenn Greenwald, “New Standard/NYU Study Documents the Civilian Terror from Obama’s Drones,” Guardian, September 25, 2012; Peter Bergen, “Civilian Casualties Plummet in Drone Strikes,” CNN, July 13, 2013.
 Quoted in Chris Cilliza, “President Obama’s Enough-Is-Enough Newtown Speech,” Washington Post, December 16, 2012.
 Quoted in Glenn Greenwald, “Newtown Kids v. Yemenis and Pakistanis: What Explains the Disparate Reactions?,” Guardian, December 19, 2012.
 Glenn Greenwald, “Obama, the U.S. and the Muslim World: The Animosity Deepens,” Guardian, February 15, 2013.
 Desmond M. Tutu, “Drones, Kill Lists and Machiavelli,” NY Times, February 12, 2013.
 Sudarsan Raghavan, “When U.S. Drones Kill Civilians, Yemen’s Government Tries to Conceal It,” Washington Post, December 25, 2012.
 See for example Rob Crilly, “Stanley McChrystal Criticizes Reliance on Drones as Strikes Hit Pakistan,” TheTelegraph, January 8, 2013.
 Quoted in Robert Johnson, “‘Did We Just Kill a Kid?’—Six Words that Ended a U.S. Drone Pilot’s Career,” Business Insider, December 17, 2012.
 Quoted in Nicola Abe, “The Woes of an American Drone Operator,” Spiegel International, December 14, 2012.
 King “Bibi” is the name that Time magazine gave to Netanyahu last year.
 “IAEA: Iran May Be Advancing New Way to Produce Nuclear Bomb,” Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2013.
 Myra MacDonald and Fredrik Dahl, “Insight: Iran Nuclear Fuel Move May Avert Mid-Year Crisis,” Reuters.com, February 10, 2013.
 For further details on what is going on with Iran, see for example Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); A Single Roll of Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012).
 Herb Keinon, “PM: Iranian Centrifuges Speed Up Arrival of Red Line,” Jerusalem Post, February 11, 2013.
 Keinon, “PM: Iranian Centrifuges Speed Up Arrival of Red Line,” Jerusalem Post, February 11, 2013..
 Quoted in “The War Game,” Guardian, September 21, 2003.
 Keinon, “PM: Iranian Centrifuges Speed Up Arrival of Red Line,” Jerusalem Post, February 11, 2013.
 Ruth Sherlock, “Syria: How Jihadist Group Jabhat al-Nusra Is Taking Over Syria’s Revolution,” The Telegraph, February 8, 2013.
 Quoted in Akiva Eldar, “Israel’s New Politics and the Fate of Palestine,” National Interest, June 28, 2012.