a case against israels right to exist

8/8/2019 A Case Against Israels Right to Exist

1/31

A Case Against Israels Right To Exist

My decision to write this paper originally came after discussions I was having with a friendabout the current crisis happening in Palestine particularly in the Gaza Strip area. Although it contains

an argument against the current State of Israel's claim to the right to occupy Palestinian land, it is also

an informative piece designed to reveal the true origins of Jews who represent Israel as it is today. Myhope is, that by presenting this historical evidence, it will strengthen the claim that Israel, as it is

manifest today, and those who represent her, especially through governance, have no right to not only

occupy Palestine but also had no right in taking the land in the first place. I use historical evidence toback my claim but concentrate more on Biblical evidence as found in the Old Testament. The reason

for this is because the OT is the cornerstone of the Israeli's claim for the right to occupy Palestine. It is

their main source of justification for what can only be called illegal and immoral occupation, as well asfor their current genocidal and dehumanizing actions against the Palestinian people. Thus the argument

against Israel's right to occupy Palestine must go back to beyond last December or even the last few

years if it is to be understood, and if we are to understand the reality of the current situation in

Palestine. In fact it ultimately must go back almost 4000 years ago because this is where Israel's own

claims of justification for occupation come from. I will disprove their 4000 year old claims from thesame source they get these claims. God willing it succeeds in not only informing but also assisting in

bringing some peace and justice for the Palestinian people.

Palestine Today

I have been in much debate as of late concerning the crisis that has been going on in the Gaza

strip of Palestine for the last two weeks. Unless a person chooses to remain inside the paradigm of the

North American media blackout of the events going on in Palestine now, it is no secret that manyatrocities are being committed against the Palestinian people not only now but have been continually

for perhaps 40 years. If we focus on only the last three years, the Palestinian people who remain have

been held captive, crammed within the small pieces of land known as the Gaza Strip and The WestBank. Within these areas which hardly pass for communities, the people have been forced to livewithout clean water, proper sewage treatment, and constant power blackouts. Quoting the blog

Desertpeace, ...hundreds of Palestinians have perished because Israel would not allow them to accessmedical care or medicine. I saw many Palestinians die an agonizing death because the light upon the

nations wouldnt allow them to reach hospital a few blocks away.i(I recommend going to this blog

as the author is currently living in Jerusalem and it is regularly updated by correspondents from within

Gaza. The link is here:http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/.)

Further, the Israelis have built and continue to build an 8 meter high concrete wall through the

entire length of the Westbank. Quoting from the book 'The Wall in Palestine - Facts, Testimonies,

Analysis and Call to Action, The Wall takes on a number of physical forms, such as the one inQalqiliya, which is some 8-meters high made of concrete and lined with watchtowers, as well as otherareas where the Wall is a series of fences, some of which are electric, and may include some or all of

the following: trenches, roads, barbed wires, cameras, trace paths for footprints, buffer zones, and

spanning a width between 70-100 meters. iiThe peoples of Palestine are now living under this wall

under the constant eyes of guards and snipers. Children must go to school through rubble, past armored

tanks and constantly in fear of being harassed not only by guards but also Jewish settlers. Yes, it is notonly Israeli soldiers that Palestinians must fear but also many of the Jewish settlers. The paradigm of

hate that the Zionist Israeli government has created in that illegal state has effected the minds of many
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/


2/31

of the settlers. Even human rights workers are constantly harassed and pelted with stones by Jewish

settlers. Check the following links to see various video clips of this mentally ill behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK2xKURltqE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_yAPYcmCU&feature=related

I am posting this information not to express some kind of hate towards Israeli people or Jews

but to simply show people who are unaware, the condition that the people of Palestine are living innow. I don't care if you call yourself a Jew, Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Atheist. If a person commits

these kinds of acts I will call it as it is. Unlike many Canadians I know, I have had some time away and

am not so conditioned by this knee jerk political correctness attitude. I tend to enjoy the freedom to

express my opinion on things as I see them. I am also not really concerned with individual opinions butmore on facts and evidence. That is what I want to do now. I want to present some facts and evidence

as to why I believe that the State of Israel has no legal or moral justification for existing as it is

represented today. I'm not saying that under any circumstances, Jews shouldn't be able to have a nationor home. That is a right that all people in a free society should enjoy regardless of race or religion. But,

NO state that represents ANY people should be allowed to exist if it can only exist in the way that

Israel today exists, and this is my argument.

Self Determinism

Recently I was made aware of an article on the legal matters of rights to Palestinian lands. This

article was posted by a friend and after reading it I was reminded of a few things. One is the concept of

Jewish self determinism. Self determinism is actually a philosophical theory that states, 'every present

state or condition of the self is a result of previous states or conditions of the self.' This concept beganas a theory of individual behavior and 'is concerned with the choices people make with their own free

will and full sense of choice, without any external influence and interference.'

iii

It is the mantra of manyNorth Americans or people who have experienced living within a culture with at least the illusions ofhaving freedoms to choose.

Philosophically it represents a persons true uniqueness as an individual and within the theory aperson enjoys, at least conceptually, the ability to make ones own decisions outside the influence of

external peers and other stimuli. Of course there are many who argue that this is psychologically

impossible but I am not about to elucidate on this argument. However, the concept is a desirable oneeven if it may be more romantic than rational to some, it is and always will be something people aspire

towards. It's basically free will and is deeply entrenched in concepts of human rights. Everyone wants

the freedom to make choices in there lives, the freedom to move about without interference, to come

and go as they please, and express their opinions. It is the more external manifestations of selfdeterminism that are activated when we talk about it as something tied to a nation or large number of

set people rather than the individual. And it is this national form of self determinism that is the issue

when we concern ourselves with the condition of Israel and Palestine today.

Israel often uses Jewish self determinism as a battle cry of justification for its current existence

as a state. (I almost called it sovereign but based on the history of it's inception it would hardly fall intothe category of a sovereign nation by definition, but I will touch on that later.) This Jewish self

determinism is taking the individual philosophical concept of self determinism and applying it to a

nation or group of peoples who identify themselves by race and/or religion under the title Jew. (More
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK2xKURltqEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_yAPYcmCU&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK2xKURltqEhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_yAPYcmCU&feature=related


3/31

on the origins of the word Jew later) In my understanding, there is nothing wrong with applying this

concept of self determinism to an entire group of people but what must be understood, is that at this

level, self determinism must leave the coffee shop universe of the abstract and begin to manifest in real

time as measurable and alienable rights. That is, rights that can be processed by the ever grindingwheels of law, specifically law dealing with human rights. And low and behold, the article my friend

posted contained just that kind of information.

Now it stands to reason that if Jews can claim self determinism as a nation and claim all rights

that come with it, so should any other group or nation. Well, the article I mentioned at the beginning of

this writing entitled 'Do Israeli Rights Conflict With the Palestinian Right of Return?' tells us quite a lotabout the lawful right of self determination in regards to nations, first here with the mention of its

inception into international law.

The right of peoples to self-determination developed during the same decades when the

international community wavered over the emerging conflict in Palestine. The law of self determinationis still ambiguous today, and it was especially vague in its early years. There is therefore no open and

shut argument on either side about whether the Y ishuv(Jewish community in Palestine) had a legal

right to establish an independent sovereign state in 1948.

Peoples rights to self-determination developed from a political principle in international relations

after the First World War into a full fledged right today.Before World War II, states had not yetrecognized the right of all peoples to self-determination. It was included in treaty law for the first

time in the United Nations Charter. On its face, the Charter's reference to self-determination was

only an articulation of guiding principles and objectives,although it may also have been arecognition of an emerging customary norm. Self-determination only became indisputably

established as a clear right in international law in the 1960s with the UN Declaration on the

Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) and the International Bill ofRights (1966).Self-determination was included as the first article of both the Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: "All peoples have

the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and

freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."iv

I first want to say that I enjoyed this article and agreed with the authors conclusions however, I

still want to point out a few things.

According to the author, the law of self determination for a nation, though it may sound like thetitle of a new rap song, is also still ambiguous today, but I suppose ambiguous laws still have some

leverage in justifying an act. Though one often wonders how after so many years of it being a dish on

the UN international dinner plate that someone hasn't found away to wash it down and have it done

with already. So, quite conveniently for Israel, it is not an open and shut case from a perspective ofslow digesting international law, on whether they are justified for even being in Palestine in the first

place. I guess if there is one thing we can be sure of, it is that law often slows down justice along with

serving it up.

The second thing I want to point out is how after the law was established, yet still ambiguous, in

the 1960's, it was with a declaration of granting independence to colonial countries and its peoples. Myquestion is did it not also focus on the rights of countries and people that were not colonial but rather

indigenous to a certain area? After all a colonial country is an arm of another existing country that has

either amalgamated with or disseminated the lands original occupiers. In the case of Israel, obviously

here falling under the category of a colonial type of nation, it was a forceful act of dissemination of the


4/31

indigenous peoples of Palestine which allowed them, these Israeli Jews, to establish a state. But

ambiguous international laws and rights of indigenous peoples versus colonial peoples aside, I must say

that I do agree with the author of this articles conclusion regarding the use of self determinism as a

justification for Israel's current existence as a state, which says:

Jewish self-determination cannot trump other human rights..... the Jewish collective right to form

and maintain a Jewish state could negate the Palestinian refugee return. This argument does not seemsustainable in law, principally because self-determination cannot be achieved for one group by

disenfranchising another..... If Palestinian refugees have a right to return, they cannot be legallyprevented from doing so simply because it would change Israels demographic composition. The law of

self-determination is flexible enough to accommodate this reality. For the purposes of self-

determination, the people of Israel can include both current Israeli citizens, as well refugees whochoose to return.

Now as I approach the meat of my essay, I want to say how the very title of the above article I

quoted doesn't sit well with me. The author concludes that the right of self determination of the Israeli

Jews cannot trump the rights of the returning Palestinians, which I agree is reasonable and sound.However, I argue that they had no right to be there in the first place. Again, though the author soundly

suggests that Israel does not have such armor piercing rights as to be able refuse Palestinians back in,

what gave them the right to kick them out in the first place? It is this issue that I want to now tackle andtry to prove that Israel, as the current state it is, has no legal or moral justification for existing, based on

historical data and their own sources for justifiable occupation, the first five books of Old Testament, or

Torah.

State or Nation?

Israel, using self determination among other reasons to justify it's current existence, is a state. Isay 'state' because this is how she defines herself. To set the record straight, Israel is a state whose

nationality is Jewish. In other words The State of Israel is home to a Nation of Jews and Jews only asproclaimed by those who represent her through governance. But in order to understand just what thisall means we have to start defining words.

State - a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.

Nation - a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious ofits unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own

By definition Israel is most certainly a state and the nation that it represents are this large body

of people united under the banner of Jewishness. I'll roll up my sleeves and attempt to define Jew later,

but continuing.......

Like the article 'Do Israeli Rights Conflict With the Palestinian Right of Return?', most people

when considering or factoring the rights of Israel in this mess, fail to look back to before a time whenthere was no Israel. To me, asking the question of whether or not Israel's right to exist conflicts with

Palestinians rights to return home is the height of ignorance or arrogance or both. If I came into your

home and forcibly removed you and your family, then rebuilt the home to suit my needs, that would bebad enough. Especially if I had no prior right to your home. Then how would you feel if the community

at large began debating on whether your returning to your home might infringe on my rights to remain

there as an illegal invader? Am I the only one who sees the pure madness in this? So the question that


5/31

must come up in order to bring back some sanity out of senility is to ask, why do the Jewish Israeli's

and a large but ever shrinking percentage of North Americans, believe that Israel had the right to exist

as a state in an already occupied Palestine to begin with? Well... sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a

tale of a real bad trip, that started in this desert land with a twisting of the lip.

Israel is a State? Says who?

Hear OIsrael, the soul of our people

is forever and is one.

Hear oworldly nations,

you are just noise and done.v

The above is an excerptfrom a poem about Israel by Michael Druck titled 'For Israel: A preludeand rhyme'. So who is this Israel? Who is the object of this swooning prose? To answer these questions

we must do what many refuse to do, and that is look to the Old Testament, where the word first

appears, because this is where the current occupiers of Palestine, O' Israel herself, turns to in order tojustify her current existence. The current Jews of Israel and the Zionists who pushed for her modern

creation will recite biblical tales of persecution and a peoples without a land, and a promise by God toone day return to a homeland, which is, unfortunately for the Palestinians, exactly where Palestineexists today. They will repeat this rhetoric ad nauseum in order to justify not only Israel's existence but

also the atrocities they are now committing against the Palestinian people. So what exactly does the

Old Testament say about Israel? Keep in mind that it is the first five books of Old Testament thatJewish people turn to to justify Israels existence. This is because these first five books are the same that

make up the Jewish Torah. It is really a telling of the story of their supposed ancestors.

First remember that these Jewish Israelis define themselves as the people of Israel, thus creatingthis concept of a Jewish race and a Nation of Jews. Because how can you call yourself a nationality if

you have no nation or country to call home? So, Israel becomes the state or country which represents

the true homeland of this race or nation of Jews. So did God promise this piece of real estate calledIsrael to these so called Jews and is it located in what we now call the Holy Land? Here is what the

word Israel means and stands for according to God in the Old Testament.

Genesis 35:9-12

God appeared to Jacob again, when he came from Paddan-aram, and blessed him. And God said tohim, "Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, butIsraelshall be your name."

So he called his name Israel. And God said to him, "I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A

nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body. Theland that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after

you."

According to God, Israel is NOT a piece of real estate but simply the name of the prophet

Jacob, or Ya'qub in the semitic languages. Jacob was one son of Isaac who was one son of Abraham. Ina long line of noble prophets, Jacob is a very important one in the Jewish faith as he was the one who

made this covenant with God which promised, NOT Israel but the land given to Abraham and Isaac

before him. This proves that Israel the state is NOT the land promised to the lineage of Jacob but

simply Jacobs God given name. Whenever children of Israel is mentioned in the Old Testament, it isnot talking about a group or nation of people that once resided in a land called Israel, but simply the

blood lineage of the prophet Jacob. A nation known as Israel only existed temporarily after the


6/31

Israelites became divided when Solomons reign ended. This piece of land by that name did not make

up the area of land that God promised the Israelites as I will show later.

Genesis 35:22-26

WhileIsraellived in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his fathers concubine. And Israel

heard of it. Now thesons of Jacob were twelve. The sons of Leah: Reuben (Jacobs firstborn), Simeon,

Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. The sons of Bilhah,Rachels servant: Dan and Naphtali. The sons of Zilpah, Leahs servant: Gad and Asher. These were

the sons of Jacob who were born to him in Paddan-aram.

We can see that again, Israel is not ever referred to as a specific piece of land, but also that it

was these 12 sons of Jacob or Israel that would become the true people of Israel, that is the bloodline

descendants of Jacob. So it is quite clear that Israeli Jews cannot justify their current occupation on the

claim that God has promised them a specific state called Israel. Nor can they claim, that as a nation ofIsrael, God says they deserve to exist as this current State of Israel. These claims are completely false

as I have shown from the above verses. The only thing they can claim to be true based on Biblical

evidence is that they are of the bloodline of Jacob and that the land given to Abraham and Isaac, thesame land promised to these descendants of Jacob, is indeed the land where the vile current State of

Israel exists. So is the latter claim able to justify the existence of the current state of Israel and the

occupation by the current Jews residing within her borders? The short answer....no. But lets prove itshall we using the same source they use to justify their existence....the good Old Testament.

The Promised Land

According to God in the OT, a certain expanse of land was promised to the sons or tribes of

Jacob/Israel and this land is called Canaan. There are two different descriptions in the OT as to theborders of this land and they occur in Numbers 34:3-12 and in Genesis 15:18-21.

Numbers 34:1-12

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Command theIsraelites, and say to them: When you enter the land

of Canaan (this is the land that shall fall to you for an inheritance, the land of Canaan, defined by itsboundaries), your south sector shall extend from the wilderness of Zin along the side of Edom. Your

southern boundary shall begin from the end of the Dead Sea on the east; your boundary shall turn

south of the ascent of Akrabbim, and cross to Zin, and its outer limit shall be south of Kadesh-barnea;

then it shall go on to Hazar-addar, and cross to Azmon; the boundary shall turn from Azmon to theWadi of Egypt, and its termination shall be at the Sea.

For the western boundary, you shall have the Great Sea and its coast; this shall be your westernboundary.

This shall be your northern boundary: from the Great Sea you shall mark out your line to Mount Hor;from Mount Hor you shall mark it out to Lebo-hamath, and the outer limit of the boundary shall be at

Zedad; then the boundary shall extend to Ziphron, and its end shall be at Hazar-enan; this shall be

your northern boundary.

You shall mark out your eastern boundary from Hazar-enan to Shepham; and the boundary shall

continue down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain; and the boundary shall go down, and

reach the eastern slope of the sea of Chinnereth; and the boundary shall go down to the Jordan, and itsend shall be at the Dead Sea. This shall be your land with its boundaries all round.


7/31

Genesis 15:18-21

On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, To your descendants I give this land, from

the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the

Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites,

and the Jebusites.

Below are two maps showing the two variations of the promised land as described in the above

verses. These maps were taken from the book 'The Promise of the Land - The Inheritance of the Landof Canaan by the Israelites'by Moshe Weinfeld.vi

Borders of the Promised Land, Numbers 34:3-12.

Borders of the Promised Land, Genesis 15:18-21.


8/31

The question I have here is, which map do the modern Israeli's believe is the correct one? The

one from numbers came later so would it be the correct one? Well according to Theodore Herzle,

founder of Zionism and Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, neither iscorrect! Go figure, like Moses in Exodus debating with God and proving to be wiser, these two so

called Jews decided that their idea for a map of Israel would be better than Gods. After all, they are

Jews and therefore must be wiser than God. Below is a picture of their planned Greater Israel. Comingto a concentration camp near you.vii

Proposed Greater Israel

Apparently the proposed area of Greater Israel according to the Jews is a lot larger than the oneGod had had in mind, but what does He know anyway?

Now don't be confused by the fact that God describes this land area first to Abram, which isAbraham, and then to Moses. You see, Abraham is indeed the first father of a long line of Many

prophets. The tribes or sons of Jacob/Israel were also children of Abraham as Jacob was one son of

Isaac who was in turn one son of Abraham, as I mentioned earlier. Further, Moses or Musa in thesemitic languages, was in fact the great great grandson of Jacob/Israel. Musa was the son of Imran, who

was the son of Kohath, who was the son of Levi, who was in turn one of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel. It

was Moses or Musa who was given the responsibility of freeing the descendants of Jacob from slaveryin Egypt. This is of course the famous story of the exodus.

In other words, the land promised to the descendants of Jacob does indeed fall within the same

space of modern day Palestine and Israel, and the story of these nations of Jacob trying to return to it isa long story indeed. However, remember that this land was first promised to Abraham, and then to

Jacob and this promise was made under the conditions of a covenant. Now a covenant is like a contract,

and as long as both parties live up to their part of the contract the covenant will be fulfilled. Butremember, this covenant wasn't just any covenant, it was a covenant or contract made between

Abraham, Jacob and his descendants and God. You know THE GOD, the prime mover, the first cause

or uncaused cause, the creator, administrator and sustainer of all things. And when a covenant is made


9/31

with God, He never breaks it. That is, because God is perfect He cannot break his promise because he

cannot contradict. However the same does not hold true for us lowly mortals. You see we are imperfect

and therefore we are guilty of breaking contracts and promises all the time, and if one party breaks the

contract or covenant, the agreement is off.

So if these modern Jews who occupy the present State of Israel are indeed the descendants of

Jacob who inherited this land of Canaan, all they have to do is prove that they kept their end of thebargain, did not break the covenant and therefore can justify the existence of the current state of Israel

based on the evidence by their source the OT. But.... the problem is, they DID break it as we shall now

see.

The Broken Promise

As God is perfect, He is the perfect businessman, and like any good businessman, whenever He

needs to make an agreement between two parties, he always rights up a contract. This way both parties

are protected in case one party or the other decides to default. This is what happened to these

descendants of Jacob, these Hebrews, these Jews, these Israelites.

Remember the covenant is first made with Abraham in Genesis and then repeated also in

Genesis with Isaac's son Jacob/Israel. Now after Jacobs twelve sons are born and go out to reproduce inthe world things begin to break down for the Israelites or descendants of Jacob who were bound by this

covenant with God. The first misfortune was when Joseph or Yusuf, one of the sons of Jacob/Israel,

was betrayed by his own brothers or half brothers and left for dead, all because they were jealous ofhim.

Genesis 37:11So his brothers were jealous of him (Joseph), but his father kept the matter in mind.

Genesis 37:18-20They saw him (Joseph) from a distance, and before he came near to them, they conspired to kill him.

They said to one another, Here comes this dreamer. Come now, let us kill him and throw him into oneof the pits; then we shall say that a wild animal has devoured him, and we shall see what will become

of his dreams.

But do not fret, Joseph did not die. His brothers lose courage in the end and rather than kill him,

they just toss him in a well, soak his torn shirt in blood and go back to tell their father Jacob that

wolves had eaten him. Later Joseph is rescued from the well by a traveler and taken to Egypt and this is

how the tribes of Jacob/Israel later came to live in Egypt. (Actually the story of Joseph is a fascinatingone and is also retold in Al Quran. It's a good read which I recommend.) Now, up to this point, the sons

of Jacob/Israel had been doing OK until that bout of jealousy by the brothers, but it wasn't a couple

generations later when leaving Egypt under the guidance of Moses, did the real trouble begin.

Exodus

When Moses appeared on the scene the glory days of the Israelites living in Egypt were longover. A new Pharaoh had control over Egypt and he had no favoritism nor knowledge of Joseph, who

was now passed away, nor did he know Joseph's family. The descendants of Jacob were now living as

slaves. God then gave Moses the responsibility of freeing these descendants of Jacob from slavery andleading them back to Canaan, back to their home. And it is during this exodus that the covenant


10/31

between Jacob and his lineage, promising them a return to their land was broken.

During their long journey back home, God blessed these Israelites with many fortunes including

Mana from heaven to eat, but on a number of occasions these Israelites grumbled and protested despitetheir blessings. On top of this, they had just been freed from generations of slavery under the harsh rule

of Pharaoh as proof of Gods favor for them and a fulfilling of the covenant with their forefathers. But

still they complained. Some of them even wishing they had never left and remained in slavery.

Exodus 15:24

And the people complained against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?

Exodus 16:2-3

The whole congregation of the Israelites complained against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. The

Israelites said to them, If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat

by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill thiswhole assembly with hunger.

Exodus 17:3

But the people thirsted there for water; and the people complained against Moses and said, Why didyou bring us out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and livestock with thirst?

Finally they reached Mount Sinai which bordered Canaan and it was here that their true

breaking of the covenant played out. When Moses went up to the top of Mount Sinai to speak withGod, the Israelites committed the biggest sin of all.

Exodus 32:1

When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered around

Aaron and said to him, Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man

who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.

Exodus 32:7-8

The Lord said to Moses, Go down at once! Your people, whom you brought up out of the land of

Egypt, have acted perversely; they have been quick to turn aside from the way that I commanded them;

they have cast for themselves an image of a calf, and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it, and said,

These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!

The main part of this covenant which was made between God and the Israelites was that they

worship The One God alone. The above scenario is where this covenant was first broken. The rest of

Exodus 32 tells of how God became angry and was ready to smite the whole lot, but Moses was able to

keep a cool head and talk him out of it. Now lets pause and reflect. If that scenario seems ridiculous toyou, you are not alone. Here we have a recounting of how, between Moses and The God creator of all

things, the mortal man Moses is the wiser!? This brings me to another possible case in my argument

which has to do with the authenticity of the Old Testament that I may touch on later. Continuing...

Exodus 32:30-34

On the next day Moses said to the people, You have sinned a great sin. But now I will go up to the

Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin. So Moses returned to the Lord and said, Alas, this

people has sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will only


11/31

forgive their sinbut if not, blot me out of the book that you have written. But the Lord said to Moses,

Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. But now go, lead the people to the placeabout which I have spoken to you; see, my angel shall go in front of you.Nevertheless, when the day

comes for punishment, I will punish them for their sin.

Regardless of how accurate this dialogue between Moses and God is, the fact still remains that

in the Old Testament God says, Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. God thensays He will indeed punish them. Yes thats right. The Israelites were blotted out of Gods book. They

had broken the covenant and therefore lost the right to return and live peacefully in Canaan. The

current Zionist Jews who are responsible for creating and running the current State of Israel can notjustify occupation of that land based on Gods promise. Their own source of reference for justification

plainly shows that the covenant which was made was broken by them. So no more covenant, no more

land, no right to create this modern day Nazi state of Israel at the expense of innocent lives. This is pure

hypocrisy and injustice. But I am not finished yet.

In the first five books of the OT or the Torah, after leaving Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers is

mostly just lengthy narratives of rules, rituals, sacrificial offerings and censuses as well as continuouscomplaining by the Israelites. Then as Deuteronomy approaches, these events become interrupted by

various battles and wars as the Israelites slay their way through Canaan. (Hmmm.... sounds familiar)

But I want to fast forward to near the end of Deuteronomy where another important situation occursthat hints at the true fate of these Israelites. It is in Deuteronomy 31 when Moses is preparing to leave

this world and among his preparations he commits a startling but unsurprising act.

Deuteronomy 31:24-29

And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until theywere finished, That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD,

saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your

God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck:behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how

much more after my death? Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may

speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. For I know that

after my death ye will utterly corrupt [yourselves], and turn aside from the way which I have

commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the

LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

As moses prepared to leave this world he made a point to hide the ark containing the written

words of the covenant from the Israelis. Why? Because he didn't trust them. Further he makes a veryblunt prophecy and says that he knows the Israelites will utterly corrupt themselves and do evil in the

sight of the lord! And thus begins the end of the Torah. The first five books of the Old Testament. The

same pages that the modern Israeli Jews use to justify their existence in Palestine the ancient land ofCanaan. How often do we hear the selfish cry by Israel that modern day Palestine is their land promised

by God as is written in their holy book? I've just given you a brief tour of their holy book and guess

what? It's just not true.

So far I have shown that Israel was never a state nor a piece of bordered land, but simply the

name God gave to the prophet Jacob. I have also shown that although God did specify and promise apiece of real estate for the Israelites to return to, this promise was conditional under a covenant or

contractual agreement. And these Israelites broke that agreement. Therefore, no promise, no land, no

right to return. And all of this evidence provided straight from the proverbial horses mouth. Now at this


12/31

point I want to digress slightly but maintaining a focus on my argument.

During my casual debates among friends over the current sate of affairs in Palestine, one friend

made something close to this remark. He said that, we, all of us non-Jews, are not them. He said theyhave a right to believe in their faith and if they believe God promised them that land then they have

some kind of right to be there. Fair enough I thought, even despite the fact that clearly that promise or

covenant was indeed broken and made void by the Israelites. However my friends statement did makeme think of another case to use in my argument. It made me reflect back on the concept of self

determination, so I will now go back to that for a moment.

Spiritual Self Determination

I began this article talking about the concept of self determination. This concept as ajustification for Israels existence is, in fervor and volume, probably only surpassed by the loathing cry

of Jewish uniqueness as Gods chosen people, promised the land of ancient Canaan. But in a way, the

two claims are very intertwined. I explained briefly the concept of self determination of the individual

and also self determination of a nation, (I'm starting to like that rhyme) However the right to belief that

the Israeli Jews use to justify occupation could also be a form of self determination which I shall callspiritual self determination. Now as was shown in the beginning of my article, self determination of the

individual or the nation can not rightfully exist unless the same right is allowed for others. In otherwords Jewish self-determination cannot trump other human rights!

I therefore now demand MY right for spiritual self determination and will use reference fromother holy scriptures to further prove my point that the Israelites, although originally promised Canaan

by God, broke that promise and cannot use that line of justification any more. You see, the Jews aren't

the only ones with beliefs, nor are they the only ones with a right to self determination of beliefs. Theongoing story of mans spiritual journey and relationship with The God, creator of all things does not

start and stop with the Jews. In fact there are two other books that came after, which I will now borrow

reference from. They are the New Testament and Al Quran, the Final Testament. So without furtherado, please bear witness to the wonderful phenomenon of spiritual self determination in action as Ipresent to you.... the rest of the story.

The New Testament

There is still a lot more history to the peoples of Jacob and their descendants between

Deuteronomy and the New Testament but far too much to go into detail at this time, so I will give abrief overview. Now before the coming of Jesus, the most popular protagonist in the western paradigm

of religious literature, the Israelites continued to have problems and get into trouble. This played out

exactly as Moses had foretold in Deuteronomy 32:24-29. There were the Judges of the Israelites

including the Philistines, Moabites and Ammonites to name a few, who came by leave of God, topunish these descendants of Jacob for their sins and encourage repentance. And the reigns of the kings

of the Israelites, Saul, David and Solomon, and the division of the nation of Israelites into two

kingdoms, one being Judah. Then about 2000 years after the Israelites long arduous journey out ofEgypt, the prophet Jesus was born, and I will turn to narratives of his life as my first testimony within

my rights to self determination of belief.

From the very beginning of the New Testament in Matthew 2, we find a telling of a prophecy

which reveals the next episode to happen in the lives of the people of Israel.


13/31

Matthew 2:1-6

In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to

Jerusalem, asking, Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star

at its rising, and have come to pay him homage. When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and

all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired

of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has beenwritten by the prophet: And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the

rulers of Judah; forfrom you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.

The ruler mentioned who shall come is non other than Jesus, from the land of Judah of the

divided kingdom of Israel. He would come for the lost Israelites. Now lets look at some other

significant mentions in the Bible of how Jesus' life was related to the descendants of Jacob. In the book

of Matthews 15 we find the touching story of Jesus' compassion to a Canaanite woman whose daughterwas supposedly possessed. However far more intriguing to me than Jesus' clemency or even his

miraculous healing of the possessed child, is the remark he makes to his apostles when asked to assist

the distressed woman.

Matthew 15:22-24

And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O

Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word.

And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us." Heanswered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before

him, saying, Lord, help me. He answered, It is not fair to take the childrens food and throw it to the

dogs. She said, Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters table. ThenJesus answered her, Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish. And her daughter

was healed instantly.

Indeed Jesus, by his own admission was here to call the Israelites of Old Testament fame backto worship of The One God. (Also note Jesus' cryptic analogy comparing the Israelites to children and

the Gentiles to dogs.) You see, between when we left poor Moses a few pages back, near death and

cursing the transgressions of his own people, and this profound statement by Jesus in Matthew 15:24,the Israelites had not only become divided, conquered, and lost, all to the tune of God and Moses'

foretelling, but they had also fallen back to the sin of paganism or idol worship. In other words, they

had utterly corrupted their original faith or the original teachings of Moses. God surely must have loved

these Israelites because even after so many iniquities he sent a prophet who's main purpose was tobring them back to the straight path. So important was this duty to Jesus that he even commanded his

apostles to do the same.

Matthew 10:5-7

These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of

the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And proclaim as you go, saying,

'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

Of course because of the person Jesus was, more than just the lost Israelites were drawn to hismessage. Modern day Christianity is a testimony to that. One might even say that the gentiles who

Jesus asked his apostles to overlook in Matthew 10:5 were far more attracted to what Jesus had to offer

than the Israelites were. Further, the relationship between Jesus and the religious leaders of the time


14/31

claiming representation to the house of Israel also gives us insight as to the true fate of these sons of

Jacob, these Hebrews, these Jews, these Israelites; or the occupiers of present day Palestine who claim

the rights of this lineage. Those that represented governance of this line at the time are referred to as

Pharisees in the Bible.

One particular story that portrays this relationship between the prophet Jesus and these

Pharisees appears in John 8, and this narrative is almost shocking in its descriptive prose. Here we aretold of a most popular scene in Jesus life often referred to as the sermon on the mount. Jesus would

often approach the Mount of Olives to preach to the peoples and during this particular sermon he was

approached by a number of Pharisees who had with them a woman of iniquity by their own claims.According to the Pharisees, she was guilty of adultery and were demanding she be stoned to death

according to their laws. After much debating Jesus finally rose and made one of his most quoted

maxims. He said, Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.

Now Jesus was keen to the wily ways of the Pharisees and he knew all to well that they were

attempting to trick him. This is clearly stated in John 8:3-6.

John 8:3-6The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making herstand before all of them, they said to him, Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of

committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you

say? They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him.

The above verse testifies to the malevolence of these Pharisees who represented the house of

Israel at the time. But knowing the woman was innocent and aware of the trap set by these Pharisees,

Jesus put them in their place and after making his statement, many of the gathered crowed who had

been stirred into a vengeful frenzy by the false witnesses slowly dispersed and the woman was let go.Those among the Pharisees who stayed, entered into a debate with Jesus and continued to try and make

him say something that might allow them to accuse him of blasphemy according to their own corruptlaws. This famous debate climaxed in the following account, still in John 8.

John 8:39-47

They (the Pharisees) answered him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were

Abrahams children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you are trying to kill me, a man

who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are indeed doingwhat your father does. They said to him, We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God

himself. Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and

now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It isbecause you cannot accept my word. You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your

fathers desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, becausethere is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the

father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I

tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason

you do not hear them is that you are not from God.

The lineage, or at least those that represented the house of Israel at the time, are here beingaccused by Jesus of being the children of the devil! This is a most shocking and blunt accusation.

These are supposedly the same people that the Zionist Israeli's claim they descend from and share this


15/31

right of return to ancient Canaan or modern day Palestine. Not only does the above narration reveal

more of the fate of the Israelites but it also brings to light the question of what may have actually

happened to this original nation of people. For indeed if the Israelites were considered by God as his

chosen people, why would Jesus, a prophet of God, be condemning these holy representatives of thissame nation, as children of the devil? This actually leads into the final portion of my argument where I

question the claims of the Zionist Jews running Israel when they say they are descendants of the same

tribes who migrated under the guidance of Moses out of Egypt about 4000 years ago and, who despiteevidence of a broken covenant, reserve the right to not only exist as an autonomous state in Palestine,

but at the cost of the rights of those who were already there.

But before I get into questions of claims of lineage and ancestry, I would like to first quickly

move on to what could be called the newer testament, better known as Al Quran to further exercise my

right of spiritual self determination and present more evidence as to the fate of these Israelites.

Al Quran

As the drama of mankind unfolded and still does today, so did our perpetual and dynamic

relationship with our creator. After Jesus disappeared from the theological scene, approximately 600more years of history would pass before God would deliver to humans the final testament through theprophet Muhammad known as Al Quran.

In a sense, Muhammad was a very distant blood relative of Jacob whom God renamed Israel.

You see, going back to Abraham, father of Issac, father of Jacob, we have to recall Abraham's otherson, the first born half brother of Isaac, the prophet Ismael. As Isaac's lineage gave birth to a number of

prophets including Moses and Jesus, so to did Ismael's lineage. And 600 years after Jesus appeared

Muhammad who was of the lineage of Ismael, the brother of Isaac, broke onto the scene. The messagewas the same only the time was different, and within the pages of Al Quran are many more narratives

which retell and reveal more of what had happened to the Israelites of old.

Before I present some samplings from Al Quran which narrate more of the fate of the Israelites,I want to give you something to ponder. If you remember back to the Old Testament, Genesis 15:18-21,

God made a promise to Abraham that he would give this area of land to his descendants made up of

ancient Canaan or modern day Palestine and Syria. I will show those verses here once more.

Genesis 15:18-21

On that day the Lord made a covenant withAbram (Abraham), saying, To yourdescendants I give

this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the

Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, theGirgashites, and the Jebusites.

Considering that Abraham had two sons, Ismael and Isaac and that from these two sons

descended both the Jewish patriarchal prophets and those of the Muslims, based on the above narration,

both these lineages would have rights to the land promised. This means that according to the Zionist'sown sources for right to occupation of this holy land, the Arabs would have just as much right to

occupy this land as they too are descendants of Abraham through the line of Ismael. Continuing...

In Quran, the Children of Israel or the prophet Jacob/Israel are mentioned in no less than 40

verses but I will only go into a few examples here. First I will now present verses from Al Quran


16/31

which show how God regards the descendants of Jacob or Israel in Quran.

Al Baqarah The Heifer 2:40, 47

O Children of Israel, remember My blessings that I had blessed you with, and fulfill your pledge to Me

that I may fulfill My pledge to you, and revere Me alone.

O Children of Israel, remember My blessings that I had blessed you with, and that I had preferred youto all the worlds!

Even in Quran the children of Israel are commanded to remember the favors bestowed on themby God and that he preferred them to all the worlds. He also tells them to remember the pledge or

covenant in where God commanded them to worship Him and Him alone. However Quran also makes

mention of how the Israelites broke this pledge or covenant.

Al Baqarah The Heifer 2:83

We took the covenant of the Children of Israel, "You shall not serve except God, and regard your

parents, and regard the relatives, and the orphans, and the needy, and say kind things to the people,

and observe the Contact prayer, and contribute towards betterment."Then you turned away, except afew of you; you were objecting.

Again not only is the covenant of the children of Israel mentioned but also the conditions that

were part of it. And we can see that most of these Israelites turned away and broke this covenant. Here I

want to point out a few things. First is that because God is perfectly just, He is not going to condemn anentire population because of the iniquities of some. As we can see, although most of the Israelites were

guilty of breaking the covenant, a few of them remained steadfast in their promise to uphold the

covenant according to the stipulations agreed upon. These stipulations were, worshiping God alone,regarding the family, orphans and the needy, being kind, observing prayer and contributing toward

betterment in the world. The second thing I want to point out also leads me to another case in my

argument, and this involves the above mentioned conditions surrounding the covenant.

Deeds, Not Words

The present occupiers of Palestine and rulers of the state of Israel use their right of spiritual selfdeterminism to justify their being in the holy land today, and that justification centers around this

promise of God to grant them this land based on the covenant and the conditions therein. However, as I

have shown, this covenant was broken by the Israelites thus forfeiting their right to occupy the land.Further since the covenant was bound by the certain conditions mentioned above, clearly the Israelites

right to occupy the land is based not on simply the mention of a promise or covenant but relies solely

on the behavior of these people. In other words, as long as the Israelites had maintained an attitude of

kindness and compassion towards others and contributed towards betterment in the world, they wouldhave had full authority to exist as any state in the holy land. Now the question I ask you is this. Based

on the current actions of the self proclaimed Jews who run the state of Israel today, do you believe that

they are even currently upholding the conditions of their covenant with God mentioned above, thusallowing them the right to the occupation of Palestine? My answer is a definite NO. The modern day

Israelites or Jews of Israel are showing no actions or deeds that fall into the categories of kindness,

compassion or betterment.


17/31

In fact, Rabbi Elmer Berger supports my above claim. The quote below can be found in the

book The Founding Myths Of Israel Politics by Roger Garaudy.viiiIt comes from a conferenceentitled 'Prophecy, Zionism and the State of Israel held at Leiden University, Netherlands, on March

20th, 1968.

"Zion could not expect the restoration of a people resting on treaties, alliances, military balances ofpower or a military hierarchy seeking to establish its superiority over the neighbors of Israel. ....The

prophetic tradition clearly shows that the holiness of a land does not depend on its soil, nor that of its

people's sole presence on that territory. The only thing that is sacred and worthy of Zion is the divineCovenant which expresses itself in the deeds of its people. - Rabbi Elmer Berger

Yes, it is the deeds of the people that will justify Israel's existence not words, yet those who

currently represent Israel and have forcibly occupied Palestine have proven completely through their

deeds of the last 50 years, that not only do they not deserve to occupy that holy land, but any other land

they might choose to settle in. Now I will move on to the last part of my article which further

challenges modern Israels claims of the right to occupy Palestine by exploring the ancestral origins ofthese modern day occupiers and asking the question, 'What is a Jew?'

Jew Who?

Perhaps even more mystifying than trying to define the State of Israel or concepts of selfdetermination, is trying to define the simple word Jew. What or who is a Jew? Does the word represent

a faith or a race of people? Where does it come from? Lets begin at looking at where this English word

'Jew' originated from, and who better to get a definitive meaning from than a 'Jew' himself by the nameof Benjamin H. Freedman. Mr. Freedman was a Jewish Businessman and American, born in 1890. He

has written material and given speeches on the subjects of Jews, Judaism, Zionism and the State of

Israel. The following is from a letter he wrote to a Dr. David Goldstein in 1954 which was laterpublished as a booklet entitled 'Facts are Facts'.

It is an incontestable fact that the word "Jew" did not come into existence until the year 1775. Prior

to 1775 the word "Jew" did not exist in any language. The word "Jew" was introduced into the English

for the first time in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals", II,i, "She shall

have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew". Prior to this use of the word "Jew" in the Englishlanguage by Sheridan in 1775 the word "Jew" had not become a word in the English language.

Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" as you will see. Shakespeare never used the word "Jew" in any

of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice",V.III.i.61, Shakespeare wrote as follows: "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?".ix

So this word Jew did not exist until 1775 and it is this word that the current Zionists running

Israel choose to identify themselves with, but what of the title of their faith, Judaism? Is this the true

faith of the original Israelites? If you remember back to John 8 from the New testament, Jesus wascalling the Pharisees the children of the devil'. These Pharisees were what represented the Israelites at

the time but obviously they did not refer to themselves as Jews. So what did they call themselves?

What was their faith? Surely if Jesus was calling them the sons of devils, they couldn't have beenfollowing the teachings of Moses.


18/31

After the reign of Solomon, almost 3000 years ago, the kingdom of Israel, which was made up

of the descendants of the prophet Jacob, became divided. The southern part became known as Judea.

This is in fact where Jerusalem was and where Jesus came from. Jesus was a Judean, or a man from

Judea. This is also where the Pharisees that were at odds with Jesus were from. In the northern part ofbroken Israel, calves were inserted into temples and they became a center for Baal worship. In

Jerusalem, in the southern part known as Judah, the same occurred. In fact, the temples that these

Pharisees over saw had become so corrupt, that Jesus eventually stormed the main temple,whip inhand, and kicked everyone out because it had become a market place rather than a place of worship.

During this time, the faith followed by the Pharisees was not called Judaism. The name Judea orJudean is only a reference to a piece of land and represents neither a religious faith nor a race of people.

The people of Judea at that time were simply descendants of Jacob and those who remained true to the

covenant of God simply followed the rules and guidelines that were laid down by Moses during their

ancestral exodus from Egypt. NOWHERE in the Old Testament will you find God stating that the faithhe was prescribing to the Children of Israel was to be called Judaism, and nowhere will you find these

Israelites mentioned as being Jews. Quoting again from the same book by Freedman:

During the lifetime of Jesus there was not a form of religious worship practiced in Judea or elsewhere

in the known world which bore a name even remotely resembling the name of the political subdivisionof the Roman Empire; i.e., "Judaism" from "Judea". No cult or sect existed by such a name.

Judeans were a people from the geographical area which would now be Palestine. They did not

call themselves Jews nor did they refer to their religious beliefs as Judaism. But to set the recordstraight, here is what Freedman says about how the English word Jew came into existence and regular

use.

The available manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century accurately trace the origin and

give the complete history of the word "Jew" in the English language. In these manuscripts are to be

found all the many earlier English equivalents extending through the 14 centuries from the 4th to the18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these English forms included

successively: "Gyu", "Giu", "Iu", "Iuu", "Iuw", "Ieuu", "Ieuy", "Iwe", "Iow", "Iewe", "leue", "Iue",

"Ive", "lew", and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew". The many earlier English equivalents for"Jews" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis", "Giws", "Gyues", "Gywes", "Giwes", "Geus", "Iuys",

"Iows", "Iouis", "Iews", and then also finally in the 18th century, "Jews".

With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th century for the first time in history of the

greatly improved printing presses unlimited quantities of the New Testament were printed. These

revised 18th century editions of the earlier 14th century first translations into the English languagewere then widely distributed throughout England and the English speaking world among families who

had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language. In these 18th century editions with

revisions the word "Jew" appeared for the first time in any English translations. The word "Jew" as it

was used in the 18th century editions has since continued in use in all elections of the New Testamentin the English language. The use of the word "Jew" thus was stabilized.

Therefore, one has to be conscious of these facts when they freely drop the name 'Jew' so as not

to be confused by current modern abstract definitions of the word. Today most people identify the word'Jew' with a person who either belongs to a certain race of people or who follows the religious belief

known today as Judaism or both. However, understanding now where the word comes from, we can

clearly see that to cement the word 'Jew' with race or religion is not entirely accurate at all. These Jews


19/31

of Israel cannot claim lineage to the Israelites who descended from Jacob as an identity of race based

on their self given title 'Jew' because the name was nonexistent until the 18 th century; it is not a race. No

race of people who identified themselves with the name Jew has ever existed. Further, to claim of

nationality based on the modern name of the state of Israel is illegitimate as well because no such stateever existed that met the criteria given by God in the covenant.

If indeed we choose to identify the word 'Jew' with someone who follows the religion Judaism,how could we also define it as a race? If I am a Christian can I claim to be of the Christian race? If I am

a Muslim can I claim to be of the Muslim race? Perhaps I could say I am Islamish. If I chose to become

a follower of Judaism would I then suddenly belong to this 'Jewish' race? You can see how ridiculousthis concept is but very few people contemplate such things. Now that we have a better understanding

of the etymological roots of the word 'Jew', before we go any further, let us now see what some famous

Jews themselves have said about what a Jew really is.

Leo N. Levi, President of B'nai B'rith, 1900-1904:

"The distinctive character of the Jew does not arise solely from his religion. It is true that his race and

religion are indissolubly connected, but whatever be the cause of this junction of the race idea with the

religion, it is very certain that the religion alone does not constitute the people. A believer in the Jewishfaith does not by reason of that fact become a Jew. On the other hand, however, a Jew by birth remains

a Jew, even though he abjures his religion."x

Moses Hess, Jewish Zionist, from his Book 'Rome & Jerusalem:xi

"The Jews are something more than mere 'followers of a religion,' namely, they are a race, abrotherhood, a nation." (p. 71).

"A Jew belongs to his race and consequently also to Judaism, in spite of the fact that he or his

ancestors have become apostates." (pp. 97-98).

"Jewish religion is, above all, Jewish patriotism." (p. 61).

'A Guide to Zionism' Book published by the Zionist Organization of America:xii

"The name of their national religion, Judaism, is derived from their national designation. Anunreligous Jew is still a Jew, and he can with difficulty escape his allegiance only by repudiating the

name of Jew." (p. 5).

Leon Simon, Jewish scholar and writer, from his book 'Studies in Jewish Nationalism': xiii

"Judaism has no message of salvation for the individual soul, as Christianity has; all its ideas are

bound up with the existence of the Jewish nation." (p. 20).

"The idea that Jews are a religious sect, precisely parallel to Catholics and Protestants, is nonsense."

(p. 34).

Although I have only shown a few quotes, it is an undeniable fact that the paradigm of the

Jewish consciousness is dominated by an identity of race or nationalism, even though historically, no

such race or nation has ever existed! If these Jews are a race, what do we compare them to? Could we


20/31

compare them to races and racial terms such as Negroid, Caucasian or Asian? It seems that we cannot,

and that their concept of race seems to fall into some kind of abstract and unique subgroup as is

supported by the almost schizophrenic attempt to define themselves in the quotes above. However,

after rereading the first 5 books of the Old Testament in preparation to write this piece, it did remindme of where this concept of nation hood or unity comes from. The only problem I have is the fact that

those who represent the State of Israel today, have no real connection whatsoever to the descendants of

Jacob who migrated from Egypt and fell from grace with God. In a sense, they have stolen the identityof the Israelites of OT infamy and borrowed a corrupt form of their religious beliefs to justify their acts

against all that is humane in modern Palestine. And to back up that claim, I want to now explore the

real racial and national roots of these Zionist Jews of modern Israel.

The Original Israelites

Another way I will attempt to argue Israel's right to exist based on biblical justifications of

spiritual and national self determination, is to show that the Jew's who represent her, Israel, as a nation

have no direct ancestral link to the Israelites who migrated under the guidance of Moses around 4000years ago. I have already shown that these original Israelites did not identify with the word Jew or

Judaism at all, as these words and the concepts that surround them today did not exist, so who werethey exactly in comparison to the Jews of Israel today?

The first thing we must be aware of, is time and geographical location to paint an accurate

picture of the peoples of Jacob who fled Egypt. These events played out in what we call the Middle

East and North Africa today and approximately 4000 years ago. Although most people assume that themodern day Jews of Israel are descended from these middle eastern Semites, I want to show how this is

completely inaccurate. In fact the Jews who represent Israel today are not Semitic at all, despite their

constant cries of antisemitism, many of which I will probably hear after presenting this essay. Themodern Israeli Jews, and perhaps 80-90% of all self proclaimed Jews today are in fact of an entirely

different race known as Ashkenazi or of a Khazar descent. But before I get into revealing the true

identity of the Zionist Jews now occupying Palestine, I want to show you what the original Israelites orHebrews were like.

Appearance

Imagine for a moment that you are in Egypt 4000 years ago. You are one of the Israelis that

descended from those that migrated with Joseph and the 12 sons of Jacob. Look around you. It is hot

and dry, yet you feel the occasional waft of moisture from the breeze blowing in off the mother Nilethat irrigates the fertile land around her. Your people enjoyed favor under the Pharaoh that ruled when

Joseph first arrived but now you live as a slave along side your people. One of your own who was

taken in by this cruel Pharaoh, and goes by the name of Moses has begun a rebellion and speaks of

freeing you and leading you back to your homeland. Now look at all the people surrounding you. Whatdo you suppose they look like? Do you think they looked like..............


21/31

This!? Or this!?

Hollywood Image of Pharaoh Seti 1 Jewish Girl

Or perhaps they looked like......

This!? Or this!?

Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

Maybe they looked more like.......


22/31

This!? Or This!?

Jewish Actor Ben Stillerxiv Jewish Actress Lisa Kudrow

Or perhaps they looked like......

This!? Or This!?

Jewish Actor Adam Sandler Charleston Heston as Hollywood Moses


23/31

Or maybe you think they looked like...........

This!?!?

Popular false image of Jesus

If these are the images of the Israelites from 2000 BC that your imagination conjured up, you've

got a lot of serious Hollywood conditioning to remove from your mind. In fact, one can begin by

simply looking at the Old Testament to get a more accurate description of what these people reallylooked like. And, as the Israeli Jews of today always use scripture to justify there existence as the

current corrupt state they are, I too will use their own scripture again, to show how wrong they are.

The Black Egyptians

The Israelites of Exodus fame originally descended from Issac, son of Abraham as I mentionedbefore. And Abraham is descended from Shem, son of Noah. Noah had two other sons named Ham and

Japheth. These three sons were responsible for creating the nations that would settle around Africa and

the area known today as the Middle East. When the Israelites came to Egypt, known as the land ofHam, the Egyptians at that time were a black or negroid race. That is they had dark skin and woolly

hair. Certainly not the Egyptians that Hollywood likes to portray today. Just as we imagine Africans to

be today, the Egyptians of Moses' time were black, and the first Pharaoh's were Nubian. If we look atthe ancient Egyptian writing of how they described their own people it tells us exactly what they

looked like.


24/31

xv

Nubia was a land that made up parts of modern Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan. It

inhabitants were black and archaeological evidence was found that prove it may have been home to the

worlds oldest known monarchy. Predating the first know Egyptian monarchy by 200 years. This articlefrom a 1979 New York Times mentions this.xvi


25/31

I understand that many people, especially in the western world, are still hungover from the

fantasy version of history so commonly portrayed by Hollywood, but there is too much evidence toignore Ancient Egypt's oldest cultures and peoples most likely being dominated by a black or Negroid

African race. This fact is important to keep in mind when we approach the evidences of characteristics

of the original Israelites found in the Old Testament. According to another source:

Until most recently in history, the ancient Egyptians have been associated with Black Africans by a

host of Europeans. According to Herodotus, The Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchianswere descended from soldiers of Seosteris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly

because they have black skins and kinky hair...alone among mankind, the Egyptians and Ethiopians

have practiced circumcision since time immemorial. Other contemporaries such as Aristotle, Diodorus,Lucian, Apollodorus and Aeschylus make similar observations. More modern accounts have been given

by Count Volney, Champollion the Elder and E.A.Wallis Budge to name a few.xvii

Count Volney, the French philosopher and historian who is mentioned in the above quote, spentmany years in Egypt, Syria and other places in the Middle East. He later wrote 'Voyage en Egypte et en

Syrie' about his experiences. He had this to say about the Ancient Egyptians.

The ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native born Africans. That being so,

we can see how their blood mixed for several centuries with that of the Romans and Greeks, must have

lost the intensity of it's original color, while retaining none the less the imprint of it's original mold. Wecan even state as a general principle that the face (referring to The Sphinx) is a kind of monument able,

in many cases, to attest to or shed light on historical evidence on the origins of the people.

"What a subject for meditation, just think that the race of black men today our slaves and the object of

our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, science and even the use of our speech."xviii

Now that you have a better idea of what the Egyptians looked like during the slavery of theIsraelites, I now want to give Biblical evidence that not only the Egyptians but also these tribes or sonsof Jacob were also very black or dark skinned indeed.

The Black Israelites

If you remember my discussions of Genesis in the OT, I mentioned how it was the betrayal ofJoseph by his brothers and Joseph's subsequent journey to Egypt to be traded as a slave which began

the story of the Israelites history in Egypt. If we look at Genesis 42:6-8 we find our first clue as to the

true identity of the Israelites or descendants of Jacob.

Genesis 42:6-8Now Joseph was governor over the land; it was he who sold to all the people of the land. And Josephsbrothers came and bowed themselves before him with their faces to the ground. When Joseph saw his

brothers, he recognized them, but he treated them like strangers and spoke harshly to them. Where do

you come from? he said. They said, From the land of Canaan, to buy food.Although Joseph hadrecognized his brothers, they did not recognize him.


26/31

We see that Joseph's own brothers did not recognize him as he stood as authority among

Egyptians. If Joseph had been white or pale in color his brothers would have easily recognized himamong a bunch of black Egyptians. But because his skin was very dark he blended in well with the

local people.

When Moses was born, it was during the reign of a Pharaoh who disliked the number ofHebrews of Israelites now occupying his kingdom. Fearing being overrun by the Hebrews, the Pharaoh

decided to have the male children killed if they were born to a Hebrew woman. After Moses was born

and his mother could hide him no longer, she decided to abandon him in the Nile. Later Moses wasfound by a daughter of the Pharaoh. Feeling pity on the child and assuming it was a Hebrew child, she

took it in and claimed it for her own. Moses grew up and spent forty years living secretly among the

Egyptians. That is, the Pharaoh thought for forty years that Moses was his own grandson! How couldthis be possible if Moses, a Hebrew, was pale skinned among black Egyptians? It simply could not.

During Moses ministry as a prophet of God, and during his attempts to convince Pharaoh torelease the Israelites, he was accompanied by a number of miracles. One such miracle was the turning

white of his hand. This episode is mentioned here in the OT.

Exodus 4:6-7

Again, the Lord said to him, Put your hand inside your cloak. He put his hand into his cloak; and

when he took it out, his hand was leprous, as white as snow. Then God said, Put your hand back intoyour cloakso he put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored like the

rest of his body

When moses pulled out his hand it was white. This was meant to be a miracle incredible enough

to convince Pharaoh and his followers to believe in God and allow the enslaved Israelites to leave

Egypt and return to their homeland. How profound of a miracle would this have been if Moses hadwhite skin? Further, in Exodus 4:7, it says that when Moses placed his hand back into his cloak it was

restored back to looking like the rest of his body. If the miracle was turning it white than restorationwould mean back to a color other than white, namely black.

One more piece of evidence to the Israelites being of a black race appears in Leviticus 13. This

entire chapter is dedicated to describing the disease leprosy and how to diagnose it. The Israelites and

Egyptians all recognized this disease by it's symptom of turning the skin white.

Leviticus 13:3

If the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and in sight be not deeper than the skin, and the hair

thereof be not turned white; then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days:

Leviticus 13:6And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day: and, behold, if the plague be somewhatdark,

and the plague spread not in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is but a scab: and heshall wash his clothes, and be clean.

When leprosy was evident during those times in Egypt, it was recognized by a discoloration of

the skin. That is the skin turned white. When the disease began to clear, the skin would turn dark again.

This is because the Egyptians and Israelites had dark or black skin, otherwise the skin returning to darkwould not have been mentioned as a sign of the disease clearing up. There are many more examples I


27/31

could give from Bible about the likenesses of the ancient Israelis but I'm sure you get the point.

However, I will provide a number of links below where anyone interested can continue to research both

Biblical and historical evidence confirming the black origins of the ancient Egyptians, Israelites and the

entire human race for that matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vq9L0uu6R8&eurl=http://kushite.webs.com/

http://www.angelfire.com/ill/hebrewisrael/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/egypt.html

http://kushite.webs.com/

http://www.blackhistoryjohnmoore.bravehost.com/

http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/the-black-raceorigin-of-all-humanity-by-m-

stewartstewartsynosiscom/

To sum up what I've shown so far, the modern Israeli Jews, cannot justify Palestinian

occupation as it is today based on their argument of self determination as a nation because they shareno ancestral lineage with the original Israelites found in the Old testament. Further, even if they were

descended from the original Israelites, they cannot justify their illegal occupation of Palestine based on

self determination of belief because based on the very scripture from which they draw that argument,they had long broken the covenant and therefore have no divine privilege of occupying that land. Now I

would like to present some information, data and facts on just exactly where these modern day Israeli

Jews come from.

The Real Last Supper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vq9L0uu6R8&eurl=http://kushite.webs.com/http://www.angelfire.com/ill/hebrewisrael/index.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/egypt.htmlhttp://kushite.webs.com/http://www.blackhistoryjohnmoore.bravehost.com/http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/the-black-raceorigin-of-all-humanity-by-m-stewartstewartsynosiscom/http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/the-black-raceorigin-of-all-humanity-by-m-stewartstewartsynosiscom/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vq9L0uu6R8&eurl=http://kushite.webs.com/http://www.angelfire.com/ill/hebrewisrael/index.htmlhttp://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/egypt.htmlhttp://kushite.webs.com/http://www.blackhistoryjohnmoore.bravehost.com/http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/the-black-raceorigin-of-all-humanity-by-m-stewartstewartsynosiscom/http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/2007/03/03/the-black-raceorigin-of-all-humanity-by-m-stewartstewartsynosiscom/


28/31

The Khazars

About 80 to 90% of Jewish people today are of the Ashkenazim line of Jews. The rest are calledSephardi Jews. The true black Israelite line or sons of Jacob are spread around the globe and very few

of them even relate to or recognize their true Hebrew heritage. The Jews who represent the modern

State of Israel are almost all Ashkenazi Jews and these Jews ARE NOT descended from the original

tribe of Israel. They are descended from a white Asiatic Mongol race from the ancient kingdom ofKhazar.

About 1000 years ago, The Khazar kingdom was around 800,000 square miles of land. Theheart of their kingdom lay between the Black and Caspian seas and bordered the Caucasus mountains

of modern day Armenia and Northern Iran. It was, at the time, larger than any other nation in Europe.

Below is a map of the Khazar kingdom around 700 to 1000 years ago, written as Khazaria.

The people of the kingdom of Khazar were pagans but were surrounded by the Muslim Empire

to the south and by a predominantly Christian Europe to west. Between 954 and 961 C.E., according tocertain manuscripts that still exist today, the then King of Khazar, who called himself Joseph

corresponded with a Spanish Israelite named Hasdai Ibn Sharprut. In this letter, the Khazar king stated

that, he and his people were from the line of Japheth, from the seed of Togarmah, Japheth's grandson.

He further stated that Togarmah, who was the brother of Ashkenaz, had ten sons and the Khazars

represented the seventh son.xix


29/31

Japheth was one of the three sons of Noah, along with Ham, said to be the ancestor of the

African races and Shem from whom Abraham descended, and later the Israelites and Arabs. Whether or

not this claim was accurate or true, about 200 years after the above mentioned correspondence

occurred, another king of Khazaria decide to replace the ruling paganism of his land with one of thethree monotheistic faiths that surrounded his borders. It is said that he invited representatives from the

Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths to have a discussion and decide which faith to convert to. In the

end he chose Judaism, and just like that, a large population of white Mongol Khazars had becomeJewish. Some say that his motives to convert to Judaism were political and strategic. Because he was

surrounded by Muslims to the south and Christians to the west, he may have felt this conversion would

offend his neighboring countries the least. Not long after, around the 13 th century C.E., the Khazarkingdom ended and I will quote from the book 'The Thirteenth Tribe' by Arthur Koestler, about what

most likely happened next.

What is in dispute is the fate of the Jewish Khazars after the destruction of their empire, in the twelfthor thirteenth century. On this problem the sources are scant, but various late mediaeval Khazarsettlements are mentioned in the Crimea, in the Ukraine, in Hungary, Poland and Lithuania. The

general picture that emerges from these fragmentary pieces of information is that of a migration of

Khazar tribes and communities into those regions of Eastern Europe mainly Russia and Poland where, at the dawn of the Modern Age, the greatest concentrations of Jews were found. This has leadseveral historians to conjecture thata substantial part, and perhaps the majority of eastern Jews

and hence of world Jewry might be of Khazar, and not of Semitic Origin .

This was written before the full extent of the holocaust was known, but that does not alter the fact that

the large majority of surviving Jews in the world is of Eastern European and thus perhaps mainly of

Khazar origin. If so, this would mean that their ancestors came not from the Jordan but fr

a case against israels right to exist

Documents