The Truth About Christian Zionists

Why pro-Israel Christians really support the Jewish state, push for sanctions on Iran, and want the United States to stop pressuring Jerusalem.

BY DAVID BROG | SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

It is curious -- and deeply disappointing -- to observe the way in which some figures on the pro-Israel American left discuss the phenomenon of Christian support for Israel. These are people who are capable of discerning subtle shifts in the mood of the Arab street. They delve into the complexities of Hamas politics and report back to us on apparent -- if often meaningless -- policy distinctions. But when the subject turns from Israel's enemies to Israel's friends, their palate grows dull. Suddenly, the shades of gray disappear and all that remains is stark black and white.

Such is my evaluation of M.J. Rosenberg's July 24 piece, "Playing the Jesus Card," in which the author provides a stunning example of exactly this sort of simplistic analysis. Rosenberg repeats three stereotypes about Christian Zionists that stand in stark contrast to the facts. First, he mischaracterizes the beliefs of Christian Zionists, claiming that they are "fundamentalist Christians whose theology dictates unwavering support for Israel." Next, he confuses the politics of Christian Zionists when he imagines that they all "are hard-core Republicans." Finally, he mistakes the policy of Christian Zionists when he asserts that they "emphatically support Israeli settlements and oppose the two-state solution." 

Like all other stereotypes, these three fall apart upon deeper scrutiny. In the first case, not all "Christian Zionists" are "fundamentalists." The membership of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) -- the largest Christian pro-Israel organization in United States, of which I am executive director -- demonstrates this fact. While a majority of our members may well be evangelical (a term that is hardly synonymous with "fundamentalist"), other streams of Christianity are well represented in our ranks. Our members include evangelicals and Episcopalians, Pentecostals and Presbyterians, Charismatics and Catholics. 

Even if one accepts the phony assertion that Christian supporters of Israel are exclusively evangelical, the claim that these evangelicals are exclusively Republican is demonstrably false. In 1992, Bill Clinton received a full one-third of the evangelical vote. In 2004, John Kerry received one-fourth of the evangelical vote. And in 2008, Barack Obama, too, received one in four of these votes. I am sure that CUFI's many Democratic members would be amused by Rosenberg's insistence that they do not exist.

It is certainly true that many Christian Zionists (as well as Jewish Zionists) are skeptical of the land-for-peace formula. And sadly, developments in the Middle East too often validate such skepticism. Yet most Christian supporters of Israel have never made opposition to the peace process the focus of their advocacy. Christians United for Israel, for instance, has never taken a position against a two-state solution or in favor of settlements. Instead, much like the leading Jewish pro-Israel organizations, CUFI supports the positions of the democratically elected government of Israel.

For example, like all Israelis, we are worried about the danger of a nuclear Iran. So from its inception, CUFI has focused on building support for economic sanctions that would pressure Tehran to abandon its nuclear program. Consistent with our position that Israelis must decide their own fate, we have asked the U.S. government not to pressure Israel into taking risks that Israeli citizens themselves do not wish to take.

CUFI's support of Israel's government reflects our deep respect for Israel's democracy. The members of CUFI do not see Israel as some wayward banana republic that must be restrained or prodded by a wiser United States. We see, instead, an Israel that has behaved responsibly, with admirable restraint, and has repeatedly taken risks for peace, such as Israel's withdrawal from Arab population centers in the West Bank in the 1990s, Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. If the Israelis want to take more risks for peace, we defer to their decision to do so. And if they instead conclude that these risks have not paid off, and choose through their votes to slow the pace of concessions, we once again defer. This is not extremism; it is humility.

Meanwhile, the critics of Christian Zionism, such as Rosenberg and the organization J Street, take a very different position toward Israel's democracy: They disdain it. The will of the Israelis who fight the wars and suffer the terrorist attacks is of little consequence to them. These critics believe that they know better, and they are determined to overrule -- through American fiat -- what the Israelis have decided at the ballot box. This is, of course, their right. But as these critics elevate their rigid ideologies above the will of Israel's electorate, they should know better than to label "extremist" those of us who defer to the Israelis. Even Christian Zionists know what "chutzpah" means.

Finally, a reality check is in order regarding Rosenberg's outlandish claim that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is somehow "playing the Jesus card" --  that is, seeking to rally Christian support to overcome pressure from the Obama administration -- because he agreed to speak, via satellite, at CUFI's July summit. Netanyahu also spoke live via satellite at the May conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the largest Jewish pro-Israel lobby. It is natural that the two leading U.S. pro-Israel organizations would invite Israel's sitting prime minister to address their delegates. And it is likewise natural that Israel's prime minister would accept invitations from these two friends. No conspiracy here; simply common courtesy.

MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/Getty Images

 

David Brog is the executive director of Christians United for Israel and the author of Standing with Israel: Why Christians Support the Jewish State.

GHADIR

11:42 PM ET

September 16, 2009

i have a very small comment

Israel has never withdrew from anywhere but due to losses, none of it could be considered "sacrifices" for peace as the author claims.
the Israel's withdrawal from Arab population centers in the West Bank in the 1990s was due to the Palestinian intifada, and Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 was due to continues losses of soldiers in occupied south Lebanon, and the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was due to the Palestinian resistance.
that all may have spread the belief in some portion of the Arabic population that Israel only understands force.
Arabs will not likely stay weak forever, china was a very primitive state in the past and look at it now>
The best thing u can due to that may prolong Israel existence is to urge it to work for peace without having to be forced to it.

 

JOHNCHEN

12:39 AM ET

September 17, 2009

I'm curious then to hear your

I'm curious then to hear your rationale for Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai.

 

GDRIVER

3:13 AM ET

September 17, 2009

It is taken for granted that

It is taken for granted that the Obama Government will not seek to protect alleged war criminals.

Israel today stands accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Using civilians as human shields to terrorize the population, being one such horrific allegation.

The U N Human Rights Commission report today recommends that the Security Council take this matter before the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.

It is taken for granted that the Obama Government will not seek to protect alleged war criminals by allowing LOBBY GROUPS to exert pressure on it to use its VETO to frustrate international justice, the rule of law and democracy.
That would be condoning war crimes, an act from which no Western government could completely recover.

Obama is not likely to take America back 50 years. This is the 21st century and neocons and neoZionists, are minority groups that may be tolerated but must not be allowed disproportionate influence over the majority, either in the House of Representatives or in society as a whole.

 

FARAMARZ FATHI

7:57 PM ET

September 17, 2009

"CUFI's support of Israel's government reflects our deep respect

"CUFI's support of Israel's government reflects our deep respect for Israel's democracy."

How mesmerizing!
I am baffled by the extent the Apartheid in state of Palestine are enthralled with the word democracy.
If there is one thing the occupiers are void of that is democracy.
It is an affront to all human being that the occupiers are endlessly showered and complimented with this word they find so threatening their occupations.

 

CASSMAN

8:36 PM ET

September 17, 2009

We all know how you support Israel...

But I have yet to hear WHY you support Israel so much. I wonder how many Israelis know that the Americans who support them so much see them as integral in fulfilling a Biblical prophecy (depending on a loose interpretation, at that) in bringing about the end of the world.

 

MARXMARVELOUS

1:00 AM ET

September 23, 2009

Why.

Why? Because the temple-sect that claims to encompass the “Levites” have convinced the CZs of their responsibility with respect to a belief of the temple-sect that if the world doesn’t accept a “Moschiach” every 6000 years there will be a giant war. We are now in 5769 of the relevant cycle. They believe that at all times there is living a person who could be the Moschiach. He doesn’t have to be Jewish. He will usher in “peace.”
Cyrus is the first to be “annointed.” The guys with the Linen Ephods are written to have met Alexander when he was passing thru Palestine and said they were waiting for him. The temple-sect are written to have accused Jesus of claiming to be King Moschiach when they themselves honored Caesar. See, Moschiach is a resolute character; no pockets of injustice, evil empires are allowed; he points, pushes, hosts clean up. Pax Romana was the vehicle 2 millenia ago. The Germans wouldn’t peaceify and pushed them back .A shoot off the Jewish shrub blossomed into Christianity and wised up the Romans--no more temple. It’s a shame that the school of Rabbis that disagreed with the temple-sect, of which Jesus was one, aren’t here today. They would need a sense of humor to make ANY sense of this coalition.
As in New Testament times these Rabbis would see the problem: The temple-sect was/is taking the Septuagint literally and “leavening” Torah to agree with it. Leavening is the air in the bread, the vowels. Torah is embodied in Hieroglyphs, spiritual glyphs unleavened bread; feeding thru the eyes. One can recognize them within. It is observations on the spirit, soul, intellect-intuition. Sticking aeiou under their little legs makes them new things that one can babbel with, fit them into stories. The leavening can turn one glyph-group in Torah into however many sound-words, verb-forms the various Septuagint stories require. For instance the same glyph-group is translated “hands” and “force.” The leaveners would have the world believe in an ancient “Hebrew” language that just got forgotten. They were just beginning to leaven at the time of Jesus. Most of my observations on this Moschiach as imagined by the temple-sect came from the Khababbel section of Tulane Library.
In ‘95 I went to Queens and visited the synagogue beneath the billboard of Menachen Schneerson to discuss the significance of the “bread.” Many believers saw him as Moschiach. See National Education Day. Friday afternoon, they were preparing for the Sabbath as I drank their coffee and decided who to ask. Twice, groups of two men came to me, apparently a gentile. A younger and an older. The younger spoke. I was told, twice, that we gentiles didn’t have as many rules as the Jews; they had 613 and we only had 7, the noahhide laws. Three stuck in memory. We can’t eat a limb off a living animal(preserving the rest.) We must protect Israel and we must establish acceptable justice systems in all nations. I didn’t see what was happening then. Sharon was still exhiled from government for the ’82 massacre of the Palestinian refugee camps Sabra and Chatillah near Beirut. Women, children, animals like Saul’s God told him to do if they won’t give their young men up.
Chabad.org had a library full of stories with allegorical psychological value up to Sept. ’00 when Charon assaulted the rock-pile with 1000 armed policemen and entered the Dome of the Rock without taking his shoes off. 16 Moslems killed that day. Why? Cause they were predictably rabid about the assault and stupidly protective. Media didn’t report this assault. Why did Charon do this?
Because the Prime Minister of Israel shook hands with Arafat in the Rose Garden in front of Clinton. Israel agreed to give the Palestinians some of Palestine and allow the UN to protect the rockpile as had been the agreement in ‘48. Since the Moslem sites have been there since 690 and Josephus wrote that the pile had stood under a Roman fort in his time we can see that all claimants are prejudiced and a mite of peace there seems like just the thing for a peace-keeping force--as in ‘48. The UN agreement was to take place in early ‘01. Since the Palestinian Authority didn’t roll over quick enough many more died and the Authority was disarmed. Forget all that stupid handshake and agreement. That’s why he did it. But first the temple-sect had to get rid of that PM who gave away the rock-pile. A starry eyed young Likud believer in the need to build the temple again did that. An ecstatic smile on his face as he is gently led away by police. As Charon baited the Moslems Chabad.org disappeared. Webmaster said they had a computer problem. A year later they returned and had changed totally. All the interesting stuff with psychological significance had disappeared and things like “giving up one Square centimeter of Israel is kicking sand in G-d’s face!!” Before that I had only seen such on Inner.org in Jerusalem. Strange stories about Shneerson appeared. Whereas he had been peaceful before, one story appeared on a Jewish holiday when the troops were passing Basra. The story claimed that back when Daddy Bush stopped the troops at Basra in the first Iraq war Schneerson castigated him and predicted by that holiday in ‘03 the troops would be passing Basra. This after ’01 story claimed that Schneerson asked that the prediction be kept secret. Silly. Another said that the reason Jewish mothers are so non-violent is because they leave the killing to the priests. My mother would have enjoyed that. They were clear as to plans to rebuild the temple and continue the sacrifices of lambs and doves and such. They needed a red heifer to vaporize so as to get the ashes to “cleanse” the temple.
A Mississippi ranch is working diligently to produce the right one. It can have no off-colored hairs. Priests must look over every hair. The same was done for the animals that bought off guilt. Not any lamb would do. As in Mississippi, breeders worked on this color thing; they brought their work to the priests who buy the lucky pure-colored ones and gave them to their minions in the vestibule of the temple to sell to Jews who must come from all over to pay their guilt tax.. They didn’t take kindly to the man who said he’d pay the price so none had to carry the guilt the temple -sect was laying about. I hope someone gives us the details but the best I can get of what the temple-sect is telling the Christian Zionists is that:
The temple must be built again, sacrifices reinstituted, the temple knocked down again and then Jesus can come again. Einstein claimed he was a zionist and wrote repeatedly that immigrants to Palestine must get along with Palestinians. He felt that Jews had a good effect on a nation. The media ignored: 1. his appeal that an international police force insure that no nation possessed the bomb and 2.anything he had to say of the Nation calling itself Israel. Broke his heart just as the massacres in the refugee camps did to Thomas Friedman and the rest of US just Jews.

 

RAYED878

1:39 AM ET

September 18, 2009

Israel: The Zionist State that must be non-Jew free

Consider the U.S. reaction to Israel's conquest of the Sinai in 1956 and in 1967. In 1956, the U.S. strongly opposed that action. Eisenhower and Dulles were quite forthright and outspoken about it a few days before the presidential election, allegedly a time when political considerations are paramount. Political considerations aside, the U.S. openly compelled Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, not caring about its impact in the presidential election. In contrast, the U.S. supported Israel's conquest of the Sinai in 1967 and has been backing it since that time.

What was the difference between 1956 and 1967? In 1956, Israel was allied with France and England who were trying to reestablish some position of significance in the Middle East, believing still they had some role to play in regulating the affairs of the region. Since Israel was collaborating with rivals of the U.S. in the region, the conquest became illegitimate.

In 1967, Israel was closely allied to the U.S. directly. As a result, the conquest was quite legitimate. U.S. government support of Israel is more or less in accord with the American perception of Israel's strength. The stronger Israel becomes, the more it is able to assist the U.S. in maintaining control of the region, so the more the U.S. will support it. Though the pretense has always been that we're supporting Israel because it is in danger, the opposite would be a much more accurate statement. American support for Israel is contingent upon its strength and ability to aid in maintaining American domination of the Middle East.

 

MESSIANIC

3:47 PM ET

September 22, 2009

Biblical and historical illiteracy...

All I can do is sigh at Christians who at best are devoid of any Biblical or historical knowledge of this situation and just talk idiotic talk.

Case in point; you people who think "Palestine" was EVER a legitimate people or nation, or that Israel is all about killing Arabs, or that Israel has no right to exist.

The second case in point are those Christians who think EVERYTHING Israel does is kosher and wonderful and great.

You want a REAL balanced view? K, I can do that.

First comes Bible, then comes history.

Biblically speaking, in Genesis 12:7, 13:14-15, and 15:7-21 you can CLEARLY see God telling Abraham the land belongs to his descendants. 13:15 clearly says FOREVER is how long it belongs to them. In this chapter it is clear the covenant is UNCONDITIONAL because only God passed through the sacrifices which means it's all on him, not Abraham. Maybe you should say it out loud: FOR-EV-ER. Chpater 15:18 gives the EXACT boundaries of what actually belongs to them; from the NILE to the EUPHRATES.

This is repeated to his descendants one after the other.

The only stipulation of the land's being ENJOYED (Not owned) is in Israel's obedience. This is clear in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Like with Assyria and Babylon, they were exiled for disobedience, but it was still their land, no matter who else was in there. God ALWAYS brought the faithful remnant back because as Romans 11 clearly states there is ALWAYS a remnant of Jewish people who are faithful to God in every generation. In our modern day context this would be Jews who trust in Yeshua as their Messiah, Savior, and King. There are MANY Messianic Jews in Israel, so their is no lack of obedience as far as their case goes. If anyone has a right to the land of Israel, it is Jewish people who follow Jesus.

So this leaves us with Ezekiel's prophecy of what God would do in chapter 35 about bringing them out of Babylon IN THEIR DISOBEDIENCE. He says "not for your sakes, but for MY NAME'S SAKE". It is clear that then, and even recently in 1948, he brings Israel back to their own land even though they are mostly in disobedience to Him because of His Name and His purposes. His purposes include fulfilling all His NUMEROUS promises to them which involved Jesus returning and reigning in Israel for the millennial reign, having an actual Mount of Olives with Israelis in it to come down to in order to end Armageddon. (How else would He end a war if Israel isn't their to be fought against at the time by the Antichrist's armies?) Maybe you should read the Book of Revelation and the writings of the prophets.

When Yeshua (Jesus) was preaching and He said in Matthew that the kingdom of God would be taken from "you" (Sanhedrin) and given to people who will produce its fruit, the obvious people who WERE producing its fruit were STILL JEWS, not Gentile Christians. They were just Jews who followed their Jewish Messiah Jesus. The whole Church was Jewish, and in its nature is still Jewish. The Roman Catholics bastardized the whole thing and made it European and mixed with paganism. Also to make a point mr "balanced view" you are dead wrong in saying Jesus has no desire to establish Israel, because when the disciples asked Him about it in Acts chapter 1, remember His answer was not "I'm not doing that. You are wrong. That's not my plan." He said "It's is not for you to know the TIMES OR THE EPOCHS that the Father has established." TRANSLATION = You don't need to know when it is going to happen, but I do! And it is obvious now that it is a reference to the Millennial reign of Christ.

So biblically speaking, without writing a whole position paper on this which I could do, the REAL issue here is that you are a replacement theologian, probably espousing the Satanic view that Christian are now Israel and the real Israel is nothing and discarded. As long as you hold that twisted view you can NEVER see things right. It's so simple. Israel is always the Jewish People. The Church are always people from Israel and not from Israel who follow Jesus. You don't become a Jew by being a follower of Christ. The Israel WITHIN Israel of Romans is JEWS WHO FOLLOW JESUS, not the Church in general. The Israel of God of Galatians 6 is also Jews who follow Jesus, not the Church in general.

Now for some history.

Do yourself a favor. Look up the word "Palestine". You'll notice emperor Hadrian of Rome around 110a.d. expelled the Israelis from their land and renamed the place Palistina. Hmmm..... sound like.... PALESTINE. (In Latin) He names it after the Philistines in order to mock the Jews. There are no "Palestinian" ethnic group. They are Arabs from the surrounding nations and the Palestinian thing was a propaganda assault against Israel YEARS after they lost wars against Israel which Israel IN THE NATURAL COLD NOT HAVE WON. How about the war of independence when 6 Arab Muslim nations attacked them right after becoming a nation, and Israel with only a few tanks and newly being established CRUSHED 6 ENTIRE FOREIGN ARMIES! Hello? You think God has nothing to do with that?

Maybe you should look into Islam a bit and realize what "hudnah" their "peace" is all about. It's LYING to your enemies who are BEATING you in order to rebuild while they THINK you have come to a place of peace. 7 year "peace treaty with Antichrist" ring a bell? Hello? ISLAM is the curse in the Middle east, not Israel. See if you can find Jewish leaders of Arab nations, cuz I know their are Arab leaders in Israel. See if Judaism or Christianity is tolerated in Muslim nations, and not them being executed. See if Jews have been murdering non-Jews for OVER A THOUSAND YEARS in the name of Allah, and not doing it outside the will of their "holy" book, but actually FOLLOWING IT TO A TEE. Maybe you should realize in Islam once they "conquer" land they CANNOT let the poeple retake their own land because it is an affront to Muhammad and Allah, that is why Jihad continues, they think because the Ottomans booted out Rome they own it forever, when in reality God still has it belonging to Israel FOREVER.

I could go on and on with more history about the malaria infested swampland the Jews BOUGHT from the Arabs their for RIDICULOUS PRICES, or I could go into more Scripture backing the re-establishment of Israel for their corporate salvation in Christ and to fulfill end-time events, but I don't think you would grasp it all.

Research history. Read the bible for what it SAYS not what CATHOLIC THEOLOGY SAYS. Then you will have a clue, sir. Oh and by the way. I DO NOT support everything Israel does politically or in other ways. But I will never deny their right to exist in their land with true safety and security. They are not righteous outside of Jesus, but they are chosen regardless. In God's plan He is still using them, and still desires to save them, and infact many ARE being saved.

 

PHOTONICPHILOSOPHER

5:20 PM ET

September 27, 2009

"We believe in God, and in

"We believe in God, and in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, and that which has been bestowed upon Abraham and Ishmael and isaac and Jacob and ,their descendants, and that which has been vouchsafed to Moses and Jesus; and that which has been vouchsafed to all the [other] prophets by their Sustainer: we make no distinction between any of them. And it is unto Him that we surrender ourselves."

You need to learn some history

Jews and Christians were allowed to practice their religion under the Islamic Caliphate for over 1000 years.

At one point, the Christians of Europe were expelling Jews and they were seeking refuge under Caliphate rule, where by, under God's law, all are afforded justice

Wait, we too are waiting.

When Jesus the Son of Mary returns, you will realize

 

RUDABEKIA

5:23 PM ET

September 18, 2009

Christian Zionists

The next best thing to a Zionist is a Christian Zionist. Hallelujah and may somebody's god protect us all!

 

GODSTRUTH

12:47 AM ET

September 27, 2009

Zionism

How utterly contemptible that "Christians" have swallowed the Zionist lies line, hook and sink.

Let's not confuse God's Zion with the current Zionist movement which is nothing more than a man-made racist, nationalist movement designed by non-semitic, non-bloodline "Jews". Modern day Israelis have perpetrated the greatest hoax and identity theft in world history.

Christian and "Jewish" Zionists are keen to promote the biblical verses about those who... "bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel shall be cursed"...but conveniently disregard John, the Revelator's message from God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, concerning the final days:

Revelation 2:9 (King James Version)

"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."

So important was this message that Jesus repeated it yet again concerning the fake "Jews" of the final days:

Revelation 3:9 (King James Version)

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

Now let's look at the real historic genesis of the modern day Israeli and discover for yourself why Christ was referring to them as the "synagogue of Satan".

"It is highly probable that the bulk of the Jew's ancestors 'never' lived in Palestine at all, which witnesses the power of historical assertion over fact."

Under the heading of "A brief History of the Terms for Jew" in the 1980 Jewish Almanac we read: "Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an Ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew."

The World Book omits any reference to the Jews, but under the word Semite it states: "Semite . . . Semites are those who speak Semitic languages. In this sense the ancient Hebrews, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Cartaginians were Semites. The Arabs and some Ethiopians are modern Semitic-speaking people. Modern Jews are often called Semites, but this name properly applies only to those who use the Hebrew Language. The Jews were once a sub-type of the Mediterranean race, but they have mixed with other peoples until the name 'Jew' has lost all racial meaning."

There are hundreds of books, mainly Jewish Encyclopedias and histories available for study, which prove that over 90% of the Jews of the world are not a Semitic people, but few people other than historians ever bother to read them. Following are just a few:

The Jews are Not a Race! by Dr. Alfred Lilienthal - Jewish historian, journalist, lecturer, and graduate of Cornell University and Columbia Law School. During the Second World War, he served with the US Army in the Middle East. He later served with the Department of State, and as a consultant to the American delegation at the organizing meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco.

Since 1947, he has been at the forefront in the struggle for a balanced US policy in the Middle East. He is the author of several acclaimed books on the Middle East, including The Zionist Connection. He now lives in Washington, DC.

On December 18, 1993 Dr. Lilienthal celebrated both his 80th birthday and the 40th anniversary of his first book, What Price Israel? Dr. Lilienthal, who is a courageous anti-Zionist Jew, was joined by more than 200 guests who travelled from all over the United States to attend.

The following excerpt is taken from this first book, What Price Israel?

Today, to trace anyone's descent to ancient Palestine would be a genealogical impossibility; and to presume, axiomatically, such a descent for Jews, alone among all human groups, is an assumption of purely fictional significance. Most everybody in the Western world could stake out some claim of Palestinian descent if genealogical records could be established for two thousand years. And there are, indeed, people who, though not by the widest stretch of imagination Jewish, proudly make that very claim: some of the oldest of the South's aristocratic families play a game of comparing whose lineage goes farther back into Israel. No one knows what happened to the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, but to speculate on who might be who is a favored Anglo-Saxon pastime, and Queen Victoria belonged to an Israelite Society that traced the ancestry of its membership back to those lost tribes.

Twelve tribes started in Canaan about thirty-five centuries ago; and not only that ten of them disappeared - more than half of the members of the remaining two tribes never returned from their "exile" in Babylon. How then, can anybody claim to descend directly from that relatively small community which inhabited the Holy Land at the time of Abraham's Covenant with God?

The Jewish racial myth flows from the fact that the words Hebrew, Israelite, Jew, Judaism, and the Jewish people have been used synonymously to suggest a historic continuity. But this is a misuse. These words refer to different groups of people with varying ways of life in different periods in history. Hebrew is a term correctly applied to the period from the beginning of Biblical history to the settling in Canaan. Israelite refers correctly to the members of the twelve tribes of Israel. The name Yehudi or Jew is used in the Old Testament to designate members of the tribe of Judah, descendants of the fourth son of Jacob, as well as to denote citizens of the Kingdom of Judah, particularly at the time of Jeremiah and under the Persian occupation. Centuries later, the same word came to be applied to anyone, no matter of what origin, whose religion was Judaism.

The descriptive name Judaism was never heard by the Hebrews or Israelites; it appears only with Christianity. Flavius Josephus was one of the first to use the name in his recital of the war with the Romans to connote a totality of beliefs, moral commandments, religious practices and ceremonial institutions of Galilee, which he believed superior to rival Hellenism. When the word Judaism was born, there was no longer a Hebrew-Israelite state. The people who embraced the creed of Judaism were already mixed of many races and strains; and this diversification was rapidly growing. . .

Perhaps the most significant mass conversion to the Judaic faith occurred in Europe, in the 8th century A.D., and that story of the Khazars (Turko-Finnish people) is quite pertinent to the establishment of the modern State of Israel. This partly nomadic people, probably related to the Volga Bulgars, first appeared in Trans-Caucasia in the second century. They settled in what is now Southern Russia, between the Volga and the Don, and then spread to the shores of the Black, Caspian and Azov seas. The Kingdom of Khazaria, ruled by a khagan or khakan fell to Attila the Hun in 448, and to the Muslims in 737. In between, the Khazars ruled over part of the Bulgarians, conquered the Crimea, and stretched their kingdom over the Caucasus farther to the northwest to include Kiev, and eastwards to Derbend. Annual tributes were levied on the Russian Slavonians of Kiev.

The city of Kiev was probably built by the Khazars. There were Jews in the city and the surrounding area before the Russian Empire was founded by the Varangians whom the Scandinavian warriors sometimes called the Russ or Ross (circa 855-863).

The influence of the Khazars extended into what is now Hungary and Roumania. Today, the villages of Kozarvar and Kozard in Transylvania bear testimony to the penetration of the Khazars who, with the Magyars, then proceeded into present-day Hungary. The size and power of the Kingdom of Khazaria is indicated by the act that it sent an army of 40,000 soldiers (in 626-627) to help Heraclius of the Byzantines to conquer the Persians.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia proudly refers to Khazaria as having had a "well constituted and tolerant government, a flourishing trade and a well disciplined army."

Jews who had been banished from Constantinople by the Byzantine ruler, Leo III, found a home amongst these heretofore pagan Khazars and, in competition with Mohammedan and Christian missionaries, won them over to the Judaic faith. Bulan, the ruler of Khazaria, became converted to Judaism around 740 A.D. His nobles and, somewhat later, his people followed suit. Some details of these events are contained in letters exchanged between Khagan Joseph of Khazaria and R. Hasdai Ibn Shaprut of Cordova, doctor and quasi foreign minister to Sultan Abd al-Rahman, the Caliph of Spain. This correspondence (around 936-950) was first published in 1577 to prove that the Jews still had a country of their own - namely, the Kingdom of Khazaria. Judah Halevi knew of the letters even in 1140. Their authenticity has since been established beyond doubt.

According to these Hasdai-Joseph letters, Khagan Bulan decided one day: "Paganism is useless. It is shameful for us to be pagans. Let us adopt one of the heavenly religions, Christianity, Judaism or Islam." And Bulan summoned three priests representing the three religions and had them dispute their creeds before him. But, no priest could convince the others, or the sovereign, that his religion was the best. So the ruler spoke to each of them separately. He asked the Christian priest: "If you were not a Christian or had to give up Christianity, which would you prefer - Islam or Judaism?" The priest said: "If I were to give up Christianity, I would become a Jew." Bulan then asked the follower of Islam the same question, and the Moslem also chose Judaism. This is how Bulan came to choose Judaism for himself and the people of Khazaria in the seventh century A.D., and thereafter the Khazars (sometimes spelled Chazars and Khozars) lived according to Judaic laws.

Under the rule of Obadiah, Judaism gained further strength in Khazaria. Synagogues and schools were built to give instruction in the Bible and the Talmud. As Professor Graetz notes in his History of the Jews, "A successor of Bulan who bore the Hebrew name of Obadiah was the first to make serious efforts to further the Jewish religion. He invited Jewish sages to settle in his dominions, rewarded them royally. . . and introduced a divine service modelled on the ancient communities. After Obadiah came a long series of Jewish Chagans (Khagans), for according to a fundamental law of the state only Jewish rulers were permitted to ascend the throne."

Khazar traders brought not only silks and carpets of Persia and the Near East but also their Judaic faith to the banks of the Vistula and the Volga. But the Kingdom of Khazaria was invaded by the Russians, and Itil, its great capital, fell to Sweatoslav of Kiev in 969.

The Byzantines had become afraid and envious of the Khazars and, in a joint expedition with the Russians, conquered the Crimean portion of Khazaria in 1016. (Crimea was known as "Chazaria" until the 13th century). The Khazarian Jews were scattered throughout what is now Russia and Eastern Europe. Some were taken North where they joined the established Jewish community of Kiev.

Others returned to the Caucasus. Many Khazars remarried in the Crimea and in Hungary.

The Cagh Chafut, or "mountain Jews," in the Caucasus and the Hebraile Jews of Georgia are their descendants. These "Ashkenazim Jews" (as Jews of Eastern Europe are called), whose numbers were swelled by Jews who fled from Germany at the time of the Crusades and during the Black Death, have little or no trace of Semitic blood.

That the Khazars are the lineal ancestors of Eastern European Jewry is a historical fact. Jewish historians and religious textbooks acknowledge the fact, though the propagandists of Jewish nationalism belittle it as pro-Arab propaganda. Somewhat ironically, Volume IV of the Jewish Encyclopaedia - because this publication spells Khazars with a "C" instead of a "K" - is titled "Chazars to Dreyfus": and it was the Dreyfus trial, as interpreted by Theodor Herzl, that made the modern Jewish Khazars of Russia forget their descent from converts to Judaism and accept anti-Semitism as proof of their Palestinian origin.

For all that anthropologists know, Hitler's ancestry might go back to one of the ten Lost Tribes of Israel; while Weizmann may be a descendant of the Khazars, the converts to Judaism who were in no anthropological respect related to Palestine. The home to which Weizmann, Silver and so many other Ashkenazim Zionists have yearned to return has most likely never been theirs. "Here's a paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox": in anthropological fact, many Christians may have much more Hebrew-Israelite blood in their veins than most of their Jewish neighbors.

The History of The Jewish Khazars, by D. M. Dunlop, pp. 4-15: ". . . Our first question here is, When did the Khazars and the Khazar name appear? There has been considerable discussion as to the relation of the Khazars to the Huns on the one hand and to the West Turks on the other. The prevalent opinion has for some time been that the Khazars emerged from the West Turkish empire. Early references to the Khazars appear about the time when the West Turks cease to be mentioned. Thus they are reported to have joined forces with the Greek Emperor Heraclius against the Persians in A.D. 627 and to have materially assisted him in the siege of Tiflis. It is a question whether the Khazars were at this time under West Turk supremacy. The chronicler Theophanes (died circa A.D. 818) who tells the story introduces them as "the Turks from the east whom they call Khazars.". . .

A similar discussion on the merits of the different races is reported from the days before Muhammad, in which the speakers are the Arab Nu'man ibn-al-Mudhir of al-Hirah and Khusraw Anushirwan. The Persian gives his opinion that the Greeks, Indians, and Chinese are superior to the Arabs and so also, in spite of their low material standards of life, the Turks and the Khazars, who at least possess an organization under their kings. Here again the Khazars are juxtaposed with the great nations of the east. It is consonant with this that tales were told of how ambassadors from the Chinese, the Turks, and the Khazars were constantly at Khusraw's gate, and even that he kept three thrones of gold in his palace, which were never removed and on which none sat, reserved for the kings of Byzantium, China and the Khazars.

In general, the material in the Arabic and Persian writers with regard to the Khazars in early times falls roughly into three groups, centering respectively round the names of (a) one or other of the Hebrew patriarchs, (b) Alexander the Great, and (c) certain of the Sassanid kings, especially, Anushirwan and his immediate successors. A typical story of the first group is given by Ya'qubi in his History. After the confusion of tongues at Babel, the descendants of Noah came to Peleg, son of Eber, and asked him to divide the earth among them. He apportioned to the descendants of Japheth - China, Hind, Sind, the country of the Turks and that of the Khazars, as well as Tibet, the country of the (Volga) Bulgars, Daylam, and the country neighboring on Khurasan. In another passage Ya'qubi gives a kind of sequel to this. Peleg having divided the earth in this fashion, the descendants of 'Amur ibn-Tubal, a son of Japheth, went out to the northeast. One group, the descendants of Togarmah, proceeding farther north, were scattered in different countries and became a number of kingdoms, among them the Burjan (Bulgars), Alans, Khazars (Ashkenaz), and Armenians. Similarly, according to Tabari, there were born to Japheth Jim-r (the Biblical Gomer), Maw'-' (read Mawgh-gh, Magog , Mawday (Madai), Yawan (Javan), Thubal (Tubal), Mash-j (read Mash-kh, Meshech) and Tir-sh (Tiras). Of the descendants of the last were the Turks and the Khazars (Ashkenaz). There is possibly an association here with the Turgesh, survivors of the West Turks, who were defeated by the Arabs in 119/737, and disappeared as a ruling group in the same century. Tabari says curiously that of the descendants of Mawgh-gh (Magog) were Yajuj and Majuj, adding that these are to the east of the Turks and Khazars. This information would invalidate Zeki Validi's attempt to identify Gog and Magog in the Arabic writers with the Norwegians. The name Mash-kh (Meshech) is regarded by him as probably a singular to the classical Massagetai (Massag-et).

A. Bashmakov emphasizes the connection of 'Meshech' with the Khazars, to establish his theory of the Khazars, not as Turks from inner Asia, but what he calls a Jephetic or Alarodian group from south of the Caucasus. Evidently there is no stereotyped form of this legendary relationship of the Khazars to Japheth. The Taj-al-Artis says that according to some they are the descendants of Kash-h (? Mash-h or Mash-kh, for Meshech), son of Japheth, and according to others both the Khazars and the Saqalibah are sprung from Thubal (Tubal). Further, we read of Balanjar ibn-Japheth in ibn-al-Faqih and abu-al-Fida' as the founder of the town of Balanjar. Usage leads one to suppose that this is equivalent to giving Balanjar a separate racial identity. In historical times Balanjar was a well-known Khazar center, which is even mentioned by Masudi as their capital.

It is hardly necessary to cite more of these Japheth stories. Their Jewish origin is priori obvious, and Poliak has drawn attention to one version of the division of the earth, where the Hebrew words for 'north' and 'south' actually appear in the Arabic text. The Iranian cycle of legend had a similar tradition, according to which the hero Afridun divided the earth among his sons, Tuj (sometimes Tur, the eponym of Turan), Salm, and Iraj. Here the Khazars appear with the Turks and the Chinese in the portion assigned to Tuj, the eldest son. Some of the stories connect the Khazars with Abraham. The tale of a meeting in Khurasan between the sons of Keturah and the Khazars (Ashkenaz) where the Khaqan is mentioned is quoted from the Sa'd and al-Tabari by Poliak. The tradition also appears in the Meshed manuscript of ibn-al-Faqih, apparently as part of the account of Tamim ibn-Babr's journey to the Uigurs, but it goes back to Hishim al-Kalbi. Zeki Validi is inclined to lay some stress on it as a real indication of the presence of the Khazars in this region at an early date. Al-Jahiz similarly refers to the legend of the sons of Abraham and Keturah settling in Khurasan but does not mention the Khazars. Al-Di-mashqi says that according to one tradition the Turks were the children of Abraham by Keturah, whose father belonged to the original Arab stock. Descendants of other sons of Abraham, namely the Soghdians and the Kirgiz, were also said to live beyond the Oxus. . ."

Benjamin Freeman, Facts are Facts: "CHAZARS: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with the very beginnings of the history of the Jews of Russia . . . driven on by the nomadic tribes of the steppes and by their own desire for plunder and revenge. . . In the second half of the sixth century the Chazars moved westward. . . The kingdom of the Chazars was firmly established in most of south Russia long before the foundation of the Russian monarchy by the Varangians. . . At this time the kingdom of the Chazars stood at the height of its power and was constantly at war. . . At the end of the eighth century . . . the chagan (king) of the Chazars and his grandees, together with a large number of his heathen people, embraced the Jewish religion"

Encyclopedia Americana (1985): "Khazar, an ancient Turkic-speaking people who ruled a large and powerful state in the steppes North of the Caucasus Mountains from the 7th century to their demise in the mid-11th century A.D. . . In the 8th Century it's political and religious head . . . as well as the greater part of the Khazar nobility, abandoned paganism and converted to Judaism. . ."

Encyclopedia Britannica (15th edition): "Khazars, confederation of Turkic and Iranian tribes that established a major commercial empire in the second half of the 6th century, covering the southeastern section of modern European Russia . . . In the middle of the 8th century the ruling classes adopted Judaism as their religion."

Academic American Encyclopedia (1985): "Ashkenazim, the Ashkenazim are one of the two major divisions of the Jews, the other being the Shephardim."

Encyclopedia Americana (1985): "Ashkenazim, the Ashkenazim are the Jews whose ancestors lived in German lands . . . it was among Ashkenazi Jews that the idea of political Zionism emerged, leading ultimately to the establishment of the state of Israel . . . In the late 1960s, Ashkenazi Jews numbered some 11 million, about 84 percent of the world Jewish population."

The Jewish Encyclopedia: "Khazars, a non-Semitic, Asiatic, Mongolian tribal nation who emigrated into Eastern Europe about the first century, who were converted as an entire nation to Judaism in the seventh century by the expanding Russian nation which absorbed the entire Khazar population, and who account for the presence in Eastern Europe of the great numbers of Yiddish-speaking Jews in Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Galatia, Besserabia and Rumania."

The Encyclopedia Judaica (1972): "Khazars, a national group of general Turkic type, independent and sovereign in Eastern Europe between the seventh and tenth centuries C.E. during part of this time the leading Khazars professed Judaism . . . In spite of the negligible information of an archaeological nature, the presence of Jewish groups and the impact of Jewish ideas in Eastern Europe are considerable during the Middle Ages. Groups have been mentioned as migrating to Central Europe from the East often have been referred to as Khazars, thus making it impossible to overlook the possibility that they originated from within the former Khazar Empire."

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia: "Khazars, a medieval people, probably related to the Volga Bulgars, whose ruling class adopted Judaism during the 8th cent. The Khazars seem to have emerged during the 6th cent., from the vast nomadic Hun (Turki) empire which stretched from the steppes of Eastern Europe and the Volga basin to the Chinese frontier. Although it is often claimed that allusions to the Khazars are found as early as 200 C.E., actually they are not mentioned until 627 . . . most Jewish historians date the conversion of the Khazar King to Judaism during the first half of this century [A.D.]. . ."

The primary meaning of Ashkenaz and Ashkenazim in Hebrew is Germany and Germans. This may be due to the fact that the home of the ancient ancestors of the Germans is Media, which is the Biblical Ashkenaz . . . Krauss is of the opinion that in the early medieval ages the Khazars were sometimes referred to as Ashkenazim . . . About 92 percent of all Jews or approximately 14,500,000 are Ashkenazim.

The Bible relates that the Khazars (Ashkenaz) Jews were/are the sons of Japheth not Shem: "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth; . . . the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz . . ." So the Bible verifies that the Ashkenaz Jews [Khazars] are not the descendants of Shem and cannot be Semitic.

The American People's Encyclopedia for 1954 at 15-292 records the following in reference to the Khazars: "In the year 740 A.D. the Khazars were officially converted to Judaism. A century later they were crushed by the incoming Slavic-speaking people and were scattered over central Europe where they were known as Jews. It is from this grouping that most German, Polish and Hungarian Jews are descended, and they likewise make up a considerable part of that population now found in America. The term Aschenazim is applied to this round-headed, dark-complexioned division."

Academic American Encyclopedia Deluxe Library Edition, Volume 12, page 66 states: "The Khazars, a turkic people, created a commercial and political empire that dominated substantial parts of South Russia during much of the 7th through 10th centuries. During the 8th century the Khazar Aristocracy and the Kagan (King) were converted to Judaism."

The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 6, page 836 relates: "Khazar, member of a confederation of Turkic-speaking tribes that in the late 6th century A.D. established a major commercial empire covering the southeastern section of modern European Russia . . . but the most striking characteristic of the Khazars was the apparent adoption of Judaism by the Khagan and the greater part of the ruling class in about 740 . . . The fact itself, however, is undisputed and unparalleled in the history of Central Eurasia. A few scholars have asserted that the Judaized Khazars were the remote ancestors of many of the Jews of Eastern Europe and Russia."

Collier's Encyclopedia, Volume 14, page 65 states: "Khazars [kaza'rz], a semi-nomadic tribe of Turkish or Tatar origin who first appeared north of the Caucasus in the early part of the third century . . . In the eighth century Khaghan Bulan decided in favor of the Jews and accepted Judaism for himself and for his people..."

New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII, page 173 relates: "The Khazars were an ethnic group, belonging to the Turkish peoples, who, toward the end of the 2d century of the Christian Era, had settled in the region between the Caucasus and the lower Volga and Don Rivers . . . At the beginning of the 8th century, dynastic ties bound the Khazars more closely to Constantinople, which led to a limited spread of Christianity among them. They also became acquainted with Judaism from the numerous Jews who lived in the Crimea and along the Bosphorus. When the Byzantine Emperor, Leo the Isaurian, persecuted the Jews in A.D. 723, many Jews found refuge in the Khazar kingdom, and their influence was so great that, around the middle of the 8th century, the King of the Khazars and many of the Khazar nobility accepted the Jewish faith."

The Cadillac Modern Encyclopedia, page 822, states: "Khazars (khah'-zahrz), a S Russian people of Turkic origin, who at the height of their power (during the 8th-10th cent., A.D.) controlled an empire which included Crimea, and extended along the lower Volga, as far E as the Caspian Sea. The Khazar Royal Family and Aristocracy converted to Judaism during the reign of King Bulan (768-809 A.D.) and Judaism was thereafter regarded as the state religion . . ."

There are many, many publications we could quote but from the above, we can clearly see that the Jews fully understand their Khazarian heritage as the third edition of The Jewish Encyclopedia for 1925 records: "CHAZARS [Khazars]: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with the very beginnings of the history of the Jews of Russia. The kingdom of the Chazars was firmly established in most of South Russia long before the foundation of the Russian monarchy by the Varangians (855). Jews have lived on the shores of the Black and Caspian seas since the first centuries of the common era [after the death of Christ]. Historical evidence points to the region of the Ural as the home of the Chazars. Among the classical writers of the Middle Ages they were known as the 'Chozars,' 'Khazirs,' 'Akatzirs,' and 'Akatirs,' and in the Russian chronicles as 'Khwalisses' and 'Ugry Byelyye.'. . ."

The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, XIII ix 1; XV vii 9 instructs us: John Hyrcanus forcibly assimilated the Edomites as a national group and they became "Jews" in about 120BC. The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived just after the time of Christ, wrote, "They [Edom] were hereafter no other than Jews'. The Jewish scholar Cecil Roth in his Concise Jewish Encyclopedia (1980) says on page 154, "John Hyrcanus forcibly converted [Edom] to Judaism. From then on they were part of the Jewish people. In the Talmud the name of Edom was applied to Christian Rome, and was then used for Christianity in general".

Terrible judgements against Edom are made in most of the prophecies of the Old Testament. For instance, Isaiah 34, 63, Jeremiah 49, and the entire book of Obadiah.

Isaiah 63:1-6, "Who is this coming from Edom . . . in garments stained with crimson? It is I [the Lord] who speak in righteousness and am mighty to save."

"Why are your garments red, as if you had trodden the winepress?"

"I have trodden the winepress alone: and of the people there was none to help Me. In My anger I trod them down, trampled them in My wrath. Their blood splattered My garments, and all My clothes are stained. For the day of vengeance is in My heart, and the year of My redeemed has come. . . I will tread down the people in My anger, and bring their blood upon the ground".

These verses refer to Revelations chapter 19:11-21, when the Word of God destroys His enemies: "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse: and He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True. . . His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns, and He had a Name written that no man knew but Himself. And He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and His Name is called The Word of God. . . and He trod the winepress of God’s fierce anger".

Jehovah of the Old Testament "hated Esau (Edom), against whom He has indignation forever" (Malachi 1:2-4). If Jesus will destroy Edom when He returns, then Edom is present today, and obviously evil, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic.

The Bible confirms Israel will be dominated by non-Semitic Jews until the consummation:

Genesis 27:39-41, "Isaac prophesied to Esau his son, Yours will be no life of ease and luxury but you shall hew your way by your sword. For a time you will serve your brother, but when you break loose you shalt have the dominion. So Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him: and Esau said to himself, The days of mourning for my father are approaching; then will I slay my brother Jacob".

Daniel 9:27, "Rome will confirm a covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it defile the sanctuary until the consummation and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate".

Luke 21:24, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled".

Also see Isaiah 6:10-13; 28:22; Daniel 2:40-45; Joel 2:17; Zechariah 12-14; Malachi 1:3-4; 3:2-18; Revelation 11:2,8 and so-forth. My thanks to Willie Martin.

It is time for the world and especially the Christian body to awaken to the horrible mistake they have made about those who inhabit Israel as they are not the true heirs either in its spiritual nor physical manifestation.

Today's Israel is atheist and a den for international criminality.

Now the trick is to find a "Christian" church that follows the teachings of Christ and not of Zionists.