THE ENEMY WITHIN? (MUST WATCH)

2 thoughts on “THE ENEMY WITHIN? (MUST WATCH)”

1. THE SECULAR ZIONIST AGENDA FOR A JEWISH STATE
   Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons
   P.O.B. 1775, Kiryat Arba 90100, Israel
   tel and fax: 02-9961252 (within Israel),
   972 2 9961252 (from outside Israel)
   e-mail: chaimsimons@gmail.com
   August 2007
   © Copyright. 2007. Chaim Simons
   INTRODUCTION
   In an article in the English edition of “Mishpacha” in January 2005 appeared the following:
   “The Left is still loyal to the State of Israel in varying levels of faithfulness, but it hates Eretz Yisrael. The difference between these two is clear: Eretz Yisrael is a reminder of the Left’s Jewish past, which it wishes to forget. … The Left’s disconnection from the Jewish nation has reached the point where they are prepared for settlers to be killed during the evacuation effort [Gaza area and North Shomron]. Spokesmen of the Left have already announced that this will not be a war of brother against brother since ‘the settlers are not our brothers’.” (1)
   Unfortunately this is not a new phenomenon. It has always been an integral part of the secular Zionist agenda. They wanted a Jewish State (according to some of them, even if it were to be in Uganda or Argentina) but it had to be administered according to their programme and perception for the “New Jew.”
   ***********************************************
   NOTE
   Although much of the material appearing in this paper can be found in other books or articles, the material is often brought down as secondary or even tertiary sources. In addition, the primary sources are on a number of occasions incorrectly quoted and there are even cases where the quotations given do not occur in the sources given. Therefore the only quotations of statements made by secular Zionists brought in this paper are those which the author of this paper has a photocopy from in the original in his possession. Due to limitations in the disc space, facsimiles of these documents cannot appear in this online copy. In many cases the original documents are no longer extant or could not be located, despite extensive searching. In such cases the information alleged to be contained in them has been completely omitted from this paper.
   In the English quotes, Palestine usually appears when referring to Eretz Yisrael and it has of course be left as it appears in the original.
   The following words appearing in the Hebrew quotes have not been translated:
   Aliyah – Jewish immigration to Eretz Yisrael
   Hachshara – Training given to people in preparation for Aliyah
   Shlichim – Jewish emissaries sent abroad to Jewish communities
   Yishuv – Jewish community of Eretz Yisrael
   *************************************************
   SELECTIVITY – THE SECULAR ZIONIST WAY
   Eretz Yisrael was Divinely given to the Jewish people (2) and every Jew has an equal right to live there. However as we shall see, the secular Zionists thought otherwise.
   At the eighteenth Zionist Congress held in Prague in August 1933, Ben-Gurion said
   “Eretz Yisrael today needs not ordinary immigrants, but pioneers. The difference between them is simple – an immigrant comes to take from the land, whereas a pioneer comes to give to the land. Therefore we demand priority for Aliyah to pioneers.”(3) (emphasis in original)
   The question here is how would Ben-Gurion define an “ordinary immigrant” and how a “pioneer”? From his speech, it is obvious that a person working the land on a kibbutz is a pioneer. However, it would almost certainly appear that an old person coming to spend his last years in the Holy Land or even a Yeshiva student would be classed as a mere “ordinary immigrant”!(4)
   A few months later in mid-October 1933 a meeting took place between, amongst others, the High Commissioner for Palestine, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Shertok (Sharett). The Minutes of the meeting were written up by Shertok.
   During the course of this meeting Ben-Gurion spoke about the three million Jews then living in Poland and stated that
   “Palestine offered no solution for all Polish Jews. Immigration into Palestine was necessarily limited, therefore it had to and could be a selected immigration. Zionism was not a philanthropic enterprise, they really wanted here the best type of Jew to develop the Jewish National Home, but they had to be given sufficient scope to bring over people of whom the country was in need.”(5)
   The question which remains is who would decide who was “the best type of Jew”? As will soon be seen, such a Jew was someone who was a secular Zionist!
   It was a few years later at the 20th Zionist Congress held in Zurich in August 1937, that Weizmann spelled out more specifically what was meant by “selective Aliyah.”
   “I told the members of the Royal [Peel] Commission that six million Jews want to go on Aliyah. One of the members asked me ‘ Do you think you could bring all of them to Eretz Yisrael?’ On this I answered … that two million young people… we want to save. The old people will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They have already become like dust, economic and moral dust in this cruel world.”(6)
   A similar rejection of elderly Jews to go on Aliyah was made by Henry Montor, the Executive Vice-Chairman of the United Jewish Appeal for Refugees towards the beginning of 1940. A ship full of refugees not certified by the Zionist organisations, were on the high seas. Many of the passengers were elderly. The captain of the ship required money to bring them to Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Baruch Rabinowitz of Maryland took the matter in hand and tried to get the necessary money from Montor to pay the captain. In his long rambling letter of reply, Montor wrote about the Jewish Agency’s policy of “selectivity” – “the choice of young men and women who are trained in Europe for productive purposes either in agriculture or industry.” With regard to the elderly Jews on board this ship, Montor wrote:
   “There could be no more deadly ammunition provided to the enemies of Zionism, whether they be in the ranks of the British Government or the Arabs, or even in the ranks of the Jewish people, if Palestine were to be flooded with very old people or with undesirables who would make impossible the conditions of life in Palestine and destroy the prospect of creating such economic circumstances as would insure a continuity of immigration.”(7)
   Maybe it would have been appropriate for him to have renamed his organisation “United Jewish Appeal for Selected Refugees”! At least the donors would then have had a better idea of what they were giving money for.
   The secular Zionists were not even ashamed to put out a memorandum in which they quite openly had a section “Who to save”. This memorandum (of April/May 1943) was headed that its distribution was “intended for Zionist functionaries only” and it included instructions “not to pass it on to non-Zionist groups who participate in the Working Committee.”(8) Although it came out under the name of A. [Apolinary] Hartglas, it has been suggested that in fact it was Yitzchak Gruenbaum who actually wrote it.(9) Under this section, he wrote
   “…. to my sorrow we have to say that if we are able to save only ten thousand people and we need to save fifty thousand [those chosen] should be of use in building up the land and the revival of the nation.… First and foremost one must rescue children since they are the best material for the Yishuv. One must rescue the pioneering youth, especially those who have had training and are idealistically qualified for Zionist work. One should rescue the Zionist functionaries since they deserve something from the Zionist movement for their work…. Pure philanthropic rescue, for example, saving the Jews of Germany, if carried out in an indiscriminate manner, could from a Zionist prospective only cause harm.”(10)
   As can be seen, just as with both Weizmann and Montor, Hartglas was not interested in old people coming to Eretz Yisrael. Even amongst the younger generation, he was only interested in those who would work the land – Yeshivah students were of no use to him.
   Further exclusions to Aliyah by the secular Zionists were people who were not members of the Zionist camp. Some Jews who succeeded in arriving in Eretz Yisrael in the second half of 1944 gave evidence on this question.
   Pinchas Gross who had been one of the public workers of Agudat Yisrael in Rumania stated
   “The first principle of the Zionist Aliyah Committee in Bucharest was not to allow members of Agudat Yisrael to go on Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. This was despite the agreement which had been made before the war between Agudat Yisrael and the Jewish Agency on the Aliyah quotas for members of Agudat Yisrael… Shlichim from the [Aliyah] Committee in Bucharest arrived in Transylvania with large sums of money in order to transfer hundreds of pioneers to Bucharest for the purpose of Aliyah. We also asked for our members the possibility of Aliyah but we were rudely rejected.”(11)
   One might think that this money was “Zionist money” and therefore it was proper to reject such a request. However, this was shown not to be the case just a few weeks later when Weissberg who was a member of the Aliyah Committee in Bucharest, gave evidence before the Rescue Committee in Jerusalem. During this evidence he stated
   “It is true that the Agudah was not granted equal rights with regards to receiving money for assistance in Rumania. We did not know that the money which arrived from Eretz Yisrael was money from the Rescue Committee in which all the Yishuv participated. We thought that the money was Jewish Agency money.… I must inform you that help was not given to the pioneers and youth of Agudat Yisrael. We did not know that Agudah is a partner in matters of rescue and in particular in matters of Aliyah. Also regarding the Aliyah of the pioneers of Agudah, we did not know that they were entitled to go on Aliyah, until we arrived in Eretz Yisrael.”(12)
   We can thus see that the secular Zionists did nothing to even inform the Agudah what they were entitled to, let alone implement such an entitlement.
   There were also others who had been misled in believing that the money was “Zionist money”. For example, the Vishnitzer Rebbe, Rabbi Eliezer Hager, testified that when he asked why the ultra-Orthodox were not receiving any money, received the answer, “This money is Zionist and it is set aside solely for Zionists.”(13) (emphasis in original)
   Pinchas Gross further stated
   “The ultra-Orthodox youth were not at all considered for this [financial] assistance either in their home town or for the possibility of Aliyah. We applied… for assistance for our youth who before the war did a period of Hachshara and were no less fit for Aliyah than other pioneers – but we did not even receive an answer. The excuse was that the money was Zionist money and was solely for them.”(14)
   This attitude of the secular Zionists in their use of public money for their kith and kin and of their “priorities” did not pass without comment, even from non-Orthodox sources.
   Dr. Judah Leon Magnes in addressing a meeting of the Rescue Committee in July 1944 was very critical of those who wanted
   “first of all to save the Zionists, and afterwards, if possible – also the others, but above all the Zionists. I spoke to somebody…. The man said… we will save our men…. I said to him … the others are also Jews. He said: It is so, they are Jews, but this is a universal argument, a perpetual argument and we will not give in on this.”(15)
   Magnes’ comments on the necessity for non-selectivity when doing rescue work are illustrated by the work performed during the Second World War by Recha Sternbuch, who succeeded in rescuing thousands of Jews from the Nazis. Recha was associated with the strictly Orthodox Agudat Yisrael party. However, unlike the secular Zionists, she rescued Jews (and even some non-Jews) regardless of their level of religious observance or Zionist party affiliation.(16)
   ZIONISM – AND ONLY THEN JEWISH LIVES
   A few months after the beginning of the Second World War the Zionists received entry visas to Eretz Yisrael for 2,900 German Jews. It was necessary to have a meeting with the British Colonial Secretary, Malcolm MacDonald, in connection with these visas and in November 1939, David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Shertok met to discuss this question. Ben-Gurion strongly opposed such a meeting with MacDonald and he told Shertok that
   “our political future is more important than saving 2,900 Jews.” Shertok, who completely disagreed with Ben-Gurion, commented in his diary, “he [Ben-Gurion] was prepared to forgo them [the 2,900 Jews].”(17)
   Even in July 1944, which was towards the end of this war, when the Holocaust was still in full progress and its implementation was already well known, Ben-Gurion still had the same attitude. A meeting of the Executive of the Jewish Agency was held in Jerusalem at the beginning of July 1944. On its agenda was the subject of the rescue of Jews.
   Rabbi Baruch Yehoshua Yerachmiel Rabinowicz, the Munkaczer Rebbe in Hungary, was involved in this rescue effort and the question of a meeting with him was mentioned at this Jewish Agency meeting. In answer Ben-Gurion stated that he did not oppose such a meeting, “We must do everything in this matter [of rescue] including things which seem fantastic.” Had Ben-Gurion said no more, it would have been praiseworthy, but he then continued, “But there is one condition: the work will not cause damage to Zionism.”(18)
   In a letter to the Israeli daily newspaper “Ha’aretz” in 1983, the historian Professor Yigal Eilam confirmed that this was the attitude of the Zionist leaders during the period of the Holocaust. He wrote
   “The policy of the Zionists during the long period of the Holocaust gave priority to the building up of the land and the establishment of a State, over the saving of Jews…. One already needs to tell these things in a open and direct manner. The Zionists did very little in the saving of Jews, not because they were unable to do more, but because they were concentrating on the Zionist enterprise.”(19)
   In a similar vein, in an article by the historian Dina Porat which appeared in “Ha’aretz” in 1991, she wrote
   “From the moment that the State became the primary objective, the life of a Jew became secondary in accordance with the principal ‘the State of Israel is above everything’”.(20)
   The shortsightedness of the secular Zionist leaders in this matter was written about in 1984 by Rabbi Morris Sherer, the President of Agudat Yisrael, in his comments on the report by Professor Seymour Maxwell Finger entitled “American Jewry during the Holocaust.” Rabbi Sherer commented
   “Alas, they [the secular Zionist leaders] did not perceive how utterly ridiculous and heartless it was for Jewish leaders to concentrate on a postwar homeland, when the people for whom they were seeking this home were being slaughtered like sheep!” (21)
   Unlike Ben-Gurion who put Zionism first, and Jewish lives just in second place, the Rabbis of the period immediately put “Pikuach Nefesh” (the saving of lives) first. Sabbath observance is one of the fundamentals of Jewish observance, with the most stringent of punishments for their non-observance, yet despite this, Pikuach Nefesh overrides the Sabbath.(22) In order to save lives during the Holocaust, two leading British Rabbis, Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld and Rabbi Isadore Grunfeld, who were occupied in forging passports to save Jews, continued their work on the Sabbath.(23) Rabbis Boruch Kaplan and Rabbi Alexander Linchner rode around Brooklyn in New York in a car on the Sabbath from house to house collecting money to save Jews.(24) (These actions are normally forbidden on the Sabbath.)
   IF NOT ALIYAH, LET THEM PERISH
   In 1933, Hitler rose to power and during the subsequent years, more and more draconian measures, such as the Nuremberg laws were enacted against the Jews. In 1938 Hitler marched into Austria to the cheers of the non-Jewish population.
   The situation for the Jews under Hitler’s domination became unbearable and places of refuge became a grave necessity. It was thus at this period that President Franklin Roosevelt convened a conference of thirty-two nations at the French resort town of Evian to try and find places of refuge for Jews wanting to flee from Hitler.
   One would naturally have thought that the Zionist leaders of the time would make the most of this opportunity and devote all their time and energy to ensure that successful results would emerge from this Conference. But sadly this was not to be.
   Already in mid-June 1938, before the opening of the Conference, Dr. Georg Landauer wrote to Dr. Stephen Wise, who was head of the Zionist Organization of America. In it he wrote:
   “I am writing this letter to you at the request of Dr. Weizmann, as we are very much concerned in case the issue is presented at the [Evian] Conference in a manner which may harm the work for Palestine. Even if the Conference will not place countries other than Palestine in the front for Jewish immigration, there will certainly be public appeals which will tend to overshadow the importance of Palestine…. We feel all the more concern as it may bind Jewish organisations to collect large sums of money for assisting Jewish refugees, and these collections are likely to interfere with our own campaigns.”(25)
   Two weeks later the Jewish Agency Executive met in Jerusalem and opposition to the planned Evian Conference was openly stated.
   Yitzchak Gruenbaum said
   “The Evian Conference can be expected to cause us grave damage – Eretz Yisrael could be eliminated as a country for Jewish immigration … [we are] very apprehensive that in this Conference, it could be relegated to the end of the line. We have to prevent this damage… There is the danger that whilst searching for a destination country, some new territory will be found to which Jewish immigration will be directed. We must defend our principle that Jewish settlement can only succeed in Eretz Yisrael and that no other settlement can come into the calculation.”(26)
   Menachem Ussishkin then addressed the meeting in a similar vein. The Evian Conference very much worried him and he supported the words of Gruenbaum. “Mr. Gruenbaum is right when he says that there is the danger that Eretz Yisrael will be removed from the agenda even by the Jews and one should see this as a tremendous blow to us.”(27)
   Of course the ideal solution was for Jews to go to Eretz Yisrael. However in view of the then political situation, immigration there was not a feasible proposition. Surely the only question then should have been how to save and help as many Jews as possible. It was this fact that should have been the only concern of the speakers at that Jewish Agency Executive meeting – but it wasn’t!
   A few weeks later, Weizmann wrote to Stephen Wise. Towards the beginning of his letter he wrote: “I made arrangements, before leaving for my holiday, to put in a few days at Evian.”(28) If one thinks for a moment about this sentence, one can see that it is horrific. Surely, if there was even the slightest opportunity of saving even one Jew, Weizmann who was the President of the Zionist Organization should have immediately cancelled his personal holiday arrangements and spent all his time at Evian trying to lobby the various delegates to accept Jews in their countries. But what do we see? – he will just before going on holiday “put in a few days at Evian.”
   In fact he was later persuaded by his friends not to even “put in a few days” there, to which advice he followed.(29) The reason was stated by Dr. Arthur Ruppin at a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive on 21 August. Ruppin stated “we then decided that it would not be to our prestige for Dr. Weizmann to appear in Evian”(30) – the reason being that he would only have been allowed to speak in a sub-committee! Jewish lives were at stake and to worry about prestige!!
   One can immediately contrast this attitude with that of the Jewish religious leaders of the time. Rabbi Aharon Kotler had come under some criticism for meeting in the course of his rescue work with Stephen Wise, a leader of the Reform movement. He shrugged such reprobation saying, “I would prostrate myself before the Pope if I knew it would help to save even the fingernail of one Jewish child.”(31)
   Unfortunately nothing concrete came out of the Evian Conference. The situation of the Jews in Germany got even worse and on 9 November 1938 there was the infamous Kristallnacht.
   A few days later, Weizmann heard that there was a scheme to resettle German Jews in a country other than Eretz Yisrael. This he did not like and he immediately sent off a telegram to stop any financial backing for such a scheme. This telegram was sent to Samuel Vandenbergh in Wassemar
   “Understand you are embarking large financial effort for settlement German Jews. Beg of you to be careful not disperse and dissipate energies which can nowhere be applied with greater effectiveness both immediately and lasting than in Palestine.”(32)
   Since at that period emigration to Eretz Yisrael was unfortunately not a practical proposition, Weizmann is effectively saying that rather than immigrate to another country, the Jews must remain in Nazi Germany.
   We can see that also Ben-Gurion thought on these same lines as the other secular Zionist leaders. It was at this period that Ben-Gurion addressed the Mapai Central Committee. He realised the seriousness of the situation and said
   “On these awesome days at the start of the threatened destruction of European Jewry…. If I would know that it would be possible to save all the German [Jewish] children by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, I would choose the second option – since before us is not just these children but the history of the Jewish people.”(33)
   At this period, the Germans had already established concentration camps and were sending Jews to them. In order to pre-empt this, it was necessary to find the means of arranging their emigration from Germany. Ben-Gurion, however, felt this could cause a diversion of resources and endanger Zionism. A few days after his above quoted speech to the Mapai Central Committee, he addressed the Executive of the Jewish Agency:
   “Zionism now stands in danger.… If the Jews will have to choose on the one hand the refugee question,[namely] saving Jews from concentration camps and on the other hand assisting a national museum in Eretz Yisrael, mercy would decide the matter and all the energy of the [Jewish] people would be diverted to saving Jews in the various countries. Zionism would be struck off the agenda, not only in world opinion in England and America, but also in Jewish public opinion. The existence of Zionism would be at risk if we allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Eretz Yisrael problem.”(34) (emphasis in original)
   NOT ONE PENNY, NOT ONE CENT
   The mass extermination of the Jews of Europe was already well known by the end of 1942. Saving Jews could and should have been top priority. But in order to save large numbers of people from extermination costs money – whether normal expenses or money for bribery. Needless to say, the money has to come from somewhere. All the time money was donated by world Jewry to funds such as the Keren Hayesod, the JNF, and so on. It is true that this money had been specifically donated for Eretz Yisrael, but here was a case of Pikuach Nefesh and it would have been quite legitimate, indeed mandatory, to have utilised this money for the saving of Jewish lives. The Jews then living in Eretz Yisrael were even saying so.
   However Yitzchak Gruenbaum, who was head of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency thought otherwise. In a speech to the Zionist Smaller Actions Committee in January 1943 he expressed his views:
   “Meanwhile a mood has begun to sweep over Eretz Yisrael which I think is very dangerous to Zionism…. How is it possible that such a thing can occur in Eretz Yisrael, that in a meeting they will call out to me, ‘If you don’t have any money [for rescuing European Jewry] take the money of the Keren Hayesod, take the money from the bank – there, there is money, in the Keren Hayedod there is money.’ … These days in Eretz Yisrael it is being said, ‘don’t put Eretz Yisrael at the top of your priorities at this difficult time, at the period of a Holocaust and destruction of European Jewry,’ …. I don’t accept such a thing. And when they asked me to give money of the Keren Hayesod to save Diaspora Jewry, I said no and I again said no…. I am not going to defend myself, in the same way that I will not justify or defend myself if they accuse me of murdering my mother …. But I think it is necessary to say here: Zionism is above everything.”(35)
   The only consolation from reading Gruenbaum’s speech, is that the Jews living in Eretz Yisrael were demanding the diverting of Keren Hayesod money to rescue efforts, even though this meant that less money would arrive in Eretz Yisrael and could accordingly affect their living standards. In contrast Gruenbaum commented “Zionism is above everything” even though this meant not rescuing European Jewry from the Holocaust.
   In his book “Perfidy”, Ben Hecht quoted how Gruenbaum said “No” to the giving of money for rescue activities.(36) In a critical “Analysis” of this book by the American Section of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, they write that this quoted sentence by Ben Hecht “has been most viciously torn out of context. The writer of this Analysis then tries to prove, quoting other parts of Gruenbaum’s speech that he wanted to do everything to save European Jewry.(37) However he conveniently omitted one crucial part of the speech: “Zionism is above everything” – namely we will certainly do everything to save European Jewry provided that it is not at the expense of Zionism!
   One might add that in 1961, Gruenbaum gave an interview to the paper “Etgar” from the comfort of his house in Gan Shmuel, in which he repeated these statements he made during the war, without even hinting he had been wrong.
   “Interviewer: Was there then no money in the kitty of the Jewish Agency, the JNF, the Keren Hayesod?
   Gruenbaum: Yes. Even then the argument went: Isn’t there any money? Take it from the JNF. I said: No! They did not want to forgive me for this and until this day, there are murmurings about this. The money was needed for Zionism.
   Interviewer: What is the meaning of “for Zionism” when the saving of lives is at stake? Does Zionism want Jews alive or dead?
   Gruenbaum: The saving of life does not override Zion. For Jews, the State is essential. Therefore, in accordance with my manner I said the truth – that is No!”(38)
   Gruenbaum went on to say that he then went to South Africa to raise money for rescue purposes. However we all know that the raising of money, especially when one has to travel to another continent takes time and every day taken meant more Jews were being sent to the gas chambers. Surely the correct thing was to immediately take money from these Zionist kitties and if at a later date one succeeded in raising money, one could return it to the Zionist funds.
   Even before the war, when Jews were already being persecuted in Germany and Austria, it was widely accepted that money to save Jewish lives came before money for Zionism. In was in late October 1938 that the treasurer of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) said
   “The upbuilding of Palestine was all very well, but Jews in Europe were starving and persecuted – and they, JDC felt, had first claim on whatever funds were available.”(39)
   ALSO THE BRITISH SECULAR ZIONISTS
   Placing Zionism above the saving the lives of Jews was also a phenomenon of the British secular Zionists. Towards the end of 1942, when the Nazi extermination plans became known, British Jewry decided to make representations to the British Government. At a meeting of the British section of the Jewish Agency held in December 1942, the “Nazi Extermination Policy” was on the agenda. Here is an extract from the official minutes of this meeting when discussing this item:
   “Dr. Brodetsky … made it quite clear that if Palestine was not properly mentioned then he would not be a member of the Delegation to Mr. Eden….
   Lord Melchett said it would be disastrous for any body of Jews to go to Mr. Eden and not put Palestine in the forefront of their plans. Such a body would not represent the views of the Jews either here or elsewhere…..
   Mr. Marks said he fully agreed, and if this condition was not satisfied, then he would not be a member of the delegation. Unless Palestine was properly dealt with, they should criticise the delegation up and down the country and cause a revolution inside the Board of Deputies…. The dignity of the Jewish people was at stake and it was only in Palestine that the Jews could get their dignity back.”(40)
   As we well see, the above British secular Zionists would only attend a meeting with British Government officials to save Jews from the “Nazi Extermination Policy” if Eretz Yisrael was to be given a prominent place at these meetings. Furthermore it was Jewish liveswhich were “at stake” and it was no time to worry about “dignity” being “at stake”.
   It was at the same period that the British secular Zionists sabotaged negotiations that Rabbi Dr. Solomon Schonfeld was making with the British Government for the rescue of the endangered Jews in Nazi Europe. Such rescue of Jews was not a new thing with Rabbi Schonfeld. Just before the Second World War, he had organised Kindertransports and brought over to England from Germany and Austria thousands of children.(41) To accommodate some of them he even utilized his own house with him sleeping in the attic.(42)
   Towards the end of 1942, Rabbi Schonfeld organised steps to rescue Jews from Nazi Europe. To this end he worked exceptionally hard to organise wide support for a Motion to be tabled in the British Parliament for the British Government to be prepared to find temporary refuge in its territories or territories under its control for those endangered by the Nazis. Within two weeks he amassed a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures of all parties for this Motion.(43)
   One would have thought that the British secular Zionists would have welcomed and co-operated in such an initiative. Sadly this was not the case. In a letter to the “Jewish Chronicle” at that period, Rabbi Schonfeld wrote
   “This effort was met by a persistent attempt on the part of Professor Brodetsky [President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews] and some of his colleagues to sabotage the entire move. Without even full knowledge of the details, he and his collaborators asked Members of the House [of Parliament] to desist from supporting the new effort.”(44)
   Rabbi Schonfeld further elaborated on this in a letter to “The Times” of London at the time of the Eichmann trial in 1961.
   “Already while the Parliamentary motion was gathering momentum voices of dissent were heard from Zionist quarters: ‘Why not Palestine?’ The obvious answers that the most urgent concern was humanitarian and not political, that the Mufti-Nazi alliance ruled out Palestine for the immediate saving of lives….When the next steps were being energetically pursued by over 100 M.Ps [Members of Parliament] and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion on the grounds of its omitting to refer to Palestine …. and thereafter the motion was dead.”(45)
   Rabbi Schonfeld’s initiative came up at a meeting of the British Executive of the Jewish Agency in January 1943. At this meeting, Berl Locker said that he and two of his colleagues
   “had asked him [Rabbi Schonfeld] to postpone the meeting in the House of Commons and not to continue working off his own bat. They had also pointed out that the resolution which he had proposed did not mention Palestine…. Mr. Locker wondered whether it would be a good thing for him or Dr. Brodetsky to write a letter to the Chief Rabbi, who might be able to do something to stop this mischief.”(46)
   What was this “mischief” of Rabbi Dr. Schonfeld’s that these British secular Zionists wanted “stopped”? This “mischief” was his trying to save the lives of Jews who were in Nazi Europe!!
   EPILOGUE
   In an interview given by someone who worked with the late Klausenberger Rebbe for half a century, he said in answer to a question on the Holocaust,
   “When the Sabra and Shatila affair rocked the nation, and hundreds of thousands of Israelis demonstrated in Tel Aviv, demanding a commission of inquiry into the government’s lack of response to the massacre of Palestinians by Phalangist militants in Lebanon, the Rebbe couldn’t restrain himself. During a Shiur he delivered in Bnei Brak, he asked pointedly why there was no call for a commission of inquiry into the lack of response of the Zionist leaders in Eretz Yisrael during the murder of millions of Jews in the Nazi-occupied lands. They had ignored the matter completely.”(47)
   REFERENCES
   1) Rabbi Moshe Grylak, “How do they “know” it all?” Mishpacha (English edition), (Monsey, NY: Tikshoret VeChinuch Dati-Yehudi), 12 January 2005, pp.6-7.
   2) e.g. Genesis chap.12 verse 7.
   3) Stenographisches Protokoll XVIII Zionistenkongresses, [Official Minutes of the 18th Zionist Congress], (London: Zentralbureau der Zionistischen Organisation), p.219.
   4) David Kranzler, Thy Brother’s Blood, (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1987), pp.61-62, 241, 244.
   5) Minutes of Interview with His Excellency the High Commissioner, 17 October 1933, pp.4-5 (Labour Archives – Lavon Institute IV-104-49-2-64. There is also a copy in Ben-Gurion Archives). At a later date Ben-Gurion wrote up these minutes (in Hebrew) in his memoirs without any suggestion that they were not what he had said at this meeting, (David Ben-Gurion, Memoirs, vol.1, (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1971), p.672).
   6) Official Minutes of the 20th Zionist Congress, (Jerusalem: Executive of the Zionist Organisation and the Jewish Agency), pp.32-33.
   7) Montor to Rabinowitz, 1 February 1940, pp.2, 4, (Jabotinsky Archives, HT-10/16).
   8) A. Hartglas, Comments concerning assistance and rescue, (April/May 1943 – possibly 24 April 1943), p.1, (CZA S26/1306 [previous no. S26/1232]).
   9) Aryeh Morgenstern, “Vaad hahatzalah hameuchad .…,” Yalkut Moreshet, (Tel Aviv: Moreshet), vol.13, June 1971, p.95 fn.67.
   10) Hartglas, op. cit., p.3.
   11) Evidence of Pinchas Gross, a public worker of Agudat Yisrael of Rumania, given in Tel Aviv on 27 July 1944, p.2, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no. S26/1079]).
   12) Minutes, Presidium of the Rescue Committee, Jerusalem, 25 August 1944, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no. S26/1079]).
   13) Evidence of Vishnitzer Rebbe taken in Tel Aviv in April 1944, p.1, (CZA S26/1189 [previous no, S26/1079]).
   14) Pinchas Gross, op. cit.
   15) Minutes, Rescue Committee, Jerusalem, 14 July 1944, p.7, (CZA S26/1327 [previous no. S26/1238aleph]).
   16) Kranzler, op. cit., pp194-95.
   17) Moshe Shertok Handwritten diary, 13 November 1939, p.66, (CZA S25/198/3. [Shertok also made a handwritten copy of his own diary CZA A245/14]
   18) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive. Jerusalem, 2 July 1944. p.8, (CZA).
   19) Yigal Eilam, Letters to the Editor, Haaretz, (Tel Aviv), 15 April 1983, p.24.
   20) Dina Porat, “Manipulatzit Haadmorim,” Haaretz, (Tel Aviv), 12 April 1991, p.3b.
   21) Seymour Maxwell Finger, American Jewry during the Holocaust, (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, second printing May 1984), Comment by Rabbi Morris Sherer, p.16.
   22) Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, chap.328, para.2.
   23) S. Fordsham, Inbox, Mishpacha (English edition), op. cit., 9 May 2007, p.10
   24) Kranzler, op. cit., p.6.
   25) Landauer to Wise, 13 June 1938, p.1, (CZA S53/1552aleph).
   26) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, 26 June 1938, p.6, (CZA)
   27) Ibid., p.7.
   28) Weizmann to Wise. 14 July 1938, p.1, (CZA Z4/17198).
   29) Ibid., p.2.
   30) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, 21 August 1938, p.7. (CZA).
   31) Kranzler, op. cit., p.146.
   32) Telegram, Weizmann to Vandenburgh, 16 November 1938, (CZA Z4/17335).
   33) Minutes, Mapai Central Committee, 7 December 1938, p.41, (Labour Party Archives – Bet Berl 2-23-1938-21 bet).
   34) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, Jerusalem, 11 December 1938, p.4, (CZA)
   35) Minutes, Zionist Smaller Actions Committee, 18 January 1943, pp.12-13, (CZA).
   36) Ben Hecht, Perfidy, (New York: Julian Messner, 1962), p.50.
   37) The American Section of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency. Ben Hecht’s ‘Perfidy’ – An analysis of his rewriting of history, (New York: [s.n.], 1962), p.9.
   38) “Mi asham b’hafkara,” conversation with Yitzchak Gruenbaum, Etgar, (Tel Aviv: Mercaz Hapeula Hashemit), no.8, 29 June 1961, p.5.
   39) Yehuda Bauer, My Brother’s Keeper, (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1974), p.255.
   40) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, London, 21 December 1942, pp.2-3. (CZA Z4/302/26).
   41) e.g. David Kranzler. Holocaust Hero, (New Jersey: Ktav, 2004).
   42) Ibid., pp.38-39.
   43) Solomon Schonfeld, Letters to the Editor, The Times, (London), 6 June 1961, p.13.
   44) Solomon Schonfeld, Letters to the Editor, The Jewish Chronicle, (London), 29 January 1943, p.5.
   45) Schonfeld, The Times, op. cit.
   46) Minutes, Jewish Agency Executive, London, 21 January 1943, (CZA Z4/302/26).
   47) “A strength beyond nature,” Mishpacha (English edition), op. cit., 20 June 2007, p.16.

   Reply

2. Shalom,
   THE PROPHET
   Prophethood is a device of the Middle Eastern origin, which seeks to impose secular and spiritual mastery of one man, the Prophet, over others in the name of God, who, in fact, is nothing but a tool for realizing the personal ambitions of the Prophet.
   Prophethood is not only the divine fountain of despotism but it is likely to act as the source of destroying mankind. This truth is well illustrated by Jerusalem, which has become an international dynamite through the Prophetic jealousies.
   Man is privileged to believe in one God, many gods or no god at all. This fundamental right is given him by his free will, which is the true distinction between the living and the dead. The Lofty sun, despite being the source of life, is still lifeless because its every movement is already determined, and therefore it exists mechanically. On the contrary, the lowermost amoeba, a protozoa of ever- changing shape, is a living being for having the ability to move as it pleases.
   Prophethood is based on a totally unverifiable claim that God has appointed the man called ”Prophet,” to act as His vicar for persuading people to obey Him; this supernatural Being, is the Perfect, the Creator, the All-mighty, the All- wise and the All-independent. This concept is highly contemptuous of God for several reasons:
   1. With all these qualities, God, the Perfect, cannot depend upon Prophet, the man, who is imperfect. Therefore, the device of Prophethood by its very nature is defective, devious and distracting.
   Again, owing to its high cultural and religious influence, veracity of the doctrine of Prophethood must be easily verifiable. Since it is not, it makes it a source of mischief, which we experience in the form of social discord.
   2. Man is not only endowed with free will but also enjoys his intelligence. This is what makes him absolutely marvelous, magical and magnificent. He is, therefore, well-equipped to find the right path for himself. A Prophet, who lived centuries ago, and rode asses and mules, does not have the ability to guide the man, who has become a space-traveler through the means that he has invented himself. If God’s guidance was really essential for man, He would not have equipped humans with such high intelligence and inventive power. Again, being All-independent and the Perfect, He should have designed man differently so that he could not err. This would have saved God all the humiliation that emanates from His dependence on an imperfect mortal, called “Prophet,” and also the disrepute that springs from the faulty design of man, which requires guidance.
   3. The concept of Prophethood seeks to turn man, a rational being, into a robot, which must be driven by faith; it is the exact opposite of rationality. Thus, a thing becomes good or bad, not because experience or wisdom proves it as such, but because God says so through His Prophet!
   4. According to the notion of Guidance, God’s greatest passion is that man must humiliate himself before the Almighty through a series of rituals known as worship. He who is Almighty and All-independent cannot be the lover of sycophancy, which worship really is; passion for flattery is not a virtue but a vice; it is a trait of humanity, which, makes people seek glory through enjoying entreaties and supplications of lesser men. This is an attribute of Dominance-Urge associated with man, who is impelled by it to usurp liberties of fellow men for looking great through their self-humiliating praises, prayers and pathetic submissions. God, the All-mighty and All-independent, is by definition, way above these belittling drawbacks of personality.
   5 . It is actually the Prophet, the man, who uses the ruse of revelation (Prophethood) to satisfy his Urge of Dominance. He pretends to be God’s servant but encourages his followers to treat him as the God, and thus, God Himself slides into the background, leaving the entire field to the Prophet, who acts as the sole medium of all the worldly and spiritual fulfillments.
   In fact, Prophethood is the gravest insult to the concept of Godhead. If you read the Bible or the Qur’an, you will find that God is someone who loves to be worshipped. He has such a childish and unstable disposition that, if man humiliates himself by worshipping Him, He feels glad as if someone were on top of the world but if man neglects Him, He becomes miserable like a fish out of water. What kind of God is He, whose pleasure and pain solely depend on man’s attitude towards Himself?
   If Prophethood was a true concept, it would be the greatest honor that a man could achieve, and in that case he would have worked hard and begged the Almighty for this dignity. Regrettably, the situation is quite the opposite: it is God who is so desperate that He imposes this divine distinction through threats and violence on a person who is most reluctant to accept it. Frankly speaking, one is obliged to think that God is extremely anxious for finding a Prophet, and the man awarded this esteem, does so as a favor to the Almighty. What a pious blasphemy it is!
   The truth about the doctrine of Prophethood is that the man eager to become a Prophet asserts that he has reluctantly accepted God’s commission to represent Him on earth. Since God cannot be seen or contacted and speaks only through the Prophet, who is visible, the latter becomes the Symbol of God like a statue, which ranks holy by virtue of representing the divine power that lurks behind it. The Prophet wants God as a figurative head only so that he himself must rank as the centre of people’s attention and adoration. Eventually, he elevates himself so high that he looms as God’s Superior. Showing God as threatening or indirectly begging a particular man to accept the dignity of Prophethood against his will, is an integral part of this ploy. Here are two examples to explain this point:
   a. According to the Biblical story (Exodus 3), Moses saw an angel in the midst of a burning bush, which suffered no consumption despite the fact that flames enveloped it. As he was amazed by this miraculous event, a voice rose from the bush, and said,
   “I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”
   What did God want from Moses? He wanted him (Moses) to represent Him among the Jews whom he brought out of Egypt where they had suffered slavery of the worst kind. Moses’ response is expressed by this verse:
   “O my Lord, I am not eloquent … I am slow of speech.” (Exodus 4: 10 )
   Moses is apparently reluctant to accept the dignity of Prophethood on the ground that he is a stammerer and therefore lacks the eloquence needed for skilful performance of duty. The result of this unwillingness was:
   “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses …..” (Exodus 4: 14 )
   Despite God’s wrath, Moses does not yield until God appoints Aaron, the Levite, as Moses’ assistant to interpret his speeches and render other relevant services! Could not God allot this function to some other man more suited to the job? Why did it have to be Moses, who lacked the necessary qualifications to be a missionary?
   It is simply to exhibit God’s desperation for Moses irrespective of his weakness, and his (Moses) own importance in relation to God! In fact, it is a subtle way of demonstrating a Prophet’s superiority over God. See this truth for yourself:
   As a background to this episode, I may add that the Jews were originally an idolatrous people. In the absence of Moses, they built the image of Golden Calf and started worshipping it. Anger of Yahweh, the Jewish God, flared up, and He wanted to kill them all:
   “And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people.”
   ( Exodus 32: 9 )
   As God points out the stubbornness of the Jewish character, possibly with a view to justifying the punishment that He intends to inflict upon them, Moses enters into a battle of words with God and rebukes Him by declaring:
   “Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For
   mischief did he (Yahweh) bring them out, to slay them
   in the mountains, and to consume them from the face
   of the earth? Turn from Thy fierce wrath, and
   repent of this evil against Thy people.”
   ( Exodus 32: 12 )
   These are surely the most impolite words for a man to use about God, especially in His presence. It is more than an altercation: it demonstrates that the Prophet is entitled to scold God with impunity.
   In another episode (Numbers 14: 11-20), when the Jews denigrate the Promised Land, Yahweh’s wrath flares up. Moses rebukes the Almighty once again to show the practical superiority of the Prophet over God, though theoretically, he remains a servant of the Creator!
   b. The story of the Prophet Muhammad, in essence, is very much the same as that of Moses:
   It is claimed that one day when Muhammad was meditating on the mysteries of creation, an angel of God called “Gabriel,” appeared before him and said:
   Read: in the name of thy Lord who createth.
   Createth man from a clot.
   Read: And it is thy Lord the Most bountiful
   who teacheth pen,
   Teacheth man that which he knew not.
   As the Qur’an testifies to the fact, it was a written message from Allah, otherwise, why would Gabriel tell Muhammad to “read in the name of thy Lord?” In answer to this command, Muhammad told Gabriel that he was illiterate and therefore, could not read the message. Hearing that, the angel caught him by the throat and ordered him again to read. Thrice the Prophet expressed his inability to read and thrice Gabriel choked him!
   One can clearly see how the dignity of God is being flouted by the man, who afterwards fought many battles to be acknowledged as the prophet, but here it is claimed:
   1. God is so desperate for a Prophet that He uses violence to persuade Muhammad, who does not want this dignity. Here, Muhammad holds the upper hand!
   2. Allah not only urgently needs a representative but He is extremely desperate for this purpose because He settles for an illiterate person knowing full well that a missionary must be literate.
   3. The whole event cannot be anything but a fiction to slight Allah, who claims to be All-knowing. How could He be All-knowing when He sends Gabriel with a written message to Muhammad, who cannot read!
   Long after “appointing” Muhammad as the Prophet, Allah realizes that a Prophet must be literate:
   “We (Allah) shall make thee read (O Muhammad)
   so that thou shall not forget.”
   (Qur’an, The Overwhelming, 87: 6)
   Obviously, Muhammad must have been taught by Allah how to read and write (because reading and writing are one process) yet the Muslims, against this Qur’anic evidence claim that Muhammad was illiterate!
   Again, surah, The Clot, 96 (“Read in the name of thy Lord”) being the first revelation, must have occurred right in the beginning of the Qur’an but it is found almost at the end.
   This disorder must not be found in the Book of God, yet the Muslims believe that God’s Word (Qur’an) cannot be changed! Surely, disorder can be worse than forgery.
   To continue the story, I may add that several traditions sprang up regarding the first meeting of Muhammad with Gabriel. One of these stories says that he was so upset by the Message of Prophethood that he tried to commit suicide. Yet, he accepted it! How desperate Allah must have been for someone to act as His Mouthpiece!
   When Muhammad was weak, he claimed to be a servant of God but as he grew stronger, all the Qur’anic commands began to be issued in the name of Allah and the Prophet conjointly until Muhammad was able to reverse the whole doctrine by declaring that
   “Allah along with His angels, prays peace to the Prophet i.e. worships Muhammad.”
   WHAT DOES A PROPHET PREACH?
   He advocates: God is One, who is Absolute: He does not include anyone in His government, and the Prophet is His appointee and a servant.
   This is the basis of monotheism i.e. there is only One God, who is Absolute. The truth is that such a God does not have a real existence; His being depends on the word of the prophet, who, as we have seen, is just a mortal, subject to human weaknesses. The cause of God would have been served better if He were to show His face to mankind frequently for assuring them that He is there. Since nobody has ever seen Him, He either does not exist or is too Great to bother about what people think of Him. It is obviously, the Prophet, who wants to be glorified as God, and to be treated as such insists that his laws (which he claims to be Divine) must be obeyed for ever because this is the highest dignity, which raises a man (Prophet) to the status of God.
   Again, as without exclusive power of law- making the Prophet cannot sustain his Divine Eminence, absolutism becomes the essence of Prophethood i.e. there is only One God, One * Prophet and One Law; nobody has any right to make law, which defies the doctrine of monotheism, and obedience to man-made law ( legislative or judicial ) ranks as idolatry. This is why monotheism is the fountain of absolute monarchy and dictatorship, and wherever Christianity and Islam have been dominant, this form of government has persisted. The most dreadful dictators of the 20th century such as Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini came from the Christian culture, which is no different from Islam in this respect.
   ———–
   * Of course, the Qur’an does say that people must believe in other Prophets as well, but insists that they all belong to the past, and only Muhammad is the Prophet of future, and it is only his laws that must be obeyed.
   ———–
   On the contrary, the nations that have practiced polytheism, i.e. belief in more than one God, come to believe in pluralism which serves as the fountain of democracy i.e. the government of the people, which is totally opposed to theocracy, the government of God, advocated by monotheism or the doctrine of Prophethood. Thus, the former represents man’s natural instincts but the latter being the exponent of dominance-urge, is a phenomenon of antihuman tendencies.
   In a previous chapter, I have stated that a Prophet spreads his message and enforces his laws to sustain his supernatural prestige. Again, the stronger his nation, the greater the chances of his own elevation. This is why prophethood becomes the source of nationalism, much viler than Nazism. The Arab history provides a good illustration of this Prophetic Nationalism, which is based on boundless Dominance-Urge of one man, the Prophet, desperately needing the force of a strongly built nation to perpetuate his glory in the name of God, who will reward his followers with worldly riches and paradise studded with rivers of milk, honey and wine, and inhabited by the most beautiful virgins and handsome boys.
   The nationhood of such people is founded on racial superiority because unless they feel exalted over other people, they cannot pronounce and enforce the superiority of their Prophet over other nations – the sole purpose of this exercise.
   People of other nations, when they embrace Islam, come to be united under the Arabian hegemony, and call themselves Umma or one nation. What a self-deception it is! It is a self-deception because Muslims of other countries are treated as foreigners in Arabia. They are not considered as citizens of Hijaz (Arabia); neither are they allowed to buy property there, nor permitted to run businesses independently. These Muslims are complete foreigners in Arabia, subject to visa, passport and all other laws governing the behavior and obligations of the aliens.
   If Islam was really based on true brotherhood of all Muslims, irrespective of geographical boundaries, Mecca and Medina would have been international cities (at least to all the Muslims); since quotations from the address of the Prophet at the Last Pilgrimage do not measure up to his pan-Islamic conduct, they must be forgeries like many hadilhs. Again, it must be remembered that almost all his audience on that occasion consisted of the Arabs, and therefore, whatever he said, related to the Arabs only. This point becomes clear when we realize that Muhammad laid the foundation of an Arab Empire in the name of Islam and not an Islamic Empire. The foreign Muslims did not have top- level representation in the government of Arabia during the times of Muhammad himself. Neither did they enjoy any such privilege during the heyday of the Arab political ascendancy, nor is there any legal precedent to prove that a Muslim from any territory can become the President or Prime Minister of an Arab country. On the contrary, a person of any race and color could become the head of the mighty Roman Empire. Yet the Muslims claim the superiority of the Islamic system!
   It may appear a digression but it is absolutely necessary to counter the false Islamic propaganda of international brotherhood. In fact, so complex is the nature of this issue that it requires a volume to clear the air, but in this context, the present brevity will have to suffice.
   The Prophetic Nationalism such as practiced by the Arabs, is the most loathsome, lethal and lowest form of racism and shall eventually bring about the total destruction of the human race. The reason being that such religions are based on the fanatical promotion of the deification of their founders. All that serves this purpose is great, good and grand irrespective of the means to achieve it. This is the reason that there is no clear concept of vice and virtue in these religions. In the background of all this, lurks the Prophetic claim to be better than all other Prophets, leading to the national rivalries and their concomitant effects, which are degrading, dreadful and destructive to mankind. Here are some facts to prove this theory:
   Let us first take the Jewish claim, which requires for better understanding, some repetition of the already stated facts:
   The Bible (Old Testament) declares:
   “But My (God) covenant will I establish with Isaac,
   (the ancestor of the Jews) which Sarah (the wife of
   Abraham) shall bear unto thee (Abraham) …”
   (Genesis, 17: 21)
   This statement is contradistinctive because it asserts superiority of the Jews whereas Genesis 21: 13 declares inferiority of the Arabs, who happen to be the children of Ishmael, borne by Hagar, the bondwoman of Abraham’s wife, Sarah:
   “And also of the son of the bondwoman ( Ishmael )
   will make a nation, because he is thy (Abraham’s)
   seed.”
   Here, the Old Testament has not referred to Ishmael as the son of Abraham but a product of his semen. Again, it is a swear-word to call someone the “son of a bondwoman.” This demonstrates the Jewish contempt of the Arabs.
   To bolster the Jewish nationalism, their God declares them to be superior to all nations:
   “For thou (the Jews) art a holy people unto the Lord
   thy God: the Lord thy God, hath chosen thee to be a
   special people unto himself, above all people that are
   upon the face of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 7: 6)
   To make the Jews the Superior race, their Lord taught them a novel formula of ascendancy, that is, be rich. This is the reason that the Jews have developed a sacred motto: “the richer, the godlier” i.e. the more money one has, the closer to God one becomes!
   This is why the Bible says:
   “The Lord shall open unto thee His good treasure …..
   and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt
   lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.”
   ( Deuteronomy 28: 12 )
   Money is power; in fact, a wealthy fool has usually proved better than a wise pauper. This is the source and secret of the Jewish “superiority.” And this is what had lifted them above the Arabs before the advent of Muhammad, who wanted to make his own people an exalted race.
   The Jews having suffered the worst type of slavery in Egypt for over four centuries, were just a socially disorganized rabble, and had no national or cultural virtue. It was Moses, the Great, who welded them into a proud nation through the marvel of his Prophethood, which only the dynamic force of Muhammad could rival.
   Besides the principle of money-making, he laid down the Law of Talion, which was to become the guideline of the Jewish culture, lacking the ideal of compassion and forgiveness. This law, stated in Exodus 21: 24-26 demands that if someone hurts your eye, you must hurt his eye and if someone breaks your tooth, you must break his tooth.
   This is the reason that even a naturally kind Jew does not believe in forgiveness.
   Realizing that just blood ties were not strong enough to weld the Jews into a nation, Moses wanted to find them a permanent home of their own. So he declared that there waited for them the Promised Land, which turned out to be Canaan (Palestine). To achieve this goal, he trained them for forty years in a ruthless environment known as “Wilderness” until they became a martial race. This Apostle of God, setting aside all rules of tenderness, taught the Jews to be tough towards other people. It is an irony of history that the Jews themselves have been haunted by similar conditions of dread, dismay and devastation that they inflicted on the Canaanites. One feels distraught when one reads ( Deuteronomy Chapter 3 ) that as an act of obedience to God, the Jews struck the Canaanites “with the edge of their swords” to murder every man, woman and child including anything that breathes: the extermination of the opponents had got to be utter and complete. Further, Joshua 10: 28 gives a systematic account of the planned destruction city by city. Even greater tragedy is the fact that after a passage of 3000 years, the religious scruples have kept the old racial hatred aflame and the war between the Jews and the Palestinians is still as active as ever.
   To understand the situation, one must realize that the Jews are a racial group like any other nation, and, therefore, entitled to preserve their national integrity through all possible means. Their religion has become their personal affair and does not seek expansion through persistent propaganda or persecution. Neither it advocates annihilation of the Gentile on religious grounds nor does it seek abrasive international grouping to create discord, distrust and destruction in the name of God or Moses to promote the Jewish cause. I could have ignored the reference to Judaism but the nature of the discussion does not permit it.
   Prophethood, though considered a Middle Eastern tradition, is not a Jewish invention; it is ascribed to Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV) of Egypt (1379-1362 B.C.) but it is the Jews who perfected this device, and are now paying for it. There is no historical evidence that the Arabs ever awaited the advent of their own Prophet. This tradition had come to be associated with the Jews only, but the genius of Muhammad spotted its national and political potential, which resulted in his own Prophethood. The Arabian Allah in His wisdom thought it fit to declare Muhammad as the Best and the Last Prophet with the sole purpose of not only denying this honor to any other human for good, but also bidding all the Jews and Christians to renounce their faith and follow Muhammad! The worst aspect of this episode is the Muslim belief that denying Muhammad as the Last and the Greatest of all Prophets, is a legitimate *1 cause of war against the infidels. This is a clear proof of the Prophetic jealousy and all the evils that spring from it in the form of power-struggle, social abrasion and international wars. Here is an example in relation to the Arabs and the Jews:
   Prophethood is essentially a form of extreme nationalism, which seeks to raise the Prophet to the status of God in the guise of humanity. However, to succeed, the device of Prophethood requires the force of a strong nation for lifting the Prophet to the status of God, without ripping off his robe of humanity. Hoisting the flag of racial superiority for igniting the undying flame of national bigotry, hatred and jealousy is a favorite, fruitful and frightening tool of prophethood. For the sake of convenience, I quote the hadith which formed the principle and practice of Muhammad’s apostolic ministry:
   “Of the two *2 tribes that God chose as the best were
   the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac. God
   *3 preferred the children of Ishmael (Arabs) to the
   children of Isaac (the Jews). Then God created
   Muhammad in the chosen tribe the *4 Quresh (the
   descendants of Ishmael) and then he chose his family
   as the best among the Quresh families and created
   *5 Muhammad as the best of all men.”
   (Jame Tirmze, Vol. 2)
   This hadith shows the racial nature and national aims of Prophethood. Just consider the following points raised by this hadith:
   *2 The Semitic race, mainly consisting of the Jews and the Arabs, is the best in the world because they both are the Chosen tribes!
   *3 However, God has preferred the Arabs to the Jews.
   This is Muhammad’s retort to the Biblical declaration that Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs was a “bondwoman’s son!” Again, the Bible says that it was Isaac, who was offered as a sacrifice to God by Abraham but the Qur’an negates it, and claims that it was Ishmael. Both are supposed to be the Holy Books. Which one of them is telling the truth?
   *4 The Quresh are the best tribe amongst the Arabs.
   *5 His own family, the Banu Hashim are the best family and he himself (Muhammad) is the best of all people!
   In view of the above facts, can anyone honestly say that Prophethood is not the champion of extreme nationalism?
   ————-
   *1 See hadith no. 284 (Muslim). It does not allow the Jews and Christians to hold on to their faith. Jews and Christians are held as infidels by Islam. Another hadith of Bukhari, Vol. one, declares it as the most sacred duty of every Muslim lo fight the infidels until they embrace Islam. The Qur’an openly confirms it in The Clear Sign 98: 5 by classifying “People of the Book” i.e. the Jews and Christians as unbelievers.
   ————-
   Even more surprising is the staunch belief that Islam is the ambassador of international brotherhood, and Muhammad is the humblest of men. How could he be the humblest of men when he claimed to be the best of mankind, especially when he rose to become the ruler of Arabia. Even this is not the whole truth: he claimed that Allah and His angels worshipped him, and so should do all believers, addressing him most reverently!
   It is to perpetuate his own superiority that he devised Islam and made it a highly abrasive ideology based on a permanent conflict of Momin (believer) and Kafir (unbeliever). Being rooted in faith, it is far more destructive than the theory of Class struggle, which Karl Marx borrowed from F. W. Hegel, who might have adapted it from the Qur’an.
   To understand this point, one ought to ponder over the Islamic attitude towards Jerusalem, which is not only the Holiest Jewish centre but also the foundation-stone of the Jewish nationhood and all its traditions.
   It appears that the prophet Muhammad originally dreamt of a Super Semitic Nation, with the Arabs as the senior partners, and to achieve this goal, he was willing to concede a good bit to the Jews:
   1. He acknowledged that God had exalted the Jews over all the people. (The Cow, 2: 115)
   2. He made Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, as the Leader of mankind including the Arabs.
   3. He also declared that Islam was not a new faith but the old Jewish faith of Abraham.
   4. However, his Master Stroke was the appointment of Jerusalem as the Kibla of Islam i.e. the direction of prayers for all Muslims. It means that all Muslims would pay the same adoration to Jerusalem as did the Jews but there was one basic condition attached to it i.e. the Jews of Arabia must embrace Islam, which in religious and national terms meant that the Jews would follow the Qur’anic law and the Arab traditions instead of the Torah and the Jewish practices. Circumstantial evidence suggests that in all probability, Muhammad hoped that if the Arabian Jews accepted him as the Last Messenger of God, the rest of the Jews in Diaspora would also follow suit, thus fulfilling his dream of the Super Semitic Nation on his terms. Obviously, he was convinced of the Jewish expertise that they had accumulated over the centuries. Further, Jesus Christ was also a Jew, whose reverence had raised the holy status of Jerusalem beyond imagination. Thus, this City of David, by becoming the Muslim Kibla would raise the prestige of Muhammad, resulting in his acceptance by both the Jews and Christians. It was a brilliant plan but its success depended on the attitude of the Arabian Jews towards Muhammad as the Prophet. To the utter sorrow of the Jews, they stubbornly denied him, incurring the apostolic wrath not only for themselves but also the entire Jewish race for all times. How?
   As a result of their denial, the Prophet *changed his entire policy towards the Jews, whom he had acknowledged to be the Exalted people:
   ————-
   * “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.” (Hadith no. 4366, Muslim)
   ————-
   “O believers, take not Jews and Christians
   as friends, they are friends of each other,
   whoso of you makes them as his friends
   is one of them. God guides not the people
   of the evildoers.” (The Table, 5: 55)
   It appears that Muhammad thought of the Jews as the most formidable foe, who could harm his religion and the country. Therefore, he was not content with their extermination in Arabia, and desired their permanent suppression by his followers during all ages. So, he adopted a stunning hate-love policy towards Jerusalem to seal the Jewish fate:
   “Turn thy (Muhammad) face towards the Holy
   Mosque (Kaaba); and wherever you are, turn your
   faces towards it.” (The Cow, 2: 135-140)
   Thus, the Prophet Muhammad deprived Jerusalem of the dignity that he had bestowed upon it: it was no more the Kibla of Islam. Why? Look at the following verse:
   “Those are they (the Jews) whom God has cursed;
   he whom God has cursed,
   thou will not find for him any helper
   Or have a share in the kingdom?
   If that is so, they do not give the people
   a single date-spot …” (Women, 4: 55)
   It is difficult to interpret this verse on its own. However, it is clear from it that the Jews are no longer a Blessed, but a Cursed people. The Qur’an has given reason for this Divine change of heart, that is, they have not believed in Muhammad. The meaning of this verse begins to amplify itself when we consider this hadith:
   “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims
   fought and killed the Jews … and until the Jews hid
   themselves behind a stone or a wall would say:
   ‘Muslims, the servants of Allah, there is a Jew behind
   me, come and kill him.”‘
   (Hadith no. 6985, Muslim, Vol. 4)
   One should note that this hadith directs All Muslims, and not just the Arabs, to kill the Jews, wherever they are found. The Jew-bashing in Arabia and the immense hatred found against them in all the Islamic sacred books and literature has resulted in a strange but a very strong belief among all Muslims throughout the world: they believe that the Qur’an has forbidden return of the Jews to Jerusalem and form a government of their own. Why should not the Jews return to Jerusalem?
   Muhammad accomplished this feat through a stroke of sagacity, which has no parallel in the world history. Look at the following:
   “Glory be to Him (Allah), who carried His servant
   (Muhammad) by night from the Holy Mosque
   (Kaaba) to the Further Mosque (Jerusalem), the
   precincts of which we have blessed …”
   (The Night Journey, 17: I)
   It is a reference to the Prophet’s visit to Allah when on his way to seeing the Almighty in person, he was taken to Jerusalem as a part of his holy itinerary. Thus Jerusalem became a sacred place in the Islamic faith and an integral part of its territory!
   Frankly speaking, one should add that the appointment of Jerusalem as the Muslim Kibla has nothing to do with spiritual affairs; it was simply a political decision seeking a permanent foothold in the Jewish life. Look at the following facts:
   1. The change of Kibla took place at the repeated requests of Muhammad because “We ( Allah ) have seen thee turning thy face about in the heaven; now we shall surely turn thee to a direction (Kaaba) that shall satisfy thee ( O Muhammad).” (The Cow, 2: 137)
   One should remember that Allah always acts as Muhammad desires! Change of Kibla was Muhammad’s decision that he imposed on Allah for the benefit of the Arabs.
   2. The Qur’an (2: 148) states that every nation has its own Kibla. Therefore, the Arabs should have had their own Kibla right from the beginning. The mere fact that they did not, demonstrates its political nature.
   3. Umar had a hand in the change of Kibla on national ground (hadith no. 5903 – Muslim). This great Arab nationalist was stabbed to death by a Persian slave owing to his (Umar’s) racial bias.
   4. The Prophet had commanded his followers not to defecate, facing Kaaba and Jerusalem because both ranked as Kibla. These instructions, which were binding on every Muslim, were meant to show one’s respect to the holiness of these places. However, the Prophet himself ignored it in respect of Jerusalem:
   “Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Umar: People say whenever you sit for answering the call of nature, you should not face the Kibla or Bait-i-Muqaddis (Jerusalem). I told them, “Once I went up the roof of our house and I saw Allah’s Messenger (Muhammad) answering the call of nature while sitting on two bricks facing Bait-ul- Muqaddas (Jerusalem) but there was a screen covering him.'” (Bukhari, 147 Vol. I)
   Muhammad’s act clearly demonstrates that he did not have genuine respect for Jerusalem: it was just a political convenience to him. It is further confirmed by the fact that twice a year (during Shabaan and Zwilhajj) Kaaba, the Arabian Kibla, receives a highly reverential treatment when it is washed with gallons of rose-scented Zamzam water and is honored with a change of new covering every year, but nothing of the sort takes place in regard to the Bait-ul- Muqaddas ( Jerusalem ) !
   Against this Islamic background, one must look at the Jewish attitude towards Jerusalem to realize the possibility of a most horrendous clash, which may sound the death-knell of human civilization.
   Diaspora, that is, dispersal of the Jews from their homeland, first resulted from the Babylonian Exile of 586 B.C. What Muhammad did twelve centuries later, only fractionally added to it, and does not strictly come within this category. Though the Jews came to be settled in Persia, Spain and many countries of the West, it has been the burning desire of the Diaspora Jewry to return home despite the fact that they did very well in the foreign lands. Returning home i.e. to Jerusalem became not only a fervent desire but an integral part of the Jewish faith. This is what led to the formation of the Zionist Movement, which sought to achieve this goal. While this forms the greatest triumph for the Jews, it strikes at the Islamic precept of No-Return, which the Muslim Zealots have so painfully forged over the centuries to keep the Jews out of their Motherland.
   Returning of the Jews to Israel may just be a historical event to the world but for the Muslims it is a tragedy of immense proportions because it strikes at the root of the Islamic traditions which hold that the Jews have been cursed by Allah and, as a result, shall not be allowed to return to Jerusalem and form a government of their own. Bearing this Islamic doctrine in mind, one can realize why the Prophet Muhammad wanted to lay a spiritual claim on Jerusalem as a part of the Islamic faith despite having no real reverence for it. Obviously, it was a political ploy to interfere with the Jewish history.
   To stress the enormity of the situation, I must add that there is no Judaism without Jerusalem. This fact is borne out by the concept of Diaspora, which describes the religious, eschatological, philosophical and political concerns of the Jewish people. It means that the Land of Israel (and Judah) has been given to the Jews as a fulfillment of the Divine Promise, and returning to it is a part of the messianic hope. Here, one can see the most devastating conflict between the Jewish faith and the Islamic Law of No-Return. And who is responsible for the lethal strife? It is the doctrine of Prophethood, which enables a person to realize the dictates of his super ego in the name of a supernatural Power, termed as God. Here the clash is between two Prophets – Moses and Muhammad. Who was right? – Moses, who claimed that Israel is the Land promised to the Jews by God, and therefore, it is exclusively theirs – or is it Muhammad who asserts that the Jews have been cursed by God for not believing in his prophethood, and as a result, shall not be allowed to return to Israel and form their own government?
   The fact, as we see is, that the Jews have returned to Israel for the last fifty years and have been able to form a government of their own. While it gives them a lot of satisfaction, it has hurt the Muslims badly and they desperately want to restore the dignity of the Islamic faith by expelling the Jews from Israel, which they claim to be their First Kibla. To prove the Qur’an right, the Muslims are determined to exterminate the Jews in Israel.
   In fact, Muhammad’s eternal desire to humiliate the Jews is rooted in his national tendencies. He abhorred the Jews, not only because he thought of them as the rivals to the Arabs, but also because he could not swallow their claim of racial superiority based on the choice of God; the Jewish claim to be the only legitimate descendants of Abraham has proved highly provocative to the Arab ego, fathered by Ishmael; mundane success of the Jews is another cause of envy.
   To remedy this situation, the Prophet not only declared the Arabs as racially superior to the Jews but also checked their historical progress by laying a perpetual claim on Jerusalem. He must have realized that the Arabs on their own might not be able to stop the Jewish march to glory, and therefore, he put the weight of Islamic Imperialism behind the Arabs.
   Thus, a true Muslim must hate the Jews as did the Prophet.
   Here one can see the nature of Islam, as the Arab Imperialism. This is a specially devised faith to serve the national interest of Arabia – subtlety being its key-word. During the heyday of the British, if there was a political upheaval in a certain part of the Empire, the government had to mobilize armed forces from other territories to restore the situation. But the unique form of Arab Imperialism that the Prophet invented does not depend on armies; the Muslims of non-Arab origin have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they hate the Jews as their religious duty and shall be happy to join any campaign of Jew-bashing of their own free will and at their own expense. The fact that most Muslim countries have still not recognized Israel, is a product of these religious tendencies.
   Over the last fifty years, the Israelis have fought several wars against the Arabs and are still on permanent alert against them, particularly, and the world of Islam, generally. It is usually believed that the American oil interest is the real cause of political instability in the Middle East, and some go as far as to claim that the Jews have been planted there by the West for this reason. This is a sheer nonsense because the Americans and the Western nations buy oil from the Arab countries at the internationally fixed prices as set by the free economic forces. The truth is the other way round: if the Americans and Europeans did not buy oil from Arabia, she would run into dire economic conditions.
   The real cause of trouble is the clash of the two Prophets – Moses and Muhammad: the Jews want to feel secure in their Promised Land and the Arabs, believing the Jewish return against the precepts of Islam, desperately want to uphold the dignity of their faith by drowning all Jews in the sea of Galilee. The Arabs have been tremendously helped by their Islamic Imperialism and the Jews have been lucky (so far) to defend themselves with the help of the West.
   How long can the Jews stand up to the Arabs and their one billion followers? When they find it impossible to survive through political means that will be the saddest moment not only for them and the Arabs, but also the entire human race. The Jews, who believe in the Law of Talion, shall not go down quietly. To demonstrate their hatred of Islam, they will turn Mecca and Medina into Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus mobilizing the spirit of Islamic Jihad, which is a practical demonstration of Allah’s “terrible retribution” (The Cow, 2: 205). It will create a state of war throughout the world.
   What I have said above is not a wild guess but a calculation based on Arab-Jewish antagonism that has persisted over the centuries. The cause of this perpetual strife is not the Jewish religion because a Jew is someone, who is racially Jew, and not just a follower of the Jewish religion. Again, he is not dedicated to propagating his religion for gaining converts, though the doors of a synagogue are open to those, who want to embrace this faith of their own free will. It is the seeker, who has to prove his genuineness for admission.
   On the contrary, Allah has made it obligatory for all humans to embrace Islam; those who refuse to accept it, qualify as the “Satan’s Party” and must be eliminated by the Muslims, who rank as “Allah’s Party.” Rejection of Islam is the most heinous crime that one can imagine, and for this reason one is liable to a terrible punishment: Allah Himself declares and legitimizes the most despicable acts such as murder, rape, arson and enslavement of non-Muslims, when they are committed to spread Islam. This is called “Jihad,” the Holy War. The West tasted its Holiness for four hundred years in the form of the Islamic Crusades, which reduced the European population to half of its normal size.
   This Islamic attitude is at its worst towards the Jews. Any Muslim, who can kill a Jew is sure to win a seat in paradise. Realizing this fact, some Islamic countries have made Jew-bashing as the cornerstone of their foreign policy with a view to winning leadership of the Muslim world. This is what makes Israel wary of the Muslim lands and they have to watch their economic and military progress. History has recorded that Israel launched an air raid against Iraq in 1981 to destroy its nuclear reactor at Osirak. It was considered an unprovoked attack by the Muslim world. Apparently, it was so, but in view of the above mentioned facts, it was not.
   Prophethood or Revelation, being a political device, is the source of primitiveness and destruction to humankind, and these remarks equally apply to both the Qur’an and the Bible. These books are highly self- contradictory. Therefore, instead of leading, they mislead people. Take for example, the Islamic Law of No-Return in relation to the Jews.
   The QAur’an in The Table, V: 20-25 contravenes itself:
   “And when Moses said to his people, ‘O, my people,
   remember God’s blessings upon you …. When He
   gave you such as He had not given to any being.'”
   “O, my people, enter the Holy Land, which God has
   prescribed for you, and turn not back in your
   traces….”
   ” They said, ‘Moses, there are people in it, very
   arrogant; we will not enter it until they depart from
   it; if they depart from it, then we will enter.’ Said,
   two men of those that feared God whom God had
   blessed, ‘Enter against them … when you enter it,
   you will be victors.'”
   In a nutshell, it means that Palestine i.e. Israel (and Judah) is the Holy Land that has been prescribed for the Jews by Allah, who has assured them victory in the struggle.
   Today, due to the enormity of weapons, Israel is not just an Arab-Jewish affair because it may involve the survival of mankind. Since this clash is a product of the prophetic rivalries, one can clearly see that Prophethood has nothing to do with guidance; it is simply a political doctrine, which especially, exposes the reality of Islam as the tool of Arab Imperialism owing to its active role in the international field as well as its dictatorial part in the internal affairs of every Muslim country.

   Reply