le lion de poncins judaism and the vatican

JUDAISM AND THE

V A T I C A N

VlCOMTE LEON DE PONCINS

V I C O M T E L E O N D E PONCINS is descended from an old and distinguished French family, having a long tradition in the study of spiritual and political subversion. His paternal great grand-father was killed fighting against the 1789 Revolution, and his maternal great grand-father was imprisoned by Napoleon for his support of the monarchy.

The author himself, while refraining from all direct contact with political activity, has written nearly twenty books dealing with specific aspects of the problem of subversion in the modern world, and outside France, his works have been published in England, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Hungary, Bulgaria and Portugal. Before the last war, he founded and directed the famous review Contre-Revolution, which was published from Geneva in Switzerland.

During the Second World War he was enlisted in French Military Intelligence in which he served until the Liberation. Later the Liberation Authorities brought an unsuccessful prosecution against him for alleged treason in respect of some of his writings but it was found that he had merely published texts by eminent Jewish scholars, the authenticity of which were incontestable.

Of all who have attacked the problem of political and spiritual subversion in the modern world, none has won more universal acclaim by his penetrating logic and strict impartiality than Vicomte de Poncins.

© V I C O M T E L E O N D E P O N C I N S 1967

Reprinted 1985 Reprinted 1999

J U D A I S M and the

VATICAN A N A T T E M P T A T

S P I R I T U A L S U B V E R S I O N

T r a n s l a t e d f r o m the

F r e n c h of

V l C O M T E L É O N D E P O N C I N S

b y

T i m o t h y T i n d a l - R o b e r t s o n

Christian Book Club of America Post Office Box 900566

Palmdale, California 93590-0566

"It is a vital principle never to deform the truth. Truth is always fundamental for all responsible men. It should always prevail ."

Pope John X X I I I

"It is a veritable competition as to who can make the Jews appear most hateful. Richly chequered and pathetic as is the narrator of the fourth Gospel (St. John), the palm goes to Matthew; his unerring hand unleashed the poisoned arrow that can never be withdrawn."

Jules Isaac: Jesus et Israel, p. 483

"Professor Isaac, a distinguished French-Jewish historian . . . devoted the last years of his life to a study of the religious roots of anti-Semitism. H e had audiences w i t h the late Popes Pius X I I and John X X I I I , the latter being of considerable importance and leading to subsequent emendation of certain passages offensive to Jews in the Roman l i turgy. "

]ewish Chronicle 29th October 1965, p. 14

" . . . the permanent and latent source of anti-Semitism is none other than Christian religious teaching of every description, and the traditional, tendentious interpretations of the Scriptures."

Jules Isaac: Jesus et Israel, p. 572

C O N T E N T S

P A R T I

T H E " T E A C H I N G O F C O N T E M P T "

Chapter page

1 T h e Jewish Quest ion and the C o u n c i l 9

2 Jules Isaac and the Evangelists 14

3 Jules Isaac and the C h u r c h Fathers 20

P A R T II

T H E P R O B L E M O F T H E A G E S

4 T h e C o m p l e x i t y of the Jewish Problem 45

5 Mosa ic L a w and the T a l m u d 5 3

6 T h e M a r r a n o s 60 7 A s s i m i l a t i o n 64 8 A State w i t h i n a State 73 9 A n t i - S e m i t i s m 82

10 W o r l d Revolut ion 96

11 Eternal A n t a g o n i s m 111 12 '"Portrait of a Jew" 123

P A R T III

T H E C O U N C I L ' S S O L U T I O N

13 T h e V a t i c a n V o t e 133

14 Tracts against the C o u n c i l 159

15 H o w the Jews changed C a t h o l i c T h i n k i n g 167

A p p e n d i x I A p p e a l to Heads of State 175

A p p e n d i x II Six M i l l i o n Innocent V i c t i m s 178

Bib l iography 191

Index 193

5

D E D I C A T E D

To the Memory of the Church Fathers who

constructed Christian civilisation.

P A R T I T H E " T E A C H I N G O F C O N T E M P T "

" ' T h e Ecumenical Council 's Declaration on the Church and non-Christians l i f t ing the charge of collective guilt from the Jewish people was impudent, cheap politics, and an insult to God,' said D r . Eliezer Berkovitz, Professor of Jewish Philosophy at the Jewish University of America, i n Toronto last week.

" H e said that Christianity was spread throughout Europe not by the Gospel but by the sword, and the spirit of ecumenism ana interfaith understanding now put forward was little more than a public relations stunt."

Jewish Chronicle, 28th January, 1966, p. 17

"The Gospel version of the Jesus trial, as presented to us by the scribes of the Bishop of Rome as the great judicial event of the first century, is terrifying i n its cunning malevolence."

D . G. Runes: The Jew and the Cross, 1965, p .26

"The difficult and slow process of building a happier relationship between Christian and Jew can only proceed if stereotypes and prejudices are cast aside and replaced by rational and intelligent reappraisal. It is essential that we understand more about each other. We must talk, but conversation does not mean conversion."

Jewish Chronicle editorial, 27th January, 1967

I

T H E J E W I S H Q U E S T I O N A N D

T H E C O U N C I L

O N the 19th N o v e m b e r 1964, the bishops and cardinals of the Cathol ic C h u r c h gathered i n C o u n c i l at Rome passed by an overw h e l m i n g major i ty the Schema deal ing w i t h the attitude of the C h u r c h towards Judaism.

Le M o n d e of the 27th November referred to the violent reactions provoked by this vote among the Eastern Rite Cathol ic churches and among the A r a b states.

T h e article concluded w i t h a post-script f r o m the paper's Rome correspondent, H . Fesquet, w h o was considered the spokesman for Father Congar , the leader of the C a t h o l i c progressive w i n g . Fesquet began b y recal l ing that conci l iar votes are secret, and then went on to a d d :

" N i n e t y - n i n e Fathers voted ' N o ' . O n e thousand six hundred and fifty-one voted 'Yes' and two h u n d r e d and forty- two voted 'Yes' w i t h reservations. Moreover , this was o n l y a provis ional vote, and the final ballot w i l l take place at the end of the f o u r t h session of the C o u n c i l i n 1965.

" I n the general assembly the Eastern bishops intervened as a body, saying that they were opposed in pr inciple to a declaration on the Jews by the C o u n c i l . W e can therefore conjecture that the n inety-n ine Fathers w h o had voted i n the negative were i n the m a i n the Eastern ones."

T h e f o l l o w i n g is a passage taken f rom the text of the declaration on the Jews voted by the C o u n c i l Fathers on the 20th November 1964:

". . . Since such is the inheri tance accepted by Chr is t ians f rom the Jews, this h o l y C o u n c i l resolves expressly to further and to recommend reciprocal understanding and appreciation, to be obtained by theological study and fraternal discussion and. beyond that, inasmuch as it severely disapproves of any w r o n g infl icted u p o n men wheresoever, it equal ly deplores and condemns hatred and maltreatment (vexationem) of Jews. . . .

9

10 JUDAISM AND THE VATICAN

" E v e r y o n e should be careful , therefore, not to expose the Jewish people as a rejected n a t i o n , be i t i n catechetical t u i t i o n , i n preachi n g of God's W o r d or i n w o r l d l y conversat ion, nor should anyt h i n g be said or done w h i c h m a y alienate the minds of men f r o m the Jews. E q u a l l y , all should be on their guard not to impute to the Jews of our t ime that w h i c h was perpetrated i n the Passion of C h r i s t . "

(The Tablet, 26th September 1964, p . 1094--the revised text on the agenda for the th i rd session)

A t first sight, this m o t i o n seems to conform to the u n c h a n g i n g doctrine of the C h u r c h w h i c h , w h i l e s t r i v i n g to protect the C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y against Jewish influences, has a lways condemned persecution, a fact w h i c h has indeed been c a n d i d l y acknowledged b y a Jewish wr i ter , M a x I. D i m o n t :

"Popes and princes of the M i d d l e A g e s could have wiped out the Jews completely had they wanted to, but they d id not w a n t to. . . . W h e n , because of social , economic, or even rel igious pressures, the presence of the Jews became u n w a n t e d , they were banished, not k i l l e d . T h e C h u r c h endowed a l l h u m a n beings w i t h a soul , and i t took a man's l i fe o n l y to save his soul . It was o n l y w h e n re l ig ion lost its deterrent h o l d o n m a n that W e s t e r n society could entertain the idea of cool ly m u r d e r i n g m i l l i o n s because it felt there was no room for t h e m . "

( M . I. D i m o n t : Jews, God and History, p . 286)

In fact, however, the m o t i o n voted on i n Rome implies that the major i ty of the C o u n c i l Fathers are under a serious misapprehension as to w h a t constitutes the very essence of Judaism. It w o u l d seem that they have o n l y applied themselves to the h u m a n i t a r i a n aspect of the problem s k i l f u l l y submitted b y the spokesmen of W o r l d Jewry and by a Press largely favourable to Jewish interests.

T h e t r u t h , it is suggested, is that a n u m b e r of Jewish organisations and personalities are behind the reforms w h i c h were proposed at the C o u n c i l w i t h a v i e w to m o d i f y i n g the C h u r c h ' s att i tude and time-honoured teaching about J u d a i s m : Jules Isaac, Label K a t z , President of the B ' n a i B ' r i t h , N a h u m G o l d m a n , President of the W o r l d Jewish Congress, etc.

These reforms are very important because they suggest that for two thousand years the C h u r c h had been mistaken and that she must make amends and completely reconsider her att i tude to the Jews.

A m o n g the Catho l i c l a i ty , a s imilar campaign is being carried on by progressive prelates w h o , tak ing their stand on the historical fact

THE JEWISH QUESTION AND T H E COUNCIL 11

that C h r i s t i a n i t y is i n direct l ine of descent f rom Judaism, c la im a toleration for Jews, w h i c h the latter as we shall see, are far f r o m professing w i t h regard to Chr is t ians . In actual fact, for both parties, it is a weapon designed to overthrow tradi t ional C a t h o l i c i s m , w h i c h they consider the chief enemy.

O f the Jewish personalities mentioned above, there was one w h o played a v i ta l r o l e : the wri ter , Jules Isaac, of Aix-en-Provence, w h o died recently . H e was at one time Inspector-General of Publ ic Educat ion i n France and the author of academic books on his tory .

Isaac turned the C o u n c i l to advantage, h a v i n g f o u n d there considerable support among progressive bishops. In fact he became the p r i n c i p a l theorist a n d promoter of the campaign being waged against the t radi t ional teaching of the C h u r c h .

T h i s is the gist of his thesis : W e must have done w i t h anti -Semitism, the logical outcome of

w h i c h was the l i q u i d a t i o n of European Jews at A u s c h w i t z and other death camps d u r i n g the Second W o r l d W a r .

A c c o r d i n g to h i m , the most dangerous f o r m of anti-Semitism is C h r i s t i a n ant i -Semit ism, w h i c h is f u n d a m e n t a l l y theological . Indeed, the C h r i s t i a n att i tude to Judaism has always been based on the account of the Passion as described by the four Evangelists and as commented o n b y the Fathers of the C h u r c h such as St. John C h r y s o s t o m , St. A m b r o s e , St. A u g u s t i n e , Pope Gregory the Great, St. A g o b a r d , Primate of the Gauls , and m a n y others.

T h u s it is this theological foundat ion that Jules Isaac sought to undermine i n d i sput ing the historical value of the Gospel accounts and i n discredit ing the arguments advanced by the Fathers of the C h u r c h to protect Chr i s t ians f r o m being inf luenced by the Jews w h o were charged w i t h everlasting p lo t t ing against the C h r i s t i a n order.

N o w let us consider i n detail w h a t steps Jules Isaac took, both i n the V a t i c a n and i n the heart of the C o u n c i l , to get his views accepted.

A f t e r the disappearance of his w i f e and daughter, w h o died d u r i n g deportat ion, he dedicated the last t w e n t y years of his l i fe to a cr i t ical s tudy of relations between Judaism and C h r i s t i a n i t y , and to this end he wrote two important books, Jesus et Israel, first published i n 1946 and republished i n 1959, and Genèse de l 'Ant i sémit i sme , first publ ished i n 1948 and republished i n 1956.

In these books Jules Isaac fiercely censures C h r i s t i a n teaching, w h i c h he says has been the source of modern anti -Semitism, and preaches, t h o u g h it w o u l d be more correct to say he demands, the " p u r i f i c a t i o n " and " a m e n d m e n t " of doctrines two thousand years o l d . Fur ther on we shall briefly examine these two books; for the

12 JUDAISM AND T H E VATICAN

moment let us cont inue our review of the part played b y Jules Isaac i n b r i n g i n g the Jewish question to the at tent ion of the C o u n c i l .

A s early as the end of the w a r he began organis ing both nat iona l and internat ional gatherings attended b y sympathet ic Cathol ics w h o were favourably disposed towards his arguments .

I n 1947,1 f o l l o w i n g Judaeo-Catholic dialogues of this k i n d , w h i c h were attended, among the Jews, b y E d m o n d Fleg and Samy Lattés, and among the Cathol ics , b y H e n r i M a r r o u , Father Daniélou, and the A b b é V i e i l l a r d of the Episcopal Secretariat, he drew u p a n 18 point m e m o r a n d u m on " T h e rectif ication of C h r i s t i a n teaching concerning Israel" .

T h e same year he was inv i ted to the internat ional conference i n Seelisberg i n S w i t z e r l a n d attended b y seventy members f r o m nineteen countries , among w h o m were Father C a l l i x t e Lopinot , Father D e m a n n , Pastor Freudenberg and the G r a n d R a b b i K a p l a n . I n general session the conference adopted the " T e n Points of Seelisb e r g " , w h i c h suggested to the C h r i s t i a n Churches measures to be adopted to p u r i f y religious teaching concerning the Jews.

T h e n Jules Isaac established the first Judaeo-Christ ian fr iendship society w i t h the help of the G r a n d R a b b i of France and his assistant , Jacob K a p l a n , and the Jews E d m o n d Fleg and Leon A l g a z i , C a t h o l i c fr iends such as H e n r i M a r r o u , Jacques M a d a u l e , Jacques N a n t e t , and Protestant fr iends such as Professor L o v s k y and Jacques M a r t i n . T h e society's regulations debarred members f r o m t r y i n g to convert one another, and its establishment was soon fo l lowed by others i n A i x , Marsei l les , Nîmes, M o n t p e l l i e r , L y o n s and last ly i n L i l l e , where Jules Isaac secured the help of a n u n of D o m Bosco's order and the support of C a r d i n a l Liénart. Later on he founded another i n N o r t h A f r i c a .

I n 1949 he made contacts w i t h the clergy i n Rome, and t h r o u g h them he was able to obta in a pr ivate audience w i t h Pius X I I , to w h o m he pleaded on behalf of Judaism, asking h i m to have the " T e n Points of Seelisberg" examined.

In 1959 he he ld a conference at the Sorbonne on the need for revis ing C h r i s t i a n teaching o n the Jews and he closed w i t h an appeal to Pope John's sense of justice and love of t r u t h .

S h o r t l y afterwards he met several prelates of the R o m a n C u r i a , i n part icular Cardinals Tisserand, Jul l ie , O t t a v i a n i , and C a r d i n a l Bea; and on the 13 th June 1960 he was granted an audience by the Pope, w h o m he asked to condemn the " teaching of contempt" , suggesting

1 A l l the following information is taken from statements made by Jules Isaac himself.

THE JEWISH QUESTION AND T H E COUNCIL 13

that a sub-commission should be set u p specifically to s tudy the problem.

Some t ime afterwards Jules Isaac " learned w i t h joy that his suggestions had been considered b y the Pope and handed on to C a r d i n a l Bea for e x a m i n a t i o n " . T h e latter set u p a special w o r k i n g par ty to study relations between the C h u r c h and Israel, w h i c h finally resulted i n the C o u n c i l vote on the 20th N o v e m b e r 1964.

2

J U L E S I S A A C A N D

T H E E V A N G E L I S T S

L E T US n o w examine the objections to the Gospel writers raised by Jules Isaac, in part icular w i t h reference to their account of the Passion, and his objection to the C h u r c h Fathers w h o m he holds responsible for what he calls the " teaching of conte mpt" w i t h w h i c h apparent ly the whole C h r i s t i a n menta l i ty has been completely i m pregnated.

Jules Isaac f r i g i d l y denies that the account given by the Evangelists has a n y historical v a l u e :

" T h e his tor ian has the r ight and the d u t y , an absolute d u t y , to regard the Gospel accounts as witnesses for the prosecution (against the Jews), w i t h the aggravat ing drawback that they are the sole witnesses and that a l l four of them wri te f rom the same a n g l e : we have no Jewish or pagan evidence for comparison or w i t h w h i c h to weigh one against the other. N o w this bias of the Gospel writers is nowhere more evident or more marked, this absence of n o n - C h r i s t i a n documentat ion is nowhere more deplorable, than i n the story of the Passion. . . . But it is quite s t r i k i n g h o w a l l four writers are preoccupied w i t h reducing R o m a n responsib i l i ty to the m i n i m u m i n order correspondingly to increase that of the Jews. Moreover , they are not equal ly biased: i n this respect M a t t h e w is far and a w a y the worst , not o n l y worse than M a r k or L u k e but perhaps even worse than John. Is this so surpris ing? There are no more bitter opponents than brothers in e n m i t y : n o w M a t t h e w was a Jew, f u n d a m e n t a l l y a Jew, the most Jewish of the Evangelists, and according to an apparently wel l -founded tradit ion he wrote ' i n Palestine and for the Palestinians' to prove f r o m the O l d Testament that Jesus was indeed the Messiah prophesied by the Scriptures. . . . But does the cause of historical t r u t h derive a n y value f r o m this? W e are at l iberty to doubt it . It is not at a l l surpr is ing that of the three Synopt ic writers M a t t h e w is the most biased, his account of the Passion

JULES ISAAC AND THE EVANGELISTS 15

being the most tendentious, w h i l e the most impar t ia l i n the c i rcumstances--or the least b iased-- is L u k e , the o n l y non-Jewish Gospel wri ter , the o n l y one of Gent i le o r i g i n .

(Jules Isaac: Jésus et Israel, p p . 428-9)

" B u t let us not forget . . . that they are al l i n agreement i n asserting that there, i n Pilate's presence, at a u n i q u e moment i n t ime, at a n hour w h i c h struck once for a l l m a n k i n d and w h i c h means more to h u m a n i t y than a n y other moment i n the w h o l e w o r l d , the w h o l e Jewish people expressly and expl i c i t ly took on itself the responsibi l i ty of the innocent B lood , the total respons ib i l i ty , the nat iona l responsibi l i ty. It remains to be s h o w n to what degree the texts and the real i ty of w h i c h they give an indicat ion warrant the appal l ing gravi ty of such a n assertion.

(Jules Isaac, i b i d . , p . 478)

" T h e C h r i s t i a n charge brought against Israel, that of deicide, a n accusation of murder w h i c h is i n itself murderous , is the most serious, the most in jur ious possible; it is also the most in iqui tous .

"Jesus had been condemned to the agony of the Cross , a R o m a n punishment , by Pont ius Pilate, the R o m a n Procurator .

" B u t the four evangelists, for once i n agreement, state that Jesus was g iven u p to the Romans b y the Jews, and that, o w i n g to irresistible pressure by the Jews, Pilate, a l t h o u g h he wished to declare Jesus innocent , nevertheless had h i m p u t to death. Therefore, it is u p o n the Jews, not u p o n the Romans w h o were mere instruments , that responsibil i ty for the C r i m e devolves, and it weighs them d o w n w i t h supernatural force and crushes them.

(Jules Isaac, ib id . , p. 567)

" A t first sight we are impressed by the u n a n i m i t y - - a t least on the sur face - -o f the four evangelists on the point at issue, namely Jewish responsibi l i ty .

" T h a t the R o m a n pronounced the death sentence under pressure f r o m the Jews a l l four Gospel writers to be sure earnestly bear witness w i t h one voice. B u t as their test imony is a n indic tment w h i c h is prejudiced and impassioned, c i rcumstant ia l and belated, f r a n k l y speaking, we find it impossible to accept i t w i t h o u t reser-

vation. (Jules Isaac, ib id . , p. 478)

" M a t t h e w is the o n l y one w h o recognised ( x x v i i . 24-25) that the Procurator Pi late ceremoniously washed his hands according to Jewish custom to r id himself of the g u i l t of innocent blood


w h i c h he was compelled to shed. H e is the o n l y one to observe that 'a l l the people' cried out, ' H i s blood be u p o n us and upon our ch i ldren ' . M a r k , L u k e and John k n o w n o t h i n g and say n o t h i n g , either about the famous ablut ion or about the te r r i fy ing exc lamat ion. (Jules Isaac, ib id . , p. 481)

" T h e suggestive gradation observed i n the first phase of the trial is repeated again here, and i t is h i g h l y perceptible f r o m M a r k to M a t t h e w , according to w h o m ( x x v i i . 24-25), Pilate deliberately absolves himself f rom responsibi l i ty ( through washing his hands), w h i c h 'the Jewish people', by contrast, takes almost j o y f u l l y on itself. In Luke's account Pilate three times declares Jesus innocent and obviously wishes to set h i m free ( x x i i . 14, 15, 16, 20, 22). John goes even f u r t h e r : he does not hesitate to prolong the extraordinary comings and goings of the Procurator i n and out of the praetorium; after the interlude of the scourging comes the pitiable e x h i b i t i o n : 'Behold the m a n ! ' ; then more conversation between Pilate and ' the Jews': the agitat ion of Pilate w h e n he learns that Jesus has claimed to be the 'Son of G o d ' ; then Pilate and Jesus exchange words; a further effort by Pilate to release Jesus; then b lackmai l by the Jews ' i f y o u set h i m free, y o u are no fr iend of Caesar's' (John x i x . 1 2), to w h i c h the vac i l la t ing Procurator at length gives w a y : ' then he delivered h i m u p to them to be cruci f ied ' . (John xix 16)

" A veritable competi t ion as to w h o can makes the Jews more hate fu l .

" W h a t could not be said, what has not been said on the grounds of historical probabi l i ty . But it is dangerous g r o u n d , as I w e l l k n o w : t ru th 'can sometimes appear improbable ' . It makes me all the more inc l ined to remark that, conspicuously in M a t t h e w and John, the figure of Pontius Pilate exceeds the bounds of improbab i l i t y . . .

" I t is hard to believe that the a l l -powerful Procurator i n bewilderment had to consult the Jews, his subjects, and the h i g h priests. his instruments, as to what he should do w i t h the prisoner, Jesus.

( M a r k x v . 12; M a t t h e w x x v i i . 22)

"I t is hard to believe that the butcher of Jews and Samaritans, suddenly overcome by scruples about a Gal i lean Jew accused of messianic agitat ion, stooped to solicit the pi ty of the Jews for h i m : ' W h a t evil has he done? '

( M a r k x v . 14; M a t t h e w x x v i i . 23)

JULES ISAAC AND THE EVANGELISTS 17

" I t is hard to believe that a R o m a n official had to have recourse to the Jewish symbolic r i tua l of washing hands to r id himself of his r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - - i n the eyes of the G o d of Israel no doubt.

( M a t t h e w x x v i i . 24)

"I t is hard to believe that the c u n n i n g pol i t ic ian in h i m took it into his head that day to take the side of the luckless prophet against the nat ive ol igarchy upon w h o m it was customary for the R o m a n rulers to rely and upon w h o m he himself depended, for Pilate held Judea through H a n a n and Caiaphas .

"It is hard to believe that the representative of Rome, whose supreme d u t y and care was to ensure respect for R o m a n grandeur, went to and fro i n honour of a few devout Jews f rom the judge's seat to the street outside where they were gathered.

" I t is hard to believe that a strong ruler , though ready to shed blood to prevent a n y rising or threat of a r is ing, nevertheless to please the Jewish crowd agreed to release a ' w e l l - k n o w n ' rioter imprisoned on a charge of sedition and murder (and w h y did the c ruc i f ix ion of Jesus have to fo l low the release of Barabbas?).

" I t is hard to believe that the judge, the law-maker of the province, though apparently obl iv ious of the fact, said to the h i g h priests his inter locutors : T a k e h i m yourselves and cruc i fy h i m . '

(John x i x . 6)

"I t is hard to believe that a pagan sceptic was impressed by the charge cast against Jesus by the Jews- -according to John x i x . 7-8 --that 'he had made himself out to be the Son of G o d ' ( in the C h r i s t i a n sense, being quite incomprehensible at first sight either to a pagan or to a Jew).

"It is hard to believe that a R o m a n lawyer , so precise i n m i n d , could have apparently waived a l l T r a d i t i o n a l methods of procedure d u r i n g the t r ia l of Jesus.

" B u t it is even more unbelievable, a thousand times more so, that a Jewish c r o w d , 'the whole people' of the Jews, patriotic and devout, suddenly became enraged against Jesus to the point of besieging Pilate, a detested R o m a n , and demanding that the prophet w h o had been so eagerly sought after the day before, a man of the people, one of their o w n people, should be crucified in the Roman w a y by Roman soldiers. . . .

(Jules Isaac, ib id . , pp. 483-4)

" A n d what of the historic scene w h i c h emphasised the contrast between the a c t i o n of Pilate washing his hands and the cry of 'the whole people' of the Jews: ' H i s blood be upon us and upon our ch i ldren '?


' ' W e have already referred to it, but not nearly enough w h e n one considers ai l the evils to w h i c h it has given rise.


" I s t i l l m a i n t a i n that Pilate's gesture was 'completely at vari ance w i t h the procedure of R o m a n trials' ; that is sufficient. I have the r ight to draw the conclusion that i n a l l probabi l i ty the gesture never was i n fact made. T h e w h o l e performance is of doubt fu l authent ic i ty and we find that it is i n fact pushed to absurd lengths.

" T h e reply of the Jews ' H i s blood be upon us and u p o n our chi ldren ' undoubtedly becomes less paradoxical w h e n it is l inked w i t h ancient Hebra ic traditions and expressions. B u t , as we have said, it is quite as incredible by reason of its heinous character and of the rage to w h i c h it claims to give utterance. . . .

(Jules Isaac, ib id . , pp. 491-2)

" N e v e r has a narrative appeared so obviously tendentious, or anxie ty to 'impress' been so marked, c u l m i n a t i n g in verses 24 and 25, w h i c h compel conviction in all open minds.

" N o , Pilate did not wash his hands according to the Jewish custom.

" N o , Pilate did not protest his innocence. " N o , the Jewish crowd did not cry out: ' H i s blood be upon us

and upon our ch i ldren. . . . ' " B u t w h a t is the good of stressing al l this a n y more? T h e case

is u p for hearing i n the eyes of a l l men of good f a i t h . A n d I venture to say, i n the eyes of God too.


"Therefore the total responsibi l i ty of the Jewish people, of the Jewish nat ion and of Israel for condemning Jesus to death is a matter of legendary belief and not based on solid historical founda-

tions. . . . (Jules Isaac, i b i d . , p p . 514-15)

" T o main ta in the opposite v iewpoint , one w o u l d have to be intractably and fanat ical ly prejudiced, or have a b l i n d belief i n a tradition w h i c h , as we k n o w , is not ' n o r m a l ' , and thus ought not to be la id d o w n as a rule of thought for even the most docile sons of the C h u r c h - - a tradit ion w h i c h , moreover, is in f in i te ly noxious and murderous, and w h i c h , as I have said and shal l repeat, leads to A u s c h w i t z - - A u s c h w i t z and other places. Some six m i l l i o n Jews were l iquidated solely because they were Jews and this

JULES ISAAC AND T H E EVANGELISTS 19

brought shame not o n l y upon the G e r m a n people but upon the whole of C h r i s t i a n i t y , because w i t h o u t centuries of C h r i s t i a n teaching, preaching and v i tuperat ion , H i t l e r ' s teaching, propaganda and vi tuperat ion w o u l d have been impossible . "


In short, i n their account of the Passion, n o w revised and corrected by Jules Isaac, the writers of the Gospels appear as arrant liars of w h o m M a t t h e w is unquest ionably the most venomous.

" H e bears the p a l m . H i s unerr ing hand unleashed the poisoned arrow that can never be w i t h d r a w n . "


3 J U L E S I S A A C A N D

T H E C H U R C H F A T H E R S

A s we have seen, the Evangelists have been disposed of, and Jules Isaac n o w proceeds to attack the C h u r c h Fathers, w h o for 1,500 years have codified C h r i s t i a n doctrine on Judaism.

" I t is o n l y too true that there was a strong current of ant i -Semitism i n the pagan w o r l d , long pr ior to C h r i s t i a n anti-Semitism.

" I t is o n l y too true that this anti-Semitism sometimes produced bloody conflicts and pogroms.

" I t is o n l y too true that its pr inc ipa l cause was the exclusive-ness and separatism of Israel, w h i c h was essentially religious, dictated by Y a h v e and the Scriptures, and w i t h o u t w h i c h Chr i s t iani ty evidently could not have been conceived, since it is due to this Jewish separatism that fa i th in Y a h v e and the knowledge and cult of the one God was preserved intact f rom al l defilement and transmitted f rom generation to generation u n t i l the coming of the C h r i s t .

" B u t w h a t do these facts jus t i fy? "Just because there was a pagan anti -Semit ism, w h i c h indeed

took its or ig in from the divine commandment , w h a t ground is this for C h r i s t i a n i t y in copying it (having fal len v i c t i m to it itself for a time), and further , for h a v i n g developed it to a paroxysm of virulence, evil-mindedness, and slanderous and murderous hatred? (Jules Isaac: JÉSUS ET ISRAEL, P.353)

" T h u s there began to develop i n the C h r i s t i a n conscience (if I may venture to say so), the theme of the C r i m e , of the U n -worthiness, of the Curse , of the Chastisement of Israel, a chastisement w h i c h was, l ike the C r i m e itself, collective, w i t h o u t appeal, embodying for ever 'carnal Israel', Israel fa l len , outcast, Israel-Judas, Israel-Cain. Th is theme is closely interwoven but not to be confused w i t h another, w h i c h became a doctr inal thesis, that of the Witness-People- -chosen by G o d , the Jew Saint P a u l

20

JULES ISAAC AND THE CHURCH FATHERS 21

had said, for the fullness of final conversion, u n h a p p y witness 'to its o w n iniquit ies and to our t r u t h ' , said St. A u g u s t i n e 350 years later, bearing f r o m G o d , as did C a i n , a s ign w h i c h is at once its protect ion and draws on it the execration of the C h r i s t i a n

world." (Jules Isaac, ib id . , p . 359)

" N o weapon has proved more successful against Judaism and her f a i t h f u l than the teaching of contempt, forged p r i n c i p a l l y by the C h u r c h Fathers i n the f o u r t h century , and w i t h i n i t , no thesis has been more h a r m f u l than that of the 'deicide people' . C h r i s t i a n menta l i ty has become impregnated w i t h these ideas to the very roots of its subconscience. Fai lure to recognise this fact is to ignore or disguise the major source of C h r i s t i a n anti-Semitism, and the spr ing w h i c h has nourished popular o p i n i o n . But the latter did not produce it , for the teaching of contempt is a theological c reat ion . "

(Jules Isaac: Genèse de l 'Ant i sémit i sme , p . 327)

" 'Deic ide. ' W h e n d id the defamatory epithet appear, later to be turned, oh h a p p y discovery, to murderous use, to become an i n delible brand, goading to f u r y and crime (homicide, genocide)? It is impossible to name an exact date. But one can discern among the confused flood of Judaeo-Christian polemics the m a i n current f rom w h i c h it stemmed.

(Jules Isaac: Jésus et Israel, p . 360)

" I n the f o u r t h century a step forward was taken. T h e destinies of the C h u r c h and the Empire h a v i n g uni ted , a l l caut ion was put aside, and the tone of anti-Jewish controversy could be increased, as indeed i t was. It became openly abusive. . . .

" T h e C h r i s t i a n anti-Semitism w h i c h then began to develop was essentially theological , but it could also be called 'ecclesiastical' or 'c lerical ' . Its foundat ion was the accusation of deicide.


" M u r d e r e r of Jesus, the Chr is t -Mess iah , murderer of the M a n -God,

de ic ide ! --" S u c h is the accusation cast against the w h o l e Jewish people

. . . a capital accusation l inked to the theme of capital chastisement . . . i n such a w a y that by an ingenious a l ternat ing mechanism of doctr inal sentences and popular outbursts there is ascribed to G o d w h a t , seen f r o m the earthly sphere, is assuredly the work


of incurable h u m a n vileness, this perversity, var iously and cleverly exploited f rom century to century , f r o m generation to generat ion, to culminate in A u s c h w i t z , and the gas chambers and crema-torium ovens of N a z i G e r m a n y . "

(Jules Isaac, i b i d . , pp. 351-2)

" O n e must recognise the sad fact that near ly a l l the C h u r c h Fathers have contributed their stone i n this w o r k of mora l lapida-tion (not w i t h o u t material repercussions): St. H i l a r y of Poitiers, St. Jerome, St. E p h r e m , St. Gregory of N y s s a , St. A m b r o s e and St. E p i p h a n y - - w h o was born a J e w - - S t . C y r i l of Jerusalem, and m a n y others. But two of this i l lustr ious cohort , venerable i n so m a n y other respects, deserve a special m e n t i o n : the great Greek orator, St. John C h r y s o s t o m (i.e. St. John of the Golden M o u t h ) , w h o is dist inguished by his abundant and truculent invect ive, and his excessive insults; and the great doctor of C h r i s t i a n l a t i n i t y , St. A u g u s t i n e , for the wonder fu l (and dangerous) ingenui ty he displayed i n elaborating a coherent doctr ine . "

(Jules Isaac: Genèse de l 'Ant i sémit i sme , p . 161)

W e w i l l n o w pass f rom this general review of the C h u r c h Fathers to examine part icular instances, q u o t i n g passages f r o m the study Jules Isaac has devoted to the great Doctors of the C h u r c h .

In 386 St. John C h r y s o s t o m began to preach at A n t i o c h , where there was an important Jewish c o m m u n i t y . H e began w i t h eight homilies against the Jews i n a tone w h i c h " i s often of unparal leled violence" .

" A l l the grievances and insults are to be f o u n d i n C h r y s o s t o m . H e displays better than a n y other, and often w i t h unequal led violence and even coarseness, on occasions, the fus ion of elements taken f r o m popular anti-Semitism and f r o m specifically theological grounds for complaint , and the use of bibl ical texts, w h i c h are the hal l -mark of the C h r i s t i a n anti-Semite.


"Let it be p l a i n l y s a i d : whatever his i n t e n t i o n , this inordinate piece of outrage and c a l u m n y is a revol t ing th ing on the part of a sacred orator.

"Seeds of scorn and hatred such as these inevi tably produce their harvest. Y o u reap as y o u sow. Si lhouetted d o w n the ages to come beyond the h o l y declaimers of the f o u r t h century, devout ly dragging their adversaries i n the m u d , I see the countless legion of theologians, C h r i s t i a n preachers, teachers and writers , eager to enlarge on s t r i k i n g themes of the carnal Jew, the lus t fu l Jew,

JULES ISAAC AND T H E CHURCH FATHERS 23

the covetous Jew, the Jew possessed of the devi l , the accursed Jew, the Jew as a murderer of the prophets, and of C h r i s t , the Jew g u i l t y of d e i c i d e - - a l l conscientiously endeavouring i n al l good fa i th to propagate these false, pernicious and deadly ideas; all equal ly ready, it fo l lows logical ly , to admit w i t h C h r y s o s t o m that if the hateful Jew received as his share exile, dispersion, servitude, misery and shame i t was o n l y justice (God's just ice) : he had to pay his forfeit . But these are o n l y figures of speech y o u w i l l say today--1 ,600 years l a t e r - - t o reassure y o u r conscience; that may be so but 'one must understand' to w h a t end figures of speech uttered b y a 'golden m o u t h ' m a y lead, taken up i n chorus across the centuries by myr iads of disciples; the figures of speech took v i ta l and v i r u l e n t root, they are encrusted i n mi l l ions of souls. W h o then w o u l d dare to believe that the C h r i s t i a n soul is free f r o m them today? W h o can tell i f it w i l l ever be freed? Look at the hideous lampoonists , the Streicher N a z i s , w h o fo l lowed after the C h r i s t i a n preachers." (Jules Isaac, ibid., pp. 162, 164-6).

Less violent than the Greek orator, according to Jules Isaac, St. A u g u s t i n e :

" . . . is equal ly hostile towards Judaism and the Jews, and equally determined to fight their persistent influence, to protect the f a i t h f u l f r o m i t , and to provide them w i t h a stock of va l id arguments to use i n controversy w i t h these obstinate reprobates. H e uses the same method, and their point of v iew and interpretat ion of the Scriptures is s i m i l a r : long before the coming of the Saviour, Judaism had progressively become corrupt , faded and withered; after the revelation of C h r i s t , it fel l completely under Satan's inspirat ion; former ly the chosen ch i ldren of G o d , they became the sons of the devi l .


" I n a l l this passionate teaching w h i c h has survived the centuries and w h i c h s t i l l i n our day dares to l i f t its voice, there is no more respect for B ib l i ca l t r u t h than for historical t r u t h . B o t h the deplorable C r u c i f i x i o n and the Dispers ion are fearlessly used as weapons crue l ly sharpened i n order the better to do to death old

Israel. . . . (Jules Isaac, i b i d . , p . 167)

" B u t most important of a l l is St. A u g u s t i n e ' s o w n part icular doctr inal c o n t r i b u t i o n , the elaboration, i n his sharp m i n d , of an ingenious, opportune thesis destined to the greatest (theological) success: the doctrine of the Witness-People. . . .


"If the Jews w h o refused to believe i n C h r i s t nevertheless cont inue to exist, it is because they must do so, because God i n his supernatural wisdom has so ordained it ; they cont inue to exist in order to bear witness to C h r i s t i a n t r u t h , and they bear witness to it both by their sacred books and by their Dispers ion .


" O h marvel lous discovery of a subtle, creative g e n i u s : the astonishing survival of the Jewish people can o n l y be ascribed to one object and one reason, to testify to the a n t i q u i t y of biblical tradit ion and the authent ic i ty of the sacred texts on w h i c h the C h r i s t i a n fa i th is founded; the b l ind (and 'carnal') Jews themselves do not understand the real meaning of their h o l y Scriptures, but they preserve them piously and reverently for the use of the C h u r c h , to w h o m , i n other words, they are n o t h i n g more than enslaved 'book-rests' w a l k i n g behind their master. S i m i l a r l y , the Dispers ion of the Jewish people, w h i l e not losing its significance as the chastisement brought d o w n by God i n punishment for the Cross of C h r i s t , itself bears witness and corresponds to the designs of providence since it proves everywhere that the Jews continue to exist ' for the salvation of the nations and not for the salvation of their o w n ' , and thus serves to spread the same C h r i s t i a n faith w h i c h the Jews persist i n d e n y i n g .

" S u c h , i n broad out l ine , is St. A u g u s t i n e ' s theme. (Jules Isaac, ibid, pp. 168-9;)

" T h e r e is a corollary to these august inian propositions, a corollary w h i c h is rendered formidable by its practical implicat ions . The witness w h i c h the Jews bear ( in favour of C h r i s t i a n truth) by their surviva l and by their dispersion, they should also bear by their visible d o w n f a l l . The efficacity of their witness w i l l be measured i n terms of the harshness of the lot w h i c h has been reserved for them. . . .

" T h e teaching of contempt" , adds Jules Isaac, "leads to the system of vi l i f icat ion w h i c h is its necessary justif ication.

" H e n c e f o r w a r d we perceive the radical difference w h i c h separates the C h r i s t i a n system of v i l i f i ca t ion f r o m its modern N a z i i m i t a t o r - - b l i n d and ignorant are they w h o ignore their thousand profound connect ions : the latter was o n l y a stage, a brief stage preceding the massive exterminat ion; the former on the contrary involved su rv i va l , but a shameful surviva l i n contempt and disgrace; thus it was created to endure and to injure and s lowly torture mi l l ions of innocent vict ims. . . . "

(Jules Isaac: ib id . , pp. 166-8, 171-2)


O n e is tempted to say that al l exaggerations are valueless after reading such shameless slanders against the teaching of the C h u r c h , Our reply is g iven a few pages later. M e a n w h i l e , says Jules Isaac:

"Let us first of a l l examine the doctrinal teaching of the C h u r c h i n this period of the ear ly M i d d l e Ages . N o more perfect expression of i t is to be found than i n the masterpiece of St. Gregory the Great, w h o comes ha l f -way between St. A u g u s t i n e and St. A g o b a r d , at the end of the s ix th century . A f t e r the C h u r c h Fathers, no w o r k commanded more attention i n C h r i s t e n d o m , especially i n W e s t e r n C a t h o l i c i s m . N o example could be more conclusive since . . . this great Pope, far f r o m being a fanatic, is renowned for his remarkable qualities of generosity, mora l elevat ion , equi ty and h u m a n i t y .

" G r e g o r y the Great never systematically defined his doctr inal posit ion w i t h regard to Judaism . . . but a Catho l i c theologian, V . Tol l ier , w h o has made a special, conscientious s tudy of his w o r k , came to this conclusion, w h i c h reference to the texts themselves w o u l d q u a l i f y as acceptable: ' H e envisaged the his tory of this people as an enormous error, prepared at great length , committed i n cold blood, r igorously punished, to be effaced one day by divine mercy . ' For h a v i n g treated G o d ' w i t h the blackest ingrat i tude', 'the chosen people became accursed . . .; it w i l l o n l y arouse itself f r o m its fatal slumbers at the last days of the w o r l d . '

" G r e g o r y the Great could o n l y fo l low exist ing tradi t ion, firmly established by the Fathers of the f o u r t h century . But let i t be said to his credit that he never lost sight of the Jewish origins of the early C h u r c h , or of the Paul ine vis ion of the final reconciliat ion- -de fer red by h i m (not by St. Paul) to the last days of the wor ld ; that he was not a party to the unjust and deadly accusat ion of 'deicide'; that w h i l e u n d e r l i n i n g the gui l t of the major i ty of the Jews for the Passion, he never completely omitted the share i n it borne by the procurator Pilate and the Romans; that it was he indeed w h o formulated the pre-eminently C h r i s t i a n i d e a - -w h i c h was to dominate the spirit and the heart of a l l believers i n C h r i s t and w h i c h is taught i n the catechism of the C o u n c i l of T r e n t - - o f the universal responsibi l i ty of s in fu l h u m a n i t y ; and that finally, anti-Jewish controversy i n his w r i t i n g s nowhere degenerates in to the outrageous and scurri lous outbursts after the example of St. John C h r y s o s t o m .

" O n e is therefore al l the more struck by the strict severity w i t h w h i c h this great Pope, this noble person, speaks of Judaism and the Jewish people, and re-iterates themes that are m a i n l y tradit ional w i t h o u t v e r i f y i n g their foundations. . . .


" ' D r u n k w i t h pride (writes the great Pope) the Jews have bent a l l their energy o n closing their minds to God's representatives. . . . T h e y lost h u m i l i t y and w i t h it the understanding of the t r u t h . '

" L i k e the four th Evangelist , Gregory incessantly abuses the term the Jews to d r a w attention to the cl ique of Jesus' enemies, w h i c h amounts to condemning the w h o l e of the Jewish people to the contempt and hatred of the f a i t h f u l : T h e Jews handed over the Lord and accused h i m . . . .' (Jules Isaac, ibid., 289-90).

" 'The finest examples failed to move this vu lgar nat ion to serve God w i t h love, not fear . . . Israel's fa i th consisted o n l y i n obeying the d i v i n e precepts to the letter . . . they became not a means for sanctification but a source of pride. . . . T o rise up to G o d , Israel had the wings of the L a w , but her heart, c r a w l i n g in the lowest depths on earth, held her d o w n . . . . The infidel people o n l y understood the incarnat ion of G o d i n the flesh, and w o u l d not accept h i m as more than a m a n . . . thus the spouse, given u p to carnal judgment, failed to recognise the mystery of the Incarnat ion. ' "

(St. Gregory the Great, quoted by Jules Isaac, ib id , pp. 289-90)

Jules Isaac cont inues :

" T h i s theme of the 'carnal people' is in f in i te ly dangerous since it leads inevi tably to that of the people of ' the Beast', of ' the ant ichrist ' and of 'the d e v i l ' actuated b y perverse, diabolical hatred against G o d and his supporters. ( ibid. , p. 290)

" 'Because the hearts of the Jews are w i t h o u t f a i t h , ' said St. Gregory , ' they have submitted to the devi l . . . the Synagogue is not o n l y u n w i l l i n g to accept the fa i th , but has fought it w i t h the sword and has raised u p against it the horrors of a merciless persecution . . . is it not true to say that the Beast has made his den i n the hearts of Jewish persecutors? . . . the more the H o l y Spir i t filled the w o r l d the more perverse hatred enchained the souls of the Jews; their blindness has made them cruel and their cruel ty has dr iven them to implacable persecution' .

(St. Gregory the Great, quoted by Jules Isaac, i b i d . , p . 290)

" S u c h is the teaching of the great Pope, i n his o p i n i o n conci l iatory and of a pure ly doctr inal nature, consistent w i t h one's d u t y to h u m a n i t y , C h r i s t i a n char i ty and respect for the l a w . It is his o p i n i o n , perforce not others'. For it was to leave i n mediocre


hearts and minds , everywhere and always i n the major i ty , a stigma branded on the forehead of the Jewish people of its crimes, its curse, its satanic perverseness. It is a l l that is required today, or at any time, to unleash the savagery of ' the Beast ' ."


Jules Isaac n o w turns to St. A g o b a r d .

" T h e first point to note about A g o b a r d is that his anti-Judaism is essentially ecclesiastical and theological , l ike the C h u r c h Fathers'; it doesn't spring f r o m what M r . S imon calls the vein of popular a n t i - S e m i t i s m . . . . (Jules Isaac, ibid., p. 274).

" I n conflict w i t h the Jews, Agobard appealed direct ly to the emperor i n two letters; de insolentia Judaeorum ( O n the Insolence of the Jews), and de judaicis superstitionibus ( O n Jewish Superstitions).

" I n the former, A g o b a r d sets out a justif ication of his attitude and of the anti-Jewish measures w h i c h he has taken. It was easy for h i m to show that i n denouncing the perfidia Judaeorum he was o n l y obeying the precepts taught by the Fathers and the rules established by the C h u r c h . These precepts and rules, he assures the emperor, accord w i t h reason and c h a r i t y : 'Since the Jews l ive among us, and since we must not treat them spi te ful ly nor do i n j u r y to their l i fe , their hea l th and their fortune, let us observe the moderat ion prescribed by the C h u r c h , w h i c h is to behave w i t h prudence and h u m a n i t y towards them. . . .'

(Jules Isaac, ib id . , p . 278)

" T h e w h o l e of his w o r k , w h i c h is based on the C h u r c h Fathers --principally St. A m b r o s e - - o n the decisions of the C o u n c i l s and on the Scriptures, tends to demonstrate that the Jews ought to be kept s t r ic t ly apart, as a people whose society was the worst defilement a C h r i s t i a n could endure. A n t i c h r i s t s , sons of the devi l , ' the impious Jews, enemies of the Son of G o d , themselves cut themselves off f r o m the true house of D a v i d , the C h u r c h ; a l l the divine threats and maledict ions have been fu l f i l l ed w i t h regard to the Synagogue of Satan' . There is n o t h i n g n e w i n this; A g o bard is merely repeating the hab i tua l formulas , or r i tuals , as one m i g h t ca l l them, of the teaching of c o n t e m p t : b a n n i n g the Jews f r o m C h r i s t i a n society is one of the masterpieces of the system of v i l i f i cat ion.

" T o superst i t ion, according to A g o b a r d , the Jews add blasphemy and slander, and he gives examples of outrageous accounts of the

JUDAISM AND THE VATICAN

life of Jesus spread abroad by Jews. It is indeed k n o w n that a detestable Jewish tradit ion to this effect sprang u p i n the second century , later to be recorded i n the books of the Sepher Toledot Jeschu-- the version A g o b a r d quoted is a k i n to them, if not absolutely identical . These contemptuous, l ibel lous stories are as indefensible as the mani fo ld insults of certain C h r i s t i a n orators directed against the synagogue and the Jewish f a i t h . A g o b a r d himself does not deny i t . " (Jules Isaac, ibid., p.280).

Jules Isaac concludes i n these w o r d s :

" A g o b a r d ' s attitude cannot be justified b y p u t t i n g forward the evils w h i c h the Jews or certain Jews m a y have committed, nor is it i n accordance w i t h 'reason' or ' w i s d o m ' or ' C h r i s t i a n char i ty ' to treat them al l as Pariahs, to denounce them i n publ ic as the enemies of G o d , to call their sanctuaries synagogues of Satan and themselves a people cursed to their very bowels, w i t h w h o m a l l contact ought to be avoided as the worst p o l l u t i o n . . . .

" F o r , and I w i l l repeat it again and again, such teaching, hur led f r o m the roof-tops to flocks of ignorant and credulous fa i th fu l leads not o n l y to 'violent injustice' , but to even more odious consequences, to c r i m i n a l acts of homicide and genocide, to massive assassinations and monstrous 'pogroms' . It is too simple to believe or to let people believe that the most violent vocal outbursts are harmless, as if there was no risk that violent words w o u l d lead men to violent acts. W h i c h is more to blame, the tongue's insults or the arm's b lows? In spite of his apologists. 'St. A g o b a r d ' must bear his part of the responsibi l i ty . " (Jules Isaac, ibid., pp. 284-5)

In other words, according to Jules Isaac, the Evangelists were liars, St. John C h r y s o s t o m is a delirious theologian and a scurri lous pamphleteer, St. A u g u s t i n e uses his sharp, subtle m i n d to fals i fy the facts, Pope St. Gregory the Great invented the " formidable theme of the 'carnal people', w h i c h has unleashed the savagery of the Beast against the Jews throughout h i s t o r y " , and St. A g o b a r d , the celebrated Primate of G a u l , hur led " f r o m the roof-tops to flocks of the f a i t h f u l a teaching w h i c h leads to the most odious consequences, to crimes of genocide, to massive assassinations and to monstrous progroms."

A l l persecutors, filled w i t h anti-Jewish hatred, the veritable forerunners of Streicher and others, mora l ly responsible for " A u s c h w i t z " and " s i x m i l l i o n innocent Jewish v i c t i m s " .

T h u s , Jules Isaac denounces this, asserts that, and then condemns the great doctors w i t h o u t a t tempting to analyse any of the reasons w h i c h led them a l l , each of different character and o r i g i n - - J e w i s h ,

JULES ISAAC AND THE CHURCH FATHERS 29

Greek and L a t i n - - a n d each raised by the C h u r c h to the altar, to make such stern and w e i g h t y accusations against the Jews.

H e asked, or rather insisted that the C o u n c i l : C o n d e m n and suppress a l l racial , religious or nat ional discr imina

t ion w i t h regard to the Jews; M o d i f y or suppress l i turg ica l prayers concerning the Jews,

especially those o n Good Fr iday; Declare that the Jews are i n no w a y responsible for the death

of C h r i s t , for w h i c h the whole of h u m a n i t y is to blame; Q u a s h the passages, i n the Evangelists, and p r i n c i p a l l y the one i n

St. M a t t h e w , w h o m Jules Isaac coldly describes as a l iar and perverter of the t r u t h , i n w h i c h they relate the crucial story of the Passion;

Declare that the C h u r c h has always been to blame for this state of latent w a r w h i c h has persisted for two thousand years between the Jews, the Chr i s t ians and the rest of the w o r l d ;

Promise that the C h u r c h w i l l definitely modi fy her att i tude to a spir i t of h u m i l i t y , contr i t ion and forgiveness w i t h regard to the Jews, and that she w i l l make every effort to repair the wrongs that she has done them by rect i fy ing and p u r i f y i n g her tradit ional teaching according to the lines la id d o w n by Jules Isaac.

N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the insolence of his u l t i m a t u m and of his v i r u lent indic tment of the Evangelists and of the teaching of the Fathers of the C h u r c h , w h i c h is founded on the very words of C h r i s t h i m self, Jules Isaac received strong support f r o m priests even i n Rome and f r o m m a n y members of A m i t i é judéo-chrétienne.

O n 23rd January 1965, the weekly paper, Terre de Provence, w h i c h is publ ished at A i x , reported that M g r . de Provenchères, Bishop of A i x , had g iven an address to the " A m i t i é judéo-chrt ienne" on the occasion of the inaugurat ion of the Jules Isaac avenue w h i c h took place that m o r n i n g , and the f o l l o w i n g passage is taken f r o m the a r t i c l e :

" A large crowd had gathered i n the Z i r o n s k i amphitheatre to hear the address w h i c h M g r . de Provenchères was to give on the subject of 'The C o u n c i l decree on relations between Cathol ics and non-Cathol ics . '

" T h e r u r a l dean, Father Palanque, first of a l l recalled the m o v i n g ceremony that had taken place that m o r n i n g i n the presence of the M a y o r , M r . M o u r e t , and of M r . Schourski and M r . L u n e l , president of the Friends of Jules Isaac. T h e latter's name w o u l d again be on their lips i n connection w i t h the th i rd session on the C o u n c i l schema of V a t i c a n II. M g r . de Provenchères w o u l d be able to give them the benefit of his knowledge w h i c h he had obtained at first h a n d w h e n at tending the C o u n c i l .


" M g r . de Provenchères told us h o w happy he was to describe his experiences since he had f o u n d the w o r k at the C o u n c i l very rewarding.

"Speak ing of Jules Isaac, he told us that ever since he first met h i m i n 1945 he had had a profound regard for h i m , w h i c h very q u i c k l y turned to affection. T h e C o u n c i l schema appeared to be a solemn ratif ication of the points they had discussed together. It originated i n a peti t ion w h i c h Jules Isaac had addressed to the V a t i c a n , w h i c h has been studied b y more than two thousand bishops. T h e ini t ia t ive w h i c h led to this event had been taken by a l a y m a n , a Jew. M g r . de Provenchères then remarked that great events i n his tory often began i n this w a y , subsequently to be sanctified; the meeting between Jules Isaac and John X X I I I had been a gesture of the A m i t i é judéo-chrétienne.

" M g r . de Provenchères then gave a detailed account of the role played b y Jules Isaac at Rome i n the preparation of the C o u n c i l , and the dean, Fr . Palanque, t h a n k i n g M g r . de Provenchères, outl ined the w o r k w h i c h the Bishop of A i x had done to ensure the successful passage of the schema."

W h i l e on the subject of Judaeo-Christ ian fr iendship it is instructive to note the h a u g h t y and contemptuous i r o n y w i t h w h i c h Joshua Jehouda, one of the spir i tual leaders of contemporary Judaism, refers to i t :

" T h e current expression 'judaeo-Christian' is an error w h i c h has altered the course of universal h is tory by the confusion it has s o w n i n men's minds , i f b y it one is meant to understand the Jewish o r i g i n of C h r i s t i a n i t y ; for by abol ishing the fundamental dist inct ions between Jewish and C h r i s t i a n messianism, it seeks to bring together two ideas that are radically in opposition. B y laying the accent exclusively on the ' C h r i s t i a n ' idea to the detriment of the 'Judean' it conjures a w a y monotheist ic mess ian ism--a va luable discipl ine at a l l levels of t h o u g h t - - a n d reduces it to a pure ly confessional messianism, preoccupied l ike C h r i s t i a n messianism w i t h the salvation of the i n d i v i d u a l soul . If the term 'Judaeo-C h r i s t i a n ' does point to a common o r i g i n , there is no doubt that i t is a most dangerous idea. It is based o n a 'contradictio in adjecto' w h i c h has set the path of h is tory on the w r o n g track. It l i n k s i n one breath two ideas w h i c h are completely irreconcileable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and whi te , and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on w h i c h some, nevertheless, are endeavouring to construct a c iv i l i sa t ion . C h r i s t i a n i t y offers to the wor ld a l imited messianism w h i c h it wishes to impose as the


o n l y va l id one. . . . Even Spinoza , w h o was further than any other th inker f r o m the historic messianism of Israel, w r o t e : ' A s for w h a t certain churches say, that G o d assumed h u m a n nature , I must confess that this seems to me as absurd as saying that a circle assumed the shape of a square. . .

" T h e dogmatic exclusiveness professed by C h r i s t i a n i t y must finally end. . . . It is the obstinate C h r i s t i a n c la im to be the sole he i r to Israel w h i c h propagates anti -Semit ism. T h i s scandal must terminate sooner or later; the sooner it does, the sooner the w o r l d w i l l be r id of the tissue of lies i n w h i c h anti-Semitism shrouds itself."

(Joshua Jehouda: l ' A n t i s i m i t i s m e M i r o i r du M o n d e , pp. 135-6)

T h e author's att i tude w o u l d appear to be clear from the above, but let us i l lustrate it f u r t h e r :

" T h e C h r i s t i a n fa i th flows f r o m a m y t h connected w i t h Jewish h is tory but not w i t h the precise tradit ion w h i c h it has transmitted i n the L a w - - b o t h w r i t t e n and by w o r d of m o u t h - - a s is the case w i t h Israel. (Joshua Jehouda, ib id . , p. 132)

" H o w e v e r , C h r i s t i a n i t y claims to b r i n g to the w o r l d the ' true ' messianism. It seeks to convert a l l the pagans i n c l u d i n g the Jews. But as long as the monotheist ic messianism of Israel persists, and is present even t h o u g h it does not manifest itself openly . . . C h r i s t i a n messianism appears as what it is i n r e a l i t y : an imi ta t ion w h i c h collapses i n the l ight of the authent ic messianism."

(Joshua Jehouda, ib id . , p. 155)

It is the author 's sincere hope that Chr is t ians w h o enter Judaeo-C h r i s t i a n circles of f r iendship are p r o f o u n d l y versed not o n l y i n the mysteries of their o w n fa i th but of that of the Jewish people, so that they understand their fundamenta l "contradic t io i n adjecto", and hence do not attempt to b r i n g together two ideas that are radical ly i n opposi t ion.

H o w e v e r , w h e n Jules Isaac and his associates went to Rome, they were careful not to ment ion these passages i n their books; they spoke of C h r i s t i a n char i ty , of ecumenical u n i t y , of common bibl ical filiations, of Judaeo-Christ ian f r iendship, of the struggle against raci sm, of the m a r t y r d o m of the Jewish people, and their efforts met w i t h success, since 1,651 bishops, cardinals, archbishops and C o u n c i l Fathers voted to reform C a t h o l i c teaching according to the desires of Jules Isaac, the B 'na i B ' r i t h and the W o r l d Jewish Congress.


N a t u r a l l y , w h e n they went to Rome to prepare the C o u n c i l vote, Jules Isaac and the leaders of the Jewish organisations did not tell the Pope and the b ishops :

" Y o u r Evangelists are rank liars. " Y o u r C h u r c h Fathers are perverters and torturers w h o have

spread throughout the w o r l d the hatred of the Jew and unleashed the savagery of the Beast.

" T h e y are the precursors of H i t l e r and Streicher, and it is they w h o are ver i tably responsible for A u s c h w i t z and the six m i l l i o n Jewish dead, vict ims of the Germans . "

These accusations can be read in their complete and unabridged form i n Jules Isaac's books, w h i c h are available in any bookshop, but apparently the C o u n c i l Fathers have not read them, any more than they have read the works of Jehouda, R a b i . Benamozegh, M e m m i and others.

N o , Jules Isaac and the leaders of the great Jewish organisations did not say, i n company w i t h Joshua Jehouda, one of the masters of contemporary Jewish t h o u g h t : Y o u r monotheism is a false monotheism; it is a bastard i m i t a t i o n and a falsified version of the o n l y true monotheism w h i c h is H e b r e w monotheism, and if C h r i s t i a n i t y does not re turn to Jewish sources it w i l l be finally condemned. (Joshua Jehouda, ib id . , pp. 155, 260, 349)

T h e y did not say i n company w i t h Benamozegh, w h o is one of the glories of contemporary Jewish t h o u g h t : The C h r i s t i a n rel igion is a false, so-called divine re l ig ion. Its o n l y hope of salvat ion, as for the rest of the w o r l d , is to re turn to Israel. (Elie B e n a m o z e g h : Israel et I'Humanité)

T h e y did not say i n company w i t h M e m m i :

" Y o u r rel igion is a blasphemy and a subversion i n the eyes of the Jews. Y o u r G o d is to us the D e v i l , that is to say, the symbol and essence of al l evi l o n ear th . "

( A . M e m m i : Portrait of a Jew, p p . 188-9)

T h e y d id not say in company w i t h R a b i :

" T h e conversion of the Jews to C h r i s t i a n i t y is treason and idolatry since it involves the supreme blasphemy, the belief in the d i v i n i t y of a m a n . "

( R a b i : A n a t o m i c du Judaisme français, p. 188)

T h e y took care not to arouse fears at Rome by u n v e i l i n g their thoughts , and they succeeded in g a i n i n g a certain number of prelates to their cause.

A l l this is undoubtedly a strange story.


It m a y be true that there are a certain number of progressive bishops w h o , out of hos t i l i ty towards t radi t ional C a t h o l i c i s m , are perhaps prepared to use a n y weapons against i t . B u t it is not u n reasonable to imagine that they constitute a m i n o r i t y . H o w then does one expla in their success?

It stems f r o m two reasons: F i r s t ly , the vast ma jor i ty of the C o u n c i l Fathers are unaware

of the role played by the Jewish organisations and Jules Isaac i n the preparation of this v o t e : they had not read the latter's works ;

A n d secondly, i n general, the C o u n c i l Fathers are not w e l l i n formed on the Jewish question and they readily accept Judaic arguments, w h i c h are s k i l f u l l y presented by formidable debaters such as Jules Isaac.

H o w e v e r that m a y be, the manoeuvre was carried out w i t h the utmost adroitness and i t succeeded. T h e vote itself is there i n wi t ness to this fact.

O n e thousand six h u n d r e d and fifty-one C o u n c i l Fathers considered that Jules Isaac's version of the Passion was preferable to St. John's and to St. M a t t h e w ' s .

O n e thousand six hundred and fifty-one bishops, archbishops and cardinals admitted that the teaching of St. John C h r y s o s t o m , of St. A u g u s t i n e , of St. Gregory the Great, of St. A m b r o s e and of St. A g o b a r d should be pur i f ied and rectified to conform w i t h the i n junct ions of Jules Isaac, whose Jésus et Israel was recently described by the Jewish wri ter , R a b i , as " t h e most specific weapon of w a r against a par t i cu lar ly h a r m f u l C h r i s t i a n doctr ine" , that is to say, the doctrine codified by the above-mentioned Fathers of the C h u r c h . ( R a b i : A n a t o m i e du Judaisme français, p . 183)

T h e modif icat ion of the Good F r i d a y l i t u r g y and the suppression of, among others, the prayer of the Impropr ia by the 1,651 bishops is an admission that Jules Isaac was right w h e n he said, describing the Impropr ia

"I t is diff icult to say w h i c h is more s t r ik ing ; its beauty or its

i n i q u i t y . (Jules Isaac: Genèse de l 'Ant i semit i sme , p. 309)

A p p a r e n t l y the bishops considered that the i n i q u i t y of this prayer prevailed over its beauty.

In brief, the vote of 20th November 1964, apparent ly taken in the spirit of C h r i s t i a n char i ty and i n the desire for reconcil iat ion between the Churches and for ecumenical u n i t y , i n fact represented a step away f rom tradit ional C h r i s t i a n i t y .

A f t e r discussing the intricate question of Judace-Christ ian friendship- - Ju les Isaac's masterpiece, warmly supported by the Cardinals


Fe l t in , Ger l ier and Liénar t - - le t us re turn to the heart of the subject, the part played by Jules Isaac and Jewish organisations i n the C o u n c i l vote.

W e have reproduced long extracts f r o m Jules Isaac because he is the theoretician and spokesman i n this campaign against C h r i s t i a n teaching, but he is not alone i n this field. P o w e r f u l organisations such as the B ' n a i B ' r i t h and the W o r l d Jewish Congress have lent their support .

O n the 19th N o v e m b e r 1963, Le M o n d e published the f o l l o w i n g a r t i c l e :

" T h e Jewish in ternat iona l B ' n a i B ' r i t h organisat ion has expressed the desire of establishing closer relations w i t h the Catho l i c C h u r c h . It has just submitted to the C o u n c i l a declaration asserti n g the responsibi l i ty of the w h o l e of h u m a n i t y for the death of C h r i s t .

" M r . Label K a t z , President of the Internat ional C o u n c i l of the B 'na i B ' r i t h , said that ' i f this declaration is accepted b y the C o u n c i l , Jewish communit ies w i l l explore ways and means of cooperat ing w i t h the authorit ies of the (Cathol ic) C h u r c h to ensure the realisation of its purpose and projects.'

" T h e declaration was approved b y the Execut ive Commit tee of the Internat ional C o u n c i l , the co-ordinat ing mechanism of the 475,000 s trong B ' n a i B ' r i t h organisat ion, w h i c h has members i n f o r t y - t w o countries.

" M r . P a u l Jacob of M u l h o u s e , the President of B ' n a i B ' r i t h i n Europe, said that the approval of this declaration w o u l d strike a b l o w at the roots of anti -Semit ism i n m a n y European countries.

" R a b b i M a u r i c e Eisendrath, President of the U n i o n of Jewish Congregations i n A m e r i c a , appealed on Saturday to the 4,000 delegates of the forty-seventh general assembly of A m e r i c a n Ref o r m Judaism to revise their judgment on C h r i s t i a n i t y and erroneous view-points about C h r i s t . "

Important personalities, leaders of contemporary Jewish thought , such as Joshua Jehouda i n his book L'Antisémitisme, M i r o i r du M o n d e , have advanced similar arguments o n the need to reform and p u r i f y C h r i s t i a n t e a c h i n g :

" C h r i s t i a n i t y obstinately refuses to recognise Israel as its spir i tual equal . . . . The belief that C h r i s t i a n i t y offers 'the fullness ' of Judaism, that it is its c u l m i n a t i n g peak, that Judaism has been ful f i l led by C h r i s t i a n i t y , vitiates the very roots of universal monotheism, weakens the foundations of C h r i s t i a n i t y itself and exposes it to successive crises. If C h r i s t i a n i t y is to overcome its present


crisis it must raise itself sp i r i tua l ly to authentic monotheism. The hour is coming when it w i l l be necessary to cleanse the Christian conscience by the doctrine of universal monotheism.

(Joshua Jehouda, ib id . , pp. 10, 11)

" I t cannot be denied that anti-Semitism constitutes the chronic disease of C h r i s t i a n i t y . It must be studied i n terms of the crisis i n C h r i s t i a n c iv i l i sat ion and not i n terms of the qualities or defects of the Jews, w h i c h bear no relation to i t .

(Joshua Jehouda, i b i d . , p. 14)

" I n the field of ant i -Semit ism, it is the att i tude of Chr is t ians w h i c h is determinative above all else. The Jews are o n l y its innocent v ic t ims. (Joshua Jehouda, i b i d . , p. 13)

" O v e r the centuries C h r i s t i a n i t y has incurred a debt of honour towards Israel. W h e t h e r this debt of honour has fal len due is the question i m p l i c i t l y propounded by this book. O n a negative or affirmative answer to this question depends the spir i tual evolut ion of C h r i s t i a n i t y , or , to put it more c learly, peace between the peoples." (Joshua Jehouda, i b i d . , p . 15)

Joshua Jehouda, Jules Isaac, the B 'na i B ' r i t h , the W o r l d Jewish Congress : f r o m their evidence it is clear that w o r l d Judaism has for years been c a r r y i n g out a careful ly prepared and concerted campaign w h i c h resulted i n the recent vote at the C o u n c i l .

I n real i ty , under the guise of ecumenical u n i t y , religious reconc i l ia t ion and other plausible pretexts, its object is the demol i t ion of the bastion of t radi t ional C a t h o l i c i s m , w h i c h is described by Joshua Jehouda as " t h e decrepid fortress of C h r i s t i a n obscurant i sm" .

A c c o r d i n g to Jehouda, there have been three attempts to " rec t i fy C h r i s t i a n i t y " , three attempts "a imed at p u r g i n g the C h r i s t i a n conscience of the miasmas of h a t r e d " , three attempts " to amend the suffocating, paralys ing effects of C h r i s t i a n theo logy" , and "three breaches have been opened i n the decrepid fortress of C h r i s t i a n o b s c u r a n t i s m " - - t h a t is to say, three important stages have been accomplished i n the work of the destruction of tradit ional Chr i s t ian i ty , and they a r e :

The Renaissance; T h e Reformation; The Revolut ion of 1789.

A l t h o u g h he does not say so in as many words, it is qui te p l a i n , as several extracts w i l l serve to make abundant ly clear, that what


Jehouda finds so admirable i n these three great movements is the w o r k of dechrist ianisat ion to w h i c h each, i n different ways , made a p o w e r f u l c o n t r i b u t i o n .

" T h e Renaissance, the Reformat ion and the R e v o l u t i o n const i tute three attempts to rect i fy C h r i s t i a n menta l i ty by b r i n g i n g it in to tune w i t h the progressive development of reason and science . . . and as and w h e n dogmatic C h r i s t i a n i t y relaxes, the Jews gradual ly free themselves f r o m c o n t r o l . "

Speaking of the Renaissance, he informs us t h a t :

" W e can say that if the Renaissance had not been deflected f r o m its or ig ina l course for the benefit of the Greek w o r l d , the w o r l d w o u l d have doubtless been unif ied by the creative thought and doctrine of the C a b a l a . "

(Joshua Jehouda: L'Antisémitisme, Miroir du M o n d e , p. 168)

A n d this is w h a t he says about the R e f o r m a t i o n :

" W i t h the R e f o r m a t i o n , w h i c h broke out i n G e r m a n y fifty years after the Renaissance, the universa l i ty of the C h u r c h was destroyed . . . (before L u t h e r and C a l v i n ) John R e u c h l i n , the disciple of Pico de M i r a n d o l a , shook the C h r i s t i a n conscience by suggesting, as early as 1494, that there was n o t h i n g h igher than hebraic w i s d o m . . . . R e u c h l i n advocated re turn ing to Jewish sources as w e l l as ancient texts. F i n a l l y , he w o n his case against the convert Pefferkorn, w h o l o u d l y demanded the destruct ion of the T a l m u d . T h e new spirit w h i c h was to revolutionise the w h o l e of Europe . . . became apparent w i t h regard to the Jews and the T a l m u d . . . . H o w e v e r , one is astonished to find that there were as m a n y Protestant as C a t h o l i c anti-Semites."

In short, Jehouda concluded, " t h e Reformat ion marks the revolt against the C a t h o l i c C h u r c h , w h i c h is already a revolt i n itself against the re l ig ion of Israel" .

(Joshua Jehouda, i b i d . , pp. 169-72)

A s for the French R e v o l u t i o n :

" T h e t h i r d attempt to amend the C h r i s t i a n posi t ion, after the fa i lure of reformed C h r i s t i a n i t y to uni te , took place under the impetus of the French Revolut ion . . . w h i c h marked the beginning of atheism i n the h is tory of C h r i s t i a n peoples. Dec laredly ant i -religious, this R e v o l u t i o n continues, t h r o u g h the influence of Russian C o m m u n i s m , to make a p o w e r f u l contr ibut ion to the dechrist ianisat ion of the C h r i s t i a n w o r l d . "

(Joshua Jehouda, ib id . , pp. 170-2)


F i n a l l y , the w o r k of the "rect i f icat ion of C h r i s t i a n m e n t a l i t y " was crowned by K a r l M a r x and Nietzsche , for

" . . . i n the nineteenth century two new attempts were made to p u r i f y the menta l i ty of the C h r i s t i a n w o r l d , one by M a r x and the other by N i e t z s c h e " . (Joshua Jehouda, ib id . , p . 187)

T h u s " the profound meaning of his tory , w h i c h remains unaltered i n every epoch, is that of a veiled or open struggle between the forces w o r k i n g for the advancement of h u m a n i t y and those that c l ing to coagulated interests, obstinately determined to keep them i n existence to the detr iment of w h a t is to come" . (Joshua Jehouda, i b i d . , p. 186)

I n the eyes of these thinkers , the reforms proposed by the C o u n c i l ought to represent a new stage in the abandonment, resignation and destruction of t radi t ional C a t h o l i c i s m .

W e are i n fact witness ing a n e w struggle i n the m i l l e n a r y conf ronta t ion between Jews and Chr is t ians . Jehouda, R a b i , Benamozegh and M e m m i depict it in the f o l l o w i n g terms :

" C h r i s t i a n i t y " , says Jehouda, "obst inately refuses to recognise Israel as its sp i r i tua l equal . . . . the belief that C h r i s t i a n i t y offers the 'fullness of Judaism' , that it is its c u l m i n a t i n g peak, that Judaism has been ful f i l led by C h r i s t i a n i t y , vitiates the roots of universal monothe ism, weakens the foundations of C h r i s t i a n i t y itself and exposes i t to successive crises . . . the h o u r is c o m i n g w h e n it w i l l be necessary to cleanse the C h r i s t i a n conscience by the doctrine of universal monotheism.

(Joshua Jehouda, ib id . , pp. 10-11)

" C h r i s t i a n anti-Semitism, w h i l e proc la iming itself messianic, also claims to replace the messianism of Israel w i t h f a i t h i n a crucified G o d w h o w i l l secure the salvation of the souls of a l l the f a i t h f u l . B y l o w e r i n g Jewish messianism to the level of paganism, C h r i s t i a n i t y tends to convert a l l the Jews to a reduced form of messianism. . . . But as long as the monotheist ic messianism of Israel persists . . . C h r i s t i a n i t y appears as what it is i n r e a l i t y : an imi ta t ion w h i c h collapses i n the l i g h t of the authent ic messianism . . . (and) anti-Semitism w i l l persist as long as C h r i s t i a n i t y refuses to face its real problem, w h i c h may be traced back to its betrayal of monotheist ic messianism."

(Joshua Jehouda, ib id . , pp. 154-60) A n d a g a i n :

" I t is the obstinate C h r i s t i a n c la im to be the sole heir to Israel w h i c h propagates ant i -Semit ism. T h i s scandal must terminate


sooner or later; the sooner it does, the sooner the w o r l d w i l l be r id of the tissue of lies i n w h i c h anti-Semitism shrouds itself ."

(Joshua Jehouda, ib id . , p. 136)

N o w let us hear Elie Benamozegh, one of the masters of Jewish thought t o d a y :

" I f C h r i s t i a n i t y consents to reform itself u p o n the H e b r e w ideal it w i l l a lways be the true rel igion of the gentile peoples.

(Elie B e n a m o z e g h : Israel et l ' H u m a n i t é , p. 18)

" T h e re l ig ion of the future must be based on some positive and tradit ional re l igion, invested w i t h the mysterious prestige of a n t i q u i t y . But of a l l the ancient religions Judaism is un ique i n c la iming to possess a religious ideal for a l l h u m a n i t y (for) . . . the w o r k (of C h r i s t i a n i t y ) is o n l y a copy w h i c h must be placed face to face w i t h the or ig inal . . . since it (Judaism) is the indisputed mother (of C h r i s t i a n i t y ) , it is the more ancient re l igion w h i c h is destined to become the most modern .

" A s opposed to C h r i s t i a n i t y . . . w i t h its c la im to divine or ig in and i n f a l l i b i l i t y . . . and i n order to replace an author i ty w h i c h proclaims its i n f a l l i b i l i t y and w h i c h o n l y begins at year one of the C h r i s t i a n era or of the H e g i r a . . . another, m u c h more i m portant i n f a l l i b i l i t y must be f o u n d w h i c h , tak ing its o r i g i n f r o m the h i s tory of m a n on earth, w i l l o n l y end w i t h h i m .

(Elie Benamozegh, i b i d . , pp. 34-35)

" T h e reconci l iat ion dreamt of b y the early Chr i s t ians as a condi t ion of the Parousia, or final c o m i n g of Jesus, the return of the Jews to the bosom of the C h u r c h , w i t h o u t w h i c h , as a l l the C h r i s t i a n communions agree, the work of Redemption is incomplete, this re turn we say w i l l take place not i n t r u t h as it is expected to happen, but i n the o n l y genuine, logical and last ing fashion possible, and above a l l i n the o n l y w a y i n w h i c h it w i l l benefit the h u m a n race. It w i l l be a reunion between the H e b r e w re l ig ion and the others that have sprung f r o m it and , according to the last of the Prophets, the L ight of the Seers, as the Doctors cal l M a l a c h i , it w i l l be 'the return of the children's heart to their fathers ' . " (Elie Benamozegh, ib id . , p. 48)

R a b i has this to s a y :

" T h e r e i s " , he tells us, " a n irremediable difference between Jews and Chr is t ians . It is to do w i t h Jesus. If we take it that he did exist i n his tory , for the Jew he was neither G o d nor the son


of G o d . T h e most extreme concession the Jew can possibly make was expressed b y Joseph K l a u z n e r , according to w h o m Jesus, w h o m he said was neither the M e s s i a h , nor a Prophet , n o r a lawgiver, nor the founder of a re l ig ion, nor T a n n a , n o r rabbi , n o r pharisee, 'is considered as a great moralist and artist i n the use of parables b y the Jewish nat ion . . . the day w h e n he is cleared of the stories of his miracles and myst i c i sm, the Book of the M o r a l i t y of Jesus w i l l become one of the most precious jewels of Jewish l i terature of a l l t ime' .

( R a b i : A n a t o m i e du Judaisme français, p . 204)

"Sometimes I see i n m y m i n d the last Jew alive s tanding before his creator i n the last century as it is w r i t t e n i n the T a l m u d : T h e Jew, b o u n d b y his oath , remains s tanding since S inai . ' W h a t , I imagine, w i l l this last Jew, w h o w i l l have survived the outrages of h i s tory and the appeals of the w o r l d , w h a t w i l l he say then to jus t i fy his resistance to the usury of t ime and the pressure of m e n ? I hear h i m s a y : 'I do not believe i n the d i v i n i t y of Jesus.' It is quite understandable that the C h r i s t i a n is scandalised b y this profession of f a i t h . B u t are we not scandalised by the Chr i s t ian ' s profession of his f a i t h ?

" 'For us, he says, " 'conversion to C h r i s t i a n i t y is necessarily idolatrous because it involves the supreme blasphemy, the belief i n the d i v i n i t y of a m a n ' . " (Rabi , i b i d . , p . 188)

The above was w r i t t e n i n the last ten years. Let us n o w go back two thousand years and re-read the account of the Passion.

" A n d they that had laid ho ld on Jesus led h i m a w a y to Caiaphas the h i g h priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. . . .

" N o w the chief priests and elders and a l l the counci l sought false witness against Jesus, to put h i m to death; but f o u n d n o n e : yea, though m a n y false witnesses came, yet f o u n d they none. A n d at last came two false witnesses, and said. T h i s m a n said, I am able to destroy the temple of G o d and to rebui ld i t i n three days. A n d the h i g h priest arose and said u n t o h i m : Answeres t t h o u n o t h i n g ? W h a t is it w h i c h these witness against thee? B u t Jesus held his peace. A n d the h i g h priest answered and said unto h i m : I adjure thee by the l i v i n g G o d , that thou tell us whether thou be the C h r i s t , the Son of G o d . Jesus saith unto h i m : T h o u hast said it ; nevertheless I say unto y o u , hereafter ye shall see the Son of m a n s i t t ing on the r ight hand of power, and c o m i n g i n the clouds of heaven.


" T h e n the h i g h priest rent his clothes, s a y i n g : H e h a t h spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold , n o w ye have heard his blasphemy, what th ink ye? T h e y answered and s a i d : H e is g u i l t y of death . "

(The Gospel according to St. M a t t h e w x x v i . 57-66)

St. L u k e describes the tr ia l as f o l l o w s : Jesus is being interrogated by the chief priests before the scribes and elders:

" A r t thou the C h r i s t ? T e l l us. A n d he said unto t h e m : If I tell y o u , y o u w i l l not believe, and if I also ask y o u , y o u w i l l not answer me nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of m a n sit on the r ight h a n d of the power of G o d .

" T h e n said they a l l : A r t thou then the Son of G o d ? A n d he said unto t h e m : Y e say that I a m . A n d they s a i d : W h a t need we any fur ther witness, for we ourselves have heard of his o w n m o u t h ? " (The Gospel according to St. L u k e x x i i . 67-71)

St. M a r k ' s account is very s imilar to St. M a t t h e w ' s . A f t e r two thousand years the s i t u a t i o n - - o n e of u n y i e l d i n g opposi

t ion between Jews and C h r i s t i a n s - - s t i l l remains unchanged. In conclusion it m a y not be amiss to relate a strange event w h i c h

happened recently, i n v o l v i n g the barrister, H a n s D e u t s c h , a n i m portant and respected member of the Jewish C o m m u n i t y i n Germ a n y . It was he w h o had intervened w i t h Pope P a u l V I i n support of Jules Isaac's thesis i n favour of the Jews, w h i c h brought about the C o u n c i l vote.

O n 3rd N o v e m b e r 1964 a bolt fe l l f rom the blue. H a n s D e u t s c h was arrested at B o n n , charged w i t h s w i n d l i n g the G e r m a n G o v e r n ment .

Four days later the f o l l o w i n g account appeared i n Le M o n d e under the h e a d i n g : HANS DEUTSCH PLAYED AN IMPORTANT PART IN CLAIMING INDEMNITIES D U E TO T H E VICTIMS OF N A Z I S M :

" T h e arrest at B o n n of Professor H a n s D e u t s c h on the 3rd November seems to have aroused l ive ly reaction at Berne, V i e n n a and other centres concerned w i t h G e r m a n compensation to the Jewish vict ims of N a z i s m . . . . T h e news was announced on the 4th N o v e m b e r by a spokesman for the Publ ic Prosecutor of the Federal Republ ic at B o n n . Professor Deutsch is accused of h a v i n g embezzled nearly 35,000,000 marks and of h a v i n g induced third parties to make false statements.

" T h e personality of Professor Deutsch and the circumstances of his arrest throw a disquiet ing l ight on an affair destined to create a sensation . . . M r . D e u t s c h is of A u s t r i a n o r i g i n . H e


left V i e n n a after the A n s c h l u s s and went to Palestine, from whence he returned to Europe after the w a r . A lawyer , he undertook to fight for the rest i tution of Jewish properties confiscated b y the Germans, notably for those of the A u s t r i a n branch of the Rothsch i ld f a m i l y . H i s professional fees amounted to a considerable personal fortune, w h i c h increased w i t h investment so that he was able to donate large sums to aid the c u l t u r a l arts.

" T h e Professor had been received i n audience by Pope Paul V I , whose aid he had requested i n l a u n c h i n g an appeal to fight prejudiced people w h o aggravate relations between Jews and Chr is t ians . The Pope agreed to give his support to this project, w h i c h had been inspired b y the example of Jules Isaac.

" T h e charge brought against h i m has astonished the c i ty of V i e n n a , where m a n y circles have expressed their s y m p a t h y for M r . Deutsch , i n v iew of his c u l t u r a l activities. Some reports say that Professor Deutsch was i n G e r m a n y to discuss methods of raising the m a x i m u m amount of indemnit ies payable to the Jewish victims of N a z i s m . "

Paris-Presse published two articles on the 8th and 13th N o v e m b e r f o l l o w i n g the Le M o n d e story, f rom w h i c h the f o l l o w i n g passages have been t a k e n :

" T h e H a t v a n y co l lec t ion- -one of the most superb collections of European paintings that ex is ts - - i s the cause of the downfa l l of the Jewish A u s t r i a n barrister, Professor H a n s Deutsch , w h o is accused of h a v i n g improper ly collected several m i l l i o n marks in the names of the vict ims of N a z i p l u n d e r i n g .

"Former SS Chief , Hauptsturmführer Frederick W i l k e , w h o is n o w a trouser manufacturer i n F r a n k f u r t , joined Deutsch i n prison at B o n n . H i s evidence w o u l d have enabled the barrister to p u l l off the swindle of w h i c h he is accused.

" B a r o n H a t v a n y , the 'Sugar K i n g ' of H u n g a r y , had b u i l t u p a collection of 800 pictures i n c l u d i n g Rembrandts , Goyas and Degas. It disappeared d u r i n g the war . T h e Baron died in 1958 and his three daughters instructed Professor Deutsch to obtain an indemn i t y f rom the B o n n Government . Proof was st i l l not available that the collection had actual ly been stolen b y the N a z i s . Th is is where W i l k e came i n . H e had stated before the commission of enquiry that the pictures had been removed by SS General von Pie f fer -Wildenbruch and taken to Bavar ia . The B o n n Government had no alternative but to pay the indemni ty . A f t e r lengthy discussion the total i n d e m n i t y to be paid to the H a t v a n y heirs was fixed at 35,000,000 marks. Deutsch received half of this sum f o r t h w i t h . It was later discovered that the collection had indeed


been taken but i t had not been stolen b y the N a z i s , but by the Russians i n 1944. A n d this is w h y D e u t s c h was arrested w h e n he arrived i n B o n n last week to collect the balance of his 35,000,000 marks .

" H e is perhaps the most accomplished crook of the century. ' T h e D e u t s c h affair is n o w i n the hands of expert investigators.

Chemists and graphologists are careful ly e x a m i n i n g i n their laboratories every particle of the b u l k y dossier w h i c h Professor Deutsch had just submitted.

" P r e l i m i n a r y investigations suggest that the Professor had already spent some 20,000,000 marks preparing this dossier; for the forgeries w h i c h he produced and the attestations of witnesses etc., are veritable masterpieces. 'If our suspicions are proved correct' , said a G e r m a n l a w y e r w h o is closely connected w i t h the P u b l i c Prosecutor at B o n n , ' the D e u t s c h affair w i l l t u r n out to be one of the most gigantic swindles that have ever been seen i n G e r m a n y ' . For the moment H a n s D e u t s c h had lost none of his self-confidence. ' M y w h o l e l i fe , ' he said, 'bears witness for me. Pleas for the people of Israel, l i terary foundations , schools, the struggle to b r i n g together Jews and Chr i s t ians , not to mention the rest- - these things just cannot be imagined. I can prove, ' he said, ' that I have spent the w h o l e of m y l i fe i n the service of great causes.' But was he g i v i n g w i t h the left h a n d w h a t he received w i t h the r ight? W a s M r . H y d e w o r k i n g for D r . Jekyl l or was the Doc tor o n l y a cover for M r . H y d e ? "

P A R T II T H E P R O B L E M O F T H E A G E S

"It is no accident that Jews have been the precursors and makers of many revolutions of thought and spirit."

Lord Sieff, Vice-President of W o r l d Jewish Congress i n article T H E M E A N I N G O F S U R V I V A L .

Jewish Chronicle, 22nd July, 1966

4 T H E C O M P L E X I T Y O F T H E

J E W I S H P R O B L E M

A s soon as one begins to examine the Jewish problem a major difficulty is encountered, namely its extreme complexity.

The Jews are not only the adherents of a religion; despite the dispersion they belong to a distinct community i n which the factors of race, religion and nationality are so closely interwoven that it is impossible to separate them.

But one must beware of misunderstanding these terms, for with the Jews they bear a completely different meaning from that attributed to them in ordinary language. To be precise, let us say that the definition of the Jewish race does not correspond to the usual definition of the word race; that the Jewish religion bears no similarity to any other religion; and that the concept of the Jewish nation is inapplicable to any other nation and without precedent in the history of the world.

Furthermore, the Jews confuse the realities of the problem by adopting ambiguous arguments, and at the same time many Jewish people occupy prominent positions of responsibility among the societies of the nations they have entered.

This explains why the Jews are obstinately and fanatically opposed to the Jewish question being discussed in broad daylight.

In his classic work, The Hapsburg Monarchy, written before the First World War , Henry Wickham Steed, a remarkably well-informed person, discussing this point, said:

Their ideal "seems to be the maintenance of Jewish- international influence as a veritable imper ium in imperiis. Dissimulation of their real objects has become to them a second nature, and they deplore and tenaciously combat every tendency to place the Jewish question frankly on its merits before the world."

( H . W . Steed: The H a p s b u r g Monarchy, p. 179)

W e wi l l now attempt to depict in broad outline the difficulty and complexity of the problem by resorting to the best informed writers on the question.

45


" T h e Jewish question is universal and elusive. It cannot be t r u l y expressed either i n terms of re l ig ion, na t iona l i ty , or race. The Jews themselves seem destined so to arouse the passions of those w i t h w h o m they come into contact that i m p a r t i a l i t y i n regard to them is rare. Some Jews, indeed, regard the very recognit ion of the existence of a Jewish question as a confession of anti-Semit ism. . . .

" Y e t it may safely be said that no question deserves more earnest study. It assumes a h u n d r e d forms, reaches into unsuspected regions of nat ional and internat ional l i fe , and influences, for good or ev i l , the march of c iv i l i sa t ion . The m a i n di f f i cul ty is to f ind a starting-point f r o m w h i c h to approach i t , a coign of vantage h i g h enough to command a v iew of its innumerable ramifications. Is i t a question of race or rel igion? It is both and more. Is it a question of economics, finance and of internat ional trade? It is these and something besides. A r e the peculiar characteristics that form at once the strength and weakness of the Jews a result of rel igious persecution, or have the Jews been persecuted because these characteristics have rendered them odious to the peoples that have harboured them? T h i s is the o ld question whether the hen or the egg should take genealogical precedence."

( H . W . Steed, ib id . , pp. 145-6)

M o r e recently Doctor A . Roudinesco has w r i t t e n t h a t :

" T h e destiny of the Jewish people appears to the his tor ian as a paradoxical , incredible and almost incomprehensible phenomenon. It is unique and unequal led i n the his tory of h u m a n i t y . "

( D r . A . R o u d i n e s c o : Le M a l h e u r d'Israel, p . 7)

" F o r the whole his tory of the Jewish people is u n i q u e and w i t h o u t exception i n the w o r l d . Even today it is an insoluble enigma for sociologists, philosophers and statesmen. Every cul ture is or ig ina l and i n d i v i d u a l , but Jewish cul ture , the product of Jewish h is tory , is absolutely except ional . "

(Danie l P a s m a n i k : Qu'est-ce que le Judaisme?, p . 83)

" T h e Jewish people alone a m o n g the peoples of the w o r l d has subsisted for two thousand years w i t h o u t a historic father land, w i t h o u t a State, w i t h o u t a home, w i t h o u t a normal economy, w i t h o u t a central coercive power; for m a n y centuries it has been the sport of other nations, it has suffered h u m i l i a t i o n and persecution at their hands, and i n spite of a l l this it has kept itself i n t a c t - - s u r e l y this is one of the great enigmas w h i c h can only be explained by the thesis of the idea of the chosen people?

THE COMPLEXITY OF THE JEWISH PROBLEM 47

W h e t h e r it w i l l a lways remain this w a y is another question. For our part , we are convinced that na t iona l values cannot be preserved indef ini te ly w i t h o u t nat iona l d i g n i t y . O n l y the future can solve this problem decis ively . " ( D a n i e l Pasmanik, i b i d . , p . 73)

" T h e people of Israel has a peculiar place i n his tory , for i t is at one and the same time religion and nation, and these two factors are absolutely inseparable, w h i c h is not the case w i t h any other people. O b v i o u s l y Israel is a race, but not i n the biological sense, as the racists c l a i m , but i n an ethical , historical sense." (Joshua Jehouda: L 'Ant i sémt isme, Miroir du M o n d e ,

p . 209)

T h e Rev . Bons i rven , S.J., emphasises the racial aspect of the Jewish re l ig ion i n his book on Judaism i n Palest ine:

" J e wis h nat ional i sm . . . exists, ardent a n d uncompromis ing , i n the f o r m of a nat ional re l ig ion, or to p u t it more exact ly, i n the f o r m of a racia l re l ig ion. T h i s expression does not seem to make sense because i t l inks two terms and concepts that are direct ly opposed to each o t h e r : the concept of re l igion, w h i c h is of its nature supranat ional and universa l , and the concept of nat ion and race, w h i c h includes exclusiveness. S u c h is the fundamental , const i tut ional paradox harboured by Judaism."

(Rev. Bonsirven, S.J . : Le Judaisme Palestinien au temps de Jésus C h r i s t )

N a h u m G o l d m a n n , President of the W o r l d Z i o n i s t Organisat ion , declared i n 1961:

"I t is total ly undesirable to seek to define the Jewish people as a racial or religious c o m m u n i t y , or as a c u l t u r a l or nat iona l ent i ty . Its u n i q u e h i s tory has created a un ique collective phenomenon to w h i c h none of the terms that are used i n different languages to describe h u m a n groups can be appl ied. W h a t matters is t h i s : a Jew th inks of himself as a n integral part of Judaism, whatever w a y he m a y describe the Jewish people."

(Quoted b y R a b i : A n a t o m i e du Judaisme français, p. 304)

F i n a l l y , two non-Jewish writers , one a Swiss and independent, and the other, J. M a d a u l e , sympathet ic to the Jewish people, both consider that the u n i t y of the H e b r e w people stems less from the idea of race, na t ion or rel igion than f rom c o m m o n , essentially religious t radi t ions :


" T h e difference between Judaism and every other contemporary rel igion is not a question of degree; it is a difference of species and nature w h i c h is fundamenta l ly paradoxical . W e are not deali n g w i t h a nat ional rel igion but w i t h a religious n a t i o n a l i t y . "

(G . B a t a u l t : Le Problème Juif, p. 66)

" W h a t is the exact nature of this Jewish nat iona l i ty? O n the one h a n d , it cannot be called pure ly religious i n essence since a great number of Jews no longer practise their re l igion, and on the other, the other religions do not give rise to any attributes of n a t i o n a l i t y whatever. But if rel igion and nat ional i ty are perfectly distinct w i t h the Jews, as they are w i t h others, h o w can one explain this strange nat ional i ty unattached to any land? To the exception of all others, it is based on a common past, on common traditions w h i c h are religious in o r i g i n . "

(J. M a d a u l e : Les Juifs et le M o n d e A c t u e l , p . 155)

If fur ther proof were wanted of the complexi ty of the Jewish problem, i t is to be seen i n the di f f icul ty involved i n the def ini t ion of a Jewish person i n l a w .

Obl iged to give an official answer to this question, neither H i t l e r , nor the V i c h y Government , nor even the Israeli Government have succeeded i n elaborating a clear and satisfactory def ini t ion.

B y the Law of R e t u r n , the fundamenta l law of the new Jewish State, promulgated at T e l - A v i v i n 1948, Israel gave the freedom of the c o u n t r y to a l l Jews of the Diaspora , whatever their o r i g i n . Once this had been done, the government had to w o r k out a legal def ini t ion as to w h o was and w h o was not a Jew. U n a b l e to find a legal f o r m u l a w h i c h took in to account the three factors of race, re l igion and nat iona l i ty , the government of T e l - A v i v was obliged to have recourse to the religious cr i ter ion. A Jew is someone w h o belongs to a Jewish c o m m u n i t y of re l igion or religious traditions and w h o is not converted to another re l ig ion.

O n e does not even have to be a bel iever :

"Present day Judaism is not identical w i t h religious practice. O n e can be Jewish, and one can be considered as such . . . w i t h out as m u c h as sharing the Jewish f a i t h , and notably Jewish m o n o t h e i s m . " (j. M a d a u l e , ib id . , p . 107)

Israeli legislation is based on the strictest religious intolerance. Indeed, conversion to another re l ig ion, par t i cu lar ly C h r i s t i a n i t y ,

automatica l ly excludes one f rom the Jewish c o m m u n i t y . A C h r i s t i a n or M o s l e m Jew cannot take advantage of the L a w of Return w i t h o u t pr ior natural isat ion, just l ike any other foreigner.


" T h i s was confirmed in December 1962 in a solemn judgment i n the H i g h C o u r t of Israel, w h e n the f u l l r ights of Israeli nat ional i ty were refused to a Jew converted to C h r i s t i a n i t y , w h o had long been l i v i n g i n Israel and wanted to be considered an Israeli, Father D a n i e l . Despite the recognised services w h i c h he has rendered the State, Father D a n i e l was not permitted to dispense w i t h the formalit ies of natural isat ion applicable i n Israel to non-Jews. In other words, because he was a C h r i s t i a n he was not al lowed to enjoy the benefit of the Law of R e t u r n to w h i c h he had appealed." (J. M a d a u l e , ib id . , p p . 65-66)

It w o u l d be the same as if an Engl i sh Protestant, converted to Cathol i c i sm, ceased to be Engl i sh .

In an article w h i c h appeared in Aspects de la France on 21st January 1965, X a v i e r V a l l a t quotes a no less typica l example :

"Perhaps y o u believe that it is easy for a half-Jew to become an Israeli c i t i z e n . D o not be deceived. T h e case of M r s . Ri ta E i t a n i , m u n i c i p a l counseller of N a z a r e t h , is instruct ive . H e r father, a Pol i sh Jew, was a N a z i v i c t i m . H e r mother is a G e r m a n C a t h o l i c , and she did not have her daughter immersed. B y reason whereof the M i n i s t e r of the Interior, M r . M o s h e Shapiro, requested M r s . E i tani to give up her Israeli passport, since she was not Jewish in the terms of the l a w . w h i c h stipulates that the c h i l d born to a non-Jewish mother is not considered Jewish unless converted to Judaism. It is curious that Israel so r igorously applies the same method of discr iminat ion for w h i c h it reproached the c i v i l Statute on the Jews i n France under the V i c h y Government as the abominat ion of desolat ion."

T h u s , paradoxical though it may seem, Israel, a lay State composed m a i n l y of atheists and free-thinkers, is founded in law on theological concepts and religious inst i tut ions . Furthermore , not only has H e b r e w , a sacred language, been made the nat ional language, just as the Bible , a sacred book, has been made the nat ional book, but a great number of religious practices have been preserved:

" W h e n y o u see a seven-branched candlestick i n the k i b b u t z mapam, i n other words belonging to a le f t -wing socialist party w h i c h professes atheism, y o u are told that it is a nat ional symbol . D u r i n g the pascal time, it is impossible to obtain unleavened bread in Israel. It is rather as if in a country where Cathol ic ism was the dominant rel igion, restaurants could o n l y serve meat on Fridays. If by chance you light a cigarette on the Sabbath in the dining-room of the K i n g D a v i d at Jerusalem after your meal, a

JUDAISM AND T H E VATICAN

waiter w i l l discreetly ask y o u to put it out , as y o u could give offence to some other person i n the room. . . . Jews are not al lowed to smoke o n the Sabbath . "

(J. M a d a u l e : Les Juifs et le M o n d e Actuel, p p . 68-69)

F i n a l l y , the L a w of R e t u r n does not recognise c i v i l marriage, c i v i l divorce or c i v i l funerals . W h a t , f r o m the point of v i e w of the Statute, is the concern of the i n d i v i d u a l , is dealt w i t h by the inter ior legislation of each f a i t h .

A l a y State, practis ing religious intolerance, Israel, w h i c h also claims to be a democracy, is yet one of the most rac ia l ly conscious States i n the w o r l d . M i x e d marriages are f o r b i d d e n :

" M i x e d marriages between Jews and non-Jews are not possible i n the new State of Israel, according to the l a w passed on the 28th of A u g u s t , 1953."

(F. L o v s k y : Antisémitisme et Mystère d'lsrael, p . 116)

I n this, Israeli legislation is merely r a t i f y i n g the opin ion of the Rabbinica l cons is tory :

" T h e conference of European Rabbis w h i c h was held i n 1960 i n Great B r i t a i n passed the f o l l o w i n g m o t i o n : W e consider that it is our solemn duty to w a r n our communities and every son and every daughter of the Jewish people against the terrible ev i l of mixed marriages w h i c h destroys the integrity of the Jewish people and shatters f ami ly l i f e . "

( R a b i : Anatomie du Judaisme français, pp. 259-60)

In the State of Israel death itself does not br ing peace:

" T h e non-Jewish husband cannot be buried i n the Jewish cemetery beside his w i f e : apart f r o m the case of a convert , n o space may be given or sold in a Jewish cemetery to a non-Jewish person.

" I n December 1957, A a r o n Steinberg, the seven-year-old son of recent immigrants , died at Pardess H a n n a i n Israel. H i s father was Jewish, the mother C h r i s t i a n . A c c o r d i n g to Rabbin ica l law the ch i ld of an exogamous u n i o n takes the rel igion of his mother , but i n canon law the c h i l d takes after the father. A s a result the parents met w i t h a refusal both f rom the Catho l i c cemetery at H a i f a and the Jewish cemetery at Pardess H a n n a . A l t h o u g h there are o n l y religious cemeteries in Israel, a l i t t le place was secured for the body, but outside the w a l l . "

(Rabi , ib id . , pp. 261-75)

It is the same racial spirit of the Law of Return w h i c h i n 1948 drove back into Jordan 900,000 Arabs from Palestine.


F i n a l l y , the trial of E i c h m a n n has set a precedent in law w h i c h may w e l l produce grave and long-term consequences.

A t the end of the Second W o r l d W a r , G e r m a n y was condemned to pay to the State of Israel i n compensation for the wrongs she had done to G e r m a n and foreign Jews indemnit ies a m o u n t i n g to 2,000,000 marks a year, and these payments , w h i c h have been made regular ly , have contributed considerably to the budget of Israel. 1

In 1960 A d o l f E i c h m a n n , a G e r m a n c i t izen w h o had taken refuge i n A r g e n t i n a , was kidnapped by Israeli secret agents, i n contempt of the l a w of the c o u n t r y , and brought before an Israeli court for crimes committed, i n the exercise of his office, against German and foreign Jews. H e was condemned to death and executed.

B y arrogat ing to itself the r ight to apply Israeli l a w to a German for crimes committed i n G e r m a n y and w h i c h were answerable at l a w to the courts of his o w n country , the State of Israel has created a grave legal precedent.

Indeed, as M r . R a y m o n d de Geouffre de la Pradelle, a lawyer of internat ional repute, pointed out i n the Figaro on the 9th June 1960:

" T h e tracking d o w n (of w a r cr iminals) by the A l l i e s , w h i c h began the day after the w a r ended, was based on the agreement of L o n d o n of the 8th A u g u s t 1945, and the declaration of M o s c o w of the 30th October 1943, to w h i c h the former document expressly refers.

" T h e pr inc iple laid d o w n is that war cr iminals shall be sent back to the country where they committed their crimes. Furthermore, the Statute of London of the 8th A u g u s t 1945, set u p an internat ional M i l i t a r y C o u r t to t ry those whose crimes were not confined to any precise geographical locat ion.

" T h e Statute of London was promulgated by the A l l i e s after they had received the power to exercise G e r m a n sovereignty contained i n the uncondi t ional surrender, w h i c h was handed to them on the 8th of M a y , 1945, by the head of the Reich Government , G r a n d A d m i r a l D o e n i t z .

" N o internat ional document authorises the State of Israel to

1 In March 1965 Le Monde drew attention to the fact that on the expiration of the agreement which had been concluded with Israel in virtue of reparation for damages caused to the Jews, the government of Bonn w i l l have paid out £ 3 3 6 , 1 6 8 , 0 0 0 (4,140 mil l ion new francs). Besides, Israel wi l l have received goods and equipment to the value of 2,880 mill ion N.F . ( £ 1 7 5 , 3 9 2 , 0 0 0 ) from Germany. O n top of this, Germany has paid indemnities to claims by individual Jewish victims which exceed the above figures.


t ry a foreign nat ional to w h o m are imputed crimes against h u m ani ty or w a r crimes w h e n these crimes were commit ted abroad. Furthermore, at the t ime w h e n these crimes were commit ted , there was no question of the vic t ims being of Israeli na t iona l i ty , since the State of Israel had not then come i n t o existence.

" T h e State of Israel is a sovereign power . W i t h i n the l i m i t s of the area under its jur isdict ion Israel can, if she so desires, confer on herself whatever jur i sd ic t iona l power she th inks fit. B u t this law violates the general principles of l a w and of the internat ional rule that competence to t r y crimes of a n essentially in ternat ional character is itself in ternat iona l , since, as the crimes were committed i n G e r m a n y at a period w h e n G e r m a n l a w considered them permissible, they o n l y constitute crimes f rom the point of v i e w of internat ional l a w . "

T h u s , i n both the case of the indemnities paid b y the B o n n government and of the tr ia l of E i c h m a n n , it is the State of Israel w h i c h has come forward as the sole qualified representative of the Jewish c o m m u n i t y of the w o r l d , and as the sovereign State of the Jewish people throughout the w o r l d .

N o t h i n g could i l lustrate more clearly both the closeness and the ambiguousness of the ties w h i c h l i n k the State of Israel and the Jews of the Diaspora .

T h e Jews have always claimed to be loyal citizens of the countries where they reside. But , as we have seen above, the indemnit ies and the t r ia l of E i c h m a n n prove that on the contrary the Jews remain strangers i n the countries that receive them, and that they consider they are answerable at l a w , not to these countries, but to the State of Israel.

5 M O S A I C L A W A N D T H E T A L M U D

W H E N one talks about the Jewish religion one thinks most commonly about the Mosaic law (or Pentateuch), codified in the Torah. Christianity cannot feel any particular animosity or mistrust with regard to the Pentateuch, which is one of its sacred books. It only considers that the Mosaic law has been transcended and superseded by the superior precepts of the Gospel; between the two there is consanguinity and continuity and not fundamental opposition.

"Though Torah scrolls often were trampled underfoot by screaming mobs looting synagogues, or burned with the synagogue itself, such acts were never sanctioned by the Church, and the Torah was never officially condemned. Though Judaism was reviled as a blasphemy, though Jews were killed for being unbelievers, the Torah itself was looked upon with respect, for it was the Law of God. As one Pope expressed it, 'We praise and honour the Law, for it was given to your fathers by Almighty God through Moses. But we condemn your religion and your false interpretation of

the Law. ' " (M.I. Dimont : Jews, God and History, p. 240)

But if some Jews have still remained faithful to tradition and the Torah, the majority have long since abandoned it in favour of the Talmud, a collection of commentaries on the Law compiled by the Pharisees and Rabbis between the second and the fifth century A.D. Many have become completely agnostic. Let us hear what Wickham Steed and eminent Jewish thinkers have to say about this delicate problem:

"The Sadducees struggled for centuries against the tendency to wrap Judaism in an insulating mantle of precepts and commentaries, but the fall of Jerusalem decided the struggle definitely in favour of the Pharisees, who so multiplied commentaries upon the Law that codification became indispensable. A code named Mishna (Doctrine) was elaborated. From generation to generation the Mishna commentaries grew until their volume became un-

53


manageable. Once more codification proved necessary. Towards the middle of the fifth century A.D. a M i s h n a code was formed i n Palestine and, at the end of the same century, a second code at B a b y l o n . Both codes were called ' T a l m u d ' (Research or Investigation). W h i l e the Palestine T a l m u d played an insignif icant part i n the subsequent l ife of Jewry, the B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d was regarded as a nat ional possession. It has remained 'The Book' for O r t h o d o x Jewry. It replaced the T o r a h as the f o u n t a i n of a l l wisdom and as the guide i n every detail of dai ly l ife. T h e T a l m u d , despite its character as a commentary upon a commentary u p o n a L a w of uncerta in o r i g i n , has not o n l y preserved the Jewish N a t i o n but has imbued it w i t h a Pharisee spirit and separated i t , perhaps for ever, f r o m the m a i n stream of h u m a n c u l t u r e . "

( H . W . Steed: The Hapsburg M o n a r c h y , p p . 164-5)

Bernard Lazare confirms this v i e w :

" I t m a y be said that true M o s a i s m , purified and enlarged by Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekie l , broadened and generalised b y the Judaeo-Hellenists, w o u l d have brought Israel to C h r i s t i a n i t y , but for Esraism, Pharisaism and T a l m u d i s m , w h i c h held the mass of the Jews bound to strict observances and n a r r o w r i t u a l practices. . . .

" A s the Book could not be proscribed, it was belittled and made subordinate to the T a l m u d ; the doctors declared: T h e l a w is water , the M i s h n a is w i n e . ' A n d the reading of the Bible was considered less beneficial, less conducive to salvation than the readi n g of the M i s h n a . . . . (Bernard L a z a r e : A n t i - S e m i t i s m , p . 17)

" I t was o n l y after a l l this that the rabbis u l t imate ly t r i u m p h e d . T h e i r end was attained. T h e y had cut off Israel f r o m the comm u n i t y of nations; they had made of it a sul len recluse, a rebel against a l l laws, foreign to a l l feel ing of f ra terni ty , closed to a l l beaut i fu l , noble and generous ideas; they had made of it a small and miserable nat ion , soured by isolat ion, brutalised by a n a r r o w education, demoralised and corrupted by an unjusti f iable pride.

" W i t h this t ransformation of the Jewish spirit and the v ic tory of sectarian doctors, coincides the beginning of official persecution. U n t i l that epoch there had o n l y been outbursts of local hatred, but no systematic vexations. W i t h the t r i u m p h of the Rabbinites the ghettos come into being. T h e expulsions and massacres commence. T h e Jews went to l ive a p a r t - - a l ine is drawn against them. T h e y detest the spirit of the nations amidst w h o m they l ive , the

MOSAIC LAW AND THE T A L M U D 55

nations pursue them. T h e y b u r n the M o r e h - - t h e i r T a l m u d is burned and they themselves are burned w i t h i t . "

(Bernard Lazare, ib id . , pp. 18-19)

In his book Le Malheur d'lsrael, Doc tor A . Roudinesco shows h o w the Judaism of the prophets, universal i n spir i t , was to end i n Chr is t i a n i t y , and h o w the Judaism of the L a w , founded on the T a l m u d , was to deviate and finally break f rom i t :

" M o d e r n or thodoxy is not the rel igion of the Bible and of the Prophets. It is a post-Biblical or T a l m u d i c re l igion bui l t u p by the Pharisees and doctors of the L a w between the second and fifth centuries after Jesus C h r i s t , to preserve the small m i n o r i t y of Jews w h o had not fol lowed C h r i s t , and to consummate the definite break f r o m t r i u m p h a n t C h r i s t i a n i t y .

" T h e universa l , messianic, finalist Judaism of the Prophets ended w i t h Jesus, and conquered the w o r l d i n the C h r i s t i a n f o r m .

"Lega l , nat ional Judaism kept its G o d exclusively i n the comm u n i t y of its choice, w h i c h it has str iven to protect f rom the dangers that constant ly threaten i t . It is based on an interpretat ion of b ib l ica l texts b y ora l , not revealed, traditions called M i s c h n a , Gemara , H a l a k a and H a g a d a . T h i s col lect ion, k n o w n as the T a l m u d , was first conceived of i n Jerusalem towards the end of the second century and completed i n B a b y l o n in the f i f th century . T h e two Ta lmuds consist of eleven volumes i n octavo and are twenty times the size of the B i b l e . "

( D r . A . Roudinesco : Le Malheur d'Israel, pp. 114-15)

" T h i s imposing collection of rabbinical works has erected a rampart of laws around Judaism and stamped i t w i t h the r i g i d i t y and lack of m o b i l i t y w i t h w h i c h it is st i l l dist inguished today.

" I t is i n his rel igion that a l l the elements that are specifically Jewish must be sought. Sprung f r o m its r igid and peculiar practices, his rel igion isolates the Jew and confers on h i m the character of a sort of foreign colony, unique i n its k i n d , l i v i n g i n the midst of other nat ions. Despite the prevalence of heterogeneousness, i n breeding and the absence of a n y proselytism have finally created a sort of ethnic by a process of selection.

" I n contrast to the religion revealed by A b r a h a m , and legislated by Moses, based on a nat ional G o d . stands the rel igion of the Prophets, inspired by a universa l G o d w h o was just and good. W i t h the Prophets, the idea of mora l i ty penetrates and is incorporated into their rel igion. O f necessity, the nat ional G o d was egoistic; he was not merci ful for 'he visited the sins of the fathers on their chi ldren and on their children's chi ldren unto the


f o u r t h generation' (Exodus x x x i v . 7). H e ordered Moses and Joshua to destroy the other peoples pit i lessly, and not to convert them. W i t h the Jewish Prophets there appears for the first t ime i n the history of h u m a n i t y the idea of universal brotherhood.

( D r . A . Roudinesco, ib id . , pp. 125-26)

" A s f rom the year 725 before the present era, Isaiah, A m o s , Hosea, M i c a h , Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekie l and D a n i e l created a new religion of a sp i r i tua l and moral elevation u n k n o w n before then. It is due to them that Y a h v e became a universal G o d ; and it is also due to them that Israel mainta ined the cul t of the one G o d . T h e y saved both Judaism and monotheism. O n e must read the Prophets to find out h o w far the Jewish people had been carried a w a y by idola t ry . U n c i r c u m c i s e d i n their hearts and stiff-necked, the people were r e t u r n i n g to their idols as the dog to his vomi t . It is not w i t h o u t reason that the memory of mani fold gold calves has survived the ages. The leaders set the example: So lomon, despite his proverbial w i s d o m , worshipped Astar te and M i l c o m and bui l t a temple at K e m o s h and M o l o c opposite Jerusalem (Kings x i . 5). Jeroboam the first set u p golden calves 500 years after A a r o n ' s , T e r t u l l i a n said that the Jews o n l y practised c ircumcis ion to check the tendency to idolatry and to remind them of their true G o d . U n d e r K i n g Manasseh false Gods were worshipped i n the Temple itself, w h i c h had become a veritable Pantheon. W i t h o u t the Prophets the worsh ip of Yahve might perhaps have been engul fed . " (Dr. A. Roudinesco. ib id . , pp. 126-27)

The subst i tut ion of the T a l m u d for the Torah had two consequences w h i c h have never ceased to w e i g h heavi ly on the destinies of the Jewish people throughout the centuries.

F i r s t ly , it exacerbated Jewish religious exclusiveness w h i c h began to develop more and more in to a nat ional and pol i t ical f o r m , as F. Fejtö shows very clearly in his w o r k , Dieu et son Juif:

" Y o u above a n y other arc the jealous people. That is y o u r t ru th and y o u r falsehood, it is y o u r curse. . . .

"I t is y o u w h o asked G o d not to deal w i t h the other peoples, to repudiate all his other ch i ldren .

" A l l or n o t h i n g was y o u r motto, not his. T y r a n n i c a l ch i ldren , v o u w o u l d have h i m all to yourselves. O n the pretext of m a k i n g h i m y o u r o n l y Lord, y o u r o n l y Master , y o u r o n l y K i n g , y o u worked unceasingly to bring h i m d o w n to your level, to dominate h i m , to make h i m the slave and instrument of your nat ional expansion. . . .

MOSAIC LAW AND T H E T A L M U D 57

" N o t h i n g could be less generous or more possessive than y o u r love of G o d . . . .

" T o put it quite s i m p l y , y o u wanted to be l ike h i m , to substitute yourselves for h i m , to take his place. N o t h i n g less than t h a t !

" T h e idea of sharing God w i t h others was inadmissible to y o u . E q u a l l y insupportable was the thought of y o u r inequal i ty and in fer ior i ty w i t h regard to h i m . W h y should he have everything and y o u noth ing? W h y should he be a l l -powerful and y o u powerless? W h y can he take everything that belongs to y o u if i t pleases h i m : y o u r wives, y o u r mother , y o u r sisters, y o u r daughters, y o u r flocks, y o u r land, w h i l e y o u can o n l y bow d o w n before the expression of his w i l l ? It is un just , y o u cry . It is not a covenant between equals, it is slavery. It is not a contract, i t is dictatorship. . . .

" A n d then there sprang u p i n y o u r soul , f r o m the depths of y o u r collective conscience, that quarter where no m a n dares to venture once the n ight has fa l len , this unutterable , monstrous dream, to make h i m disappear i n one w a y or another and to substitute yourselves for h i m , to become l ike h t m , to be G o d .

" Y o u d idn ' t take long to t ransform yourselves f r o m A d a m to C a i n and to k i l l A b e l , the best among y o u , the one whose offeri n g had been accepted. . . .

" W h i l e proc la iming the existence of one G o d of the universe the few obstinately persists i n seeking to capture this G o d for himself , and to exclude al l others f r o m the covenant. . . . "

(F. Fejtö: Dieu et son ]uif, pp. 104-109)

Bernard Lazare is no less e x p l i c i t :

" W i t h the l a w , yet w i t h o u t Israel to put it into practice, the w o r l d could not exist, G o d w o u l d t u r n i t back in to n o t h i n g ; nor w i l l the w o r l d k n o w happiness u n t i l it be brought under the dominat ion of that l a w , that is to say, under the dominat ion of the Jews. T h u s the Jewish people is chosen by G o d as the trustee of H i s w i l l ; it is the o n l y people w i t h w h o m the D e i t y has made a covenant; it is the choice of the L o r d . . . .

"Israel is placed under the very eye of Jehovah; i t is the Eternal 's favoured son w h o has the sole r ight to his love, to his g o o d w i l l , to his special protection; other men are placed beneath the Hebrews, and it is by mere mercy that they are entit led to div ine munif icence, since the souls of the Jews alone are descended f r o m the first m a n . The wealth w h i c h has come to the nations, i n t r u t h belongs to Israel.

" T h i s fa i th i n their predestination, i n their election, developed


among the Jews an immense pride. It led them to view the Gentiles with contempt, often with hate, when patriotic considerations supervened to religious feelings."

(Bernard Lazare: Anti-Semitism, pp. 13-14)

The second consequence of the transition from the Torah to the Talmud is equally important; contrary to an opinion which throws a completely false light on the problem of the relationship of Judaism and Christianity, neither faith any longer, since that date, rest upon a common book. Indeed, they have become more and more foreign to each other.

"Christianity cannot be called a little Jewish sect which had some success, as the rabbis claim. Christianity in all its true purity and grandeur fulfilled Judaism and, by denationalising it, made it universal and human, according to the expectations of the prophets. Jesus, the man of God, incomparable and unequalled, could have been accepted as the Messiah in accordance with the eschatology and messianism of Israel. Is it for the Jews to complain if the Christians recognised God himself in this son of Israel? For two thousand years Judaism had contained the seed of Christianity in spirit. Already prophecy had pointed to a Christianity in gestation. The birth of the child was a matter of time. Having rejected its own offspring, Judaism withered and withdrew into itself in morose, proud and sterile isolation. It completely abandoned proselytism and set itself up as the national religion of a small fraction of the Jewish people.

"Paradoxical though it may seem to both Jews and Christians, it is in Christianity that the true religion of Israel was realised. The modern Jew practises a religion which is posterior to the evangelical contribution established by the doctors of the Law, on a Bible interpreted on the edge of the Revelation. Whereas the Judaism of the prophets was enriched by the message of Jesus, the Judaism of the rabbis was engulfed in the Talmud."

(Dr. A . Roudinesco: Le Malheur d'Israel, p. 140)

"The Judaism of the Diaspora, hellenic Judaism as it was called, which represented nine-tenths of the Jews of the Empire, liberated from the constraint of the circumcision, denationalised, open-minded and receptive, disappeared in about the fifth century, probably as a result of fusion with Christianity. Far removed from Jerusalem, it was not greatly affected by the catastrophes in the years 70 and 133. After the official creed of Jerusalem had passed away, the Palestine Jews looked upon the Jews of the dispersion as suspect from the point of view of strict orthodoxy. The rupture

MOSAIC LAW AND THE T A L M U D 59

between the Judaism of the Diaspora and rabbinical Judaism was the w o r k of the scribes, the doctors and the pharisees of the L a w . A s f r o m the second century, the rabbis of B a b y l o n and Gali lee elaborated a religious, pol i t i ca l and social code k n o w n as the T a l m u d . T h i s book regulated the l i fe of the Israelite i n a different spirit f r o m that of the prophets and the Bible . If serious divergences had existed between the O l d and the N e w Testament, the Chr i s t ians w o u l d not have kept the two texts, the one f o l l o w i n g o n f r o m the other. H a v i n g rejected the Gospel , the rabbis were obliged to re-interpret the text of the old Bible . T h e y carried out this w o r k b y means of oral traditions more or less consistent w i t h the o ld texts : the M i s h n a and the Gemara . T h e result of this compi la t ion was a new Bible; the o ld remains w i t h the Chr is t ians . The T a l m u d is composed of eleven thick volumes. T h i s baneful book, for the most part uninte l l ig ib le , a sad wreck of the Judaism of the prophets, does not enr ich the h u m a n spirit (Salomon Reinach) . T h e a im of the T a l m u d was to save w h a t remained of Israel f r o m being absorbed by C h r i s t i a n i t y . . . the o ld spir i tual treasure of the prophets was abandoned b y the rabbinites. . . .

" W h i l e O r i g e n , Clement of A l e x a n d r i a , St. Jerome a n d St. A u g u s t i n e were enr ich ing C h r i s t i a n i t y , Judaism was being i m poverished b y the T a l m u d .

"The imposition of the ideals of the T a l m u d on the new branch of Judaism has been the calamity of the Jewish people even to

this day. (Dr. A. Roudinesco, ib id . , pp. 25-26)

6

T H E M A R R A N O S

M E M B E R S H I P of the C a t h o l i c C h u r c h is not based o n race; it is solely a matter of religious f a i t h . I n the eyes of the C h u r c h , a Jewish convert is a C h r i s t i a n w h o shares to the f u l l the privileges of membership of the C h u r c h .

" B a p t i s m confers f u l l membership of the C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t y w i t h o u t a n y reservations whatsoever. Convers ion of the Jews was not o n l y thought desirable but act ively sought after. O n c e converted, they were received w i t h joy; conversion p u t an end to al l segregation. A t the present t ime, however, the Jew is neither wanted nor sought after; na t iona l and racial ant isemit ism is m u c h more d i s c r i m i n a t i n g . "

( D r . A . Roudinesco, Le M a l h e u r d'Israel, pp. 42-43)

" H a v i n g recognised certain r i g i d l y defined characteristics i n each nat ion , modern nat ional i sm has refused to see the Jew i n a n y other l ight than that of a stranger i n the l a n d , a stateless and cosmopolitan person. N o dis t inct ion at a l l is made between the assimilated Jew and the Jew w h o is conscious of his nat ional traditions. M o d e r n ant isemit ism is more i l logical than that of the M i d d l e Ages w h i c h was based on indisputable religious objections and not on unproved hypotheses and nebulous ideas.

" I n as m u c h as he is a stranger the Jew should be rejected because nat ional i sm also harbours a hatred of foreigners . "

( D r . A . Roudinesco, ib id . , p . 76)

T h e C h r i s t i a n att i tude i n mediaeval times is w e l l summed u p i n the f o l l o w i n g appeal to the Jews made by the Bishop of Clermont -Ferrand, Saint A v i t :

" R e m a i n among us and live l ike us or depart as q u i c k l y as possible. Give us back this land to w h i c h y o u are strangers; spare us y o u r presence here, or, if y o u wish to remain here, share i n our f a i t h . "

(F. L o v s k y : Antisémitisme et Mystère d'Israel, p. 182)

60

T H E MARRANOS 6 l

T h e Jews w h o did not want to leave and w h o obstinately resisted conversion retorted by h a v i n g recourse to underhand methods w h i c h led to great bitterness and caused p r o f o u n d uneasiness. The practise of M a r r a n i s m , w h i c h was carried to great lengths i n Spain, perm a n e n t l y envenomed relations between Jews and non-Jews.

Massoutié, a wr i te r w h o has devoted two extremely interesting books to a s t u d y of the Jewish problem, has the f o l l o w i n g comment to m a k e :

" Judaism reacted to other religions i n m a n y different ways , but the most extraordinary reaction of a l l . . . is undoubtedly what we w i l l call the phenomenon of Marranism. T h i s is what W e r n e r Som-bart has to say on the subject (p. 385): T h e sudden increase i n the numbers of pretended conversions of Jews to paganism, to the M o s l e m rel igion, to C h r i s t i a n i t y , is such an extraordinary phenomenon, such a un ique event i n the h is tory of m a n k i n d , that we cannot fa i l to be astonished and dumbfounded every time we come to s tudy i t . '

(L. Massout ié : Judaisme et Hitlérisme, pp. 97-99)

" T h e M a r r a n o s were Spanish Jews i n semblance converted to C h r i s t i a n i t y . It was f rom 1391 onwards and, according to Graetz , f o l l o w i n g religious persecution, that m a n y Jews i n Spain decided to adopt the Catho l i c f a i th . There was n o t h i n g new i n this because, l o n g before them, their ancestors of the dispersion h a d already had recourse to this ruse, either to escape religious persecut ion , or for motives of sheer material g a i n . "

(L. Massoutié, ib id . , pp. 97-99)

" H o w e v e r that may be, while they ostensibly practised Catholicism the Marranos all the while secretly fo l lowed the rites of Judaism to w h i c h they had remained deeply attached. T h e Spanish people were not deceived as to the sinceri ty of the religious beliefs of the n e w Chr is t ians . W i t h good reason the Spaniards were suspicious of them and called them M a r r a n o s , w h i c h means 'accursed, damned' , or i n popular language, ' swine ' . A n extraordinary aspect of the s i tuat ion and one w h i c h I admit I f a i l to understand is that the M a r r a n o s were not satisfied w i t h zealously s u b m i t t i n g to the author i ty of the C h u r c h ; they went m u c h f u r t h e r s t i l l and carried their deceit to extreme l imi ts . T h u s it was that m a n y of them, both men and w o m e n , did not hesitate to enter religious o r d e r s - - w h i c h they were i n no w a y obliged to d o - - a n d became monks or nuns. W h a t is more, Marranos became priests and even bishops. If Jewish historians themselves had not told us this, we could hardly believe it .

62 J U D A I S M A N D T H E V A T I C A N

" W e can understand w h y the Spanish people became angry w h e n this was discovered; it was f o l l o w i n g this discovery that the Spanish Inquis i t ion was set u p . "

(L. Massoutié, ib id . , p p . 100-101)

" T h e struggle between the Inquis i t ion and the M a r r a n o s went o n f o r several centuries i n the dark, an unparal le led, unexampled struggle, Graetz tells us, i n w h i c h a l l the techniques of deceit and doggedness of purpose were pitted against accusations and c r u e l t y . " (L. Massoutié, ib id . , pp. 103-105)

"Protestantism had its M a r r a n o s , too. Secret Jews were numerous among the Protestant refugees of the seventeenth century at the t ime of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes , as W e r n e r Sombart tells us. I n G e r m a n y for instance, we can rate the famous poet, H e n r y H e i n e , as a Protestant M a r r a n o . A m a z i n g as it m a y seem, this is h o w Graetz refers to H e i n e and to his co-religionist, Louis Boerne, b o t h of them converts to Protestantism. I quote f r o m a passage i n Geschichte der Juden, vo lume x i , page 368, w h i c h was omitted f r o m the French translat ion by Moses B l o c h :

" T h e y were divorced f r o m Judaism o n l y superf ic ial ly, l ike f ight ing m e n w h o p u t o n the a r m o u r and colours of their enemy i n order to strike h i m d o w n and destroy h i m w i t h greater certa in ty and vigour . W h a t can one make of such behaviour b y the sensitive author of the Intermezzo and the l ive ly wr i te r of the Reisebi lder? ' (L. Massoutié, ibid., pp. 103-105)

" I n a passage of his History of the Jews, Graetz tells us of Spanish and Portuguese M a r r a n o s w h o , behind the mask of Chr i s t i a n i t y and i n the habit of m o n k s , ' jealously cherished the sacred flame of their paternal re l ig ion , and at the same time undermined the foundations of the p o w e r f u l C a t h o l i c m o n a r c h y . '

"If it is o n l y reasonable for a Jew not to give u p his re l ig ion and even to preserve the w o r s h i p of his race and ancestors secretly, al l the w h i l e behaving as a l o y a l c i t izen i n the land of his adopt i o n , i t is incomprehensible that he should take advantage of his French or G e r m a n c i t izenship , for instance, to undermine the institutions and customs of his new fatherland; i n other words, to overthrow everyth ing . If the modern Jew was to carry out on a nat ional level w h a t the M a r r a n o s of o ld d id i n the field of rel igion, it w o u l d lead to countless disasters for Israel. M o d e r n nations, thus irr i tated, w o u l d p lunge into savage anti-Semitism and there w o u l d automatica l ly arise a new Inquis i t ion , of a different

THE MARRANOS 63

type to be sure, but one that w o u l d perhaps be more terrible t h a n Torquemada's .

" I n m y o p i n i o n , if Israel wants to avoid the worst catastrophes, i t is i n her interest to w o r k i n the open. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , dissimulat ion is an age-old habit of hers and even the most pro-Semitic wri ters , such as A n a t o l e Leroy-Beaulieu, find themselves obliged to admit i t . "

(L. Massoutié, i b i d . , p p . 114-15)

7 A S S I M I L A T I O N

T H E official modern att i tude i n the West w i t h regard to the Jews is based on the assertion that they are loyal citizens of the countries i n w h i c h they l ive , and that they become completely assimilated w i t h their surroundings . A G e r m a n , French or E n g l i s h few is considered a G e r m a n , a F r e n c h m a n or an E n g l i s h m a n of Israelite re l ig ion.

But i n point of fact the Jew does not assimilate himself , or o n l y very s l o w l y and w i t h great d i f f i cu l ty . A l l the specialists w h o have studied this aspect of the problem, whether Jewish or not are u n a n i mous about this, at least w h e n they are i n good fa i th , for the att i tude of the leaders of Judaism is f u l l of ambigui ty . O n the one h a n d they demand for their o w n people the f u l l r ights of c i t izenship , but at the same time they make the utmost efforts to preserve their o w n specific Jewish traits and in tegr i ty .

T h e very pr inc ip le of assimilat ion and its corol lary , mixed marr i ages, is held equally suspect i n both camps, M a n y western people are fiercely opposed to cross-breeding by the in t roduct ion of Jewish blood into their race.

T h e conclusions of W i c k h a m Steed and rabbi A l f r e d Nossig are not calculated to a l lay their apprehensions:

" T h a t Jews have a remarkable facul ty for external adaptation to environment is incontestable, but it remains to be seen whether , w i t h a l l their p l i a n c y and pertinacious direct ion of w i l l toward their immediate object, they are capable of adapting themselves in ternal ly . Experience and observation n o w extending over more than twenty-one years, i n G e r m a n y , France, Italy and A u s t r i a -H u n g a r y , inc l ine me to answer this question i n the negative.

( H . W . Steed: The Hapsburg M o n a r c h y , p. 170)

" T h e intensi ty of the Jewish race character is such that the Jewish strain w i l l persist for generations i n non-Jewish families into w h i c h Jewish blood has once entered. The strain may be pro-

64

ASSIMILATION 65

ductive of beauty or genius, or it may , on the other h a n d , br ing the mental derangement so common i n the better-class Jewish

fami l ies . " ( H . W . Steed, i b i d . , p . 168)

Rabbi Noss ig , w h o agrees w i t h this o p i n i o n , w r o t e :

" W e m a y talk about a biological judaisat ion of the civil ised w o r l d . . . the minutest drop of Jewish blood influences the sp i r i tua l character of families over m a n y generations."

( N o s s i g : Integrales Judentum)

T h e A m e r i c a n Jewish wri ter , L u d w i g Lewisohn , is, if possible, even more precise:

" T h e French revolut ion came and gradual ly , very gradua l ly and sporadical ly, the gates of the Ghet to were opened. C o n t e m p t , servitude, restrictive laws, special taxes remained. C i t i z e n s h i p was not granted the Jews of England u n t i l 1832 nor the Jews of Prussia u n t i l 1847. But this gesture and s imilar gestures elsewhere earlier and later, more or less sincere, were supposed capable of obliterati n g the historic existence, consciousness, experience of a people that h a d been a people for three thousand years.

" T h i s was the fal lacy of the Gentiles; this is the fal lacy of the u n h a p p y assimilationist . Both he and the semi-benevolent Gent i le are deceived by the uniqueness of the Jewish nat ion . N a t i o n h o o d is identified w i t h land, armies, power. The continued existence of Jewry f r o m the B a b y l o n i a n capt iv i ty to the French R e v o l u t i o n , a period of r o u g h l y two thousand three h u n d r e d years, proves that there is one nat ion w i t h o u t the convent ional attributes of nationhood.

" L i k e every other people, the E n g l i s h , the G e r m a n , the French, the Jews are rac ia l ly m i x e d . A s Cel t i c , Saxon, L a t i n and p r e - A r y a n blood is f o u n d i n al l these peoples, or, to employ another method of differentiat ion, N o r d i c , A l p i n e and Medi ter ranean , so the Jews i n their enormously long his tory have undergone racial interm i x t u r e . T h e historic process evidently transcends the question of race and shapes people by forces w h i c h we are not instructed enough to grasp. Jews differ among themselves as w i d e l y as a Tyrolese G e r m a n differs f r o m a Schleswiger, a Provençal f r o m a N o r m a n , a Creole f rom the V e r m o n t e r . T h e y remain Jews, even as these others remain , beyond a l l local and racial differences. Germans, Frenchmen, Amer icans . A central and permanent approach to an outer and inner n o r m , type, group of characteristics persists. Wherever the perception of this p la in fact is not arti-


finally i n h i b i t e d , it is as potent as ever. T h e f e w remaining M a r r a n o s of Spain , Spanish and o u t w a r d l y C a t h o l i c for over four centuries, have applied to the C h i e f Rabbinate of Jerusalem for f o r m a l readmittance to Jewry. . . .

( L u d w i g L e w i s o h n : Israel, p p . 33-35)

" I t is assimilat ion that w o u l d be the miracle, the break i n the eternal c h a i n of causal i ty . . . our assimilationist m a y never t h i n k a Jewish thought or read a Jewish book. I n the essential character of a l l his passions as w e l l as of a l l his actions he remains a J e w . . . .

( L u d w i g L e w i s o h n , i b i d . , p . 36)

" N o , assimilation is impossible. It is impossible because the Jew cannot change his n a t i o n a l character; he cannot , b y w i s h i n g i t , abandon himself a n y more than the members of a n y other f o l k can do so . . . ( L u d w i g L e w i s o h n , i b i d . , p p . 38-39)

" W h a t sha l l he do? W h i t h e r sha l l he t u r n ? H e is a Jew. H e remains a Jew. T h e m a j o r i t y has discovered the fact, as i t a lways does, sooner or later; he discovers i t too. Gent i le and Jew find that there is no escape. B o t h believed i n escape. There is none. N o n e . . . . ( L u d w i g L e w i s o h n , i b i d . , p . 41)

Yet more recently, D o c t o r Roudinesco has w r i t t e n :

" T h e struggle against ant i -Semit ism on the religious level ought to be encouraged. Is the w o r l d suff ic iently C h r i s t i a n yet to hear such a message? T h e religious sentiment has persisted i n certain countries, Spa in , I re land, C a n a d a and I ta ly for example, where there are but few Jews. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the Jewish problem has l o n g ago exceeded the rel igious sphere, and national ist and racist anti -Semitism is constructed o n foundations far more dif f icult to unsettle. T h e n again , u n i o n o n the religious level is v iewed w i t h considerable suspicion b y the Synagogue, w h i c h is s t i l l afraid of conversions ." (Dr. A. Roudinesco : Le Malheur d'Israel, p . 190)

"Lega l emancipat ion a n d assimilat ion have fai led. G e r m a n Jews were the most assimilated Jews i n the w o r l d , and i t was i n Germ a n y that anti-Semite f u r y was carried to extremes.

" T h e problem of ass imilat ion is a complex one. Is it even possible or compatible w i t h u p h o l d i n g a re l ig ion and tradi t ion whose character is both nat iona l and separatist? O p i n i o n s differ greatly among the Jews themselves.

ASSIMILATION 6 7

" F i n a l l y there are certain cases w h i c h defy a l l classification. A s s i m i l a t i o n has not disarmed anti -Semit ism. Ass imi la ted Jews are even less tolerated than the others. It was the total fa i lure of assimilat ion w h i c h opened the w a y for Z i o n i s m . "

( D r . A . Roudinesco, i b i d . , p . 191)

In Soviet Russia assimilat ion has completely fai led despite the strident propaganda put out b y le f t -wing parties that o n l y M a r x i s m could provide a definite solut ion to the problem of anti-Semitism i n the w o r l d . T h i s has been confirmed by, amongst others, Jean Paul Sartre, i n a work of unutterably poor q u a l i t y called Réflections sur la Question juive:

" A n t i - S e m i t i s m is a m y t h i c a l bourgeois representation of the class struggle; i n a classless society i t could not exist. There w o u l d be no place for it i n a society whose members are a l l interdependent, since they are a l l engaged i n the same u n d e r t a k i n g . It exhibits a certain myst ic l i n k between m a n and his 'goods' w h i c h is a product of the present system of property . T h u s i n a classless society founded on the collective ownersh ip of the instruments of w o r k , m a n , liberated f r o m the delusions of the h i ther -wor ld , w i l l be able to devote himself to his task, w h i c h is to b r i n g into existence the reign of h u m a n i t y , and anti-Semitism w i l l have no further justif ication; it w i l l have been cut off f r o m the roots."

(Jean Paul Sartre, ib id . , pp. 184-5)

In actual fact n o t h i n g of the sort has happened, as F e j t ö recognises i n his w o r k Les ]uifs et l 'Ant isémit isme dans les pays c o m m u n -istes, i n w h i c h he publishes the f o l l o w i n g letter sent by a Jew i n M o s c o w to a N e w Y o r k newspaper about the M o s c o w f e s t i v a l :

" T h e theory advocated by those w h o believe i n assimilation (people w h o are either mad or unscrupulous) , according to w h i c h o ld Jewish traditions are dead and buried, and the Jews have completely m i x e d w i t h the Russians, to the greatest material benefit of both parties, and thus no longer need their o w n culture, has exploded l ike an over-inflated bal loon, though i n t r u t h nobody ever doubted that it was an insecure proposi t ion.

" A r e the Jews content w i t h Russ ian cul ture , w h i c h they can enjoy freely and at w i l l ? T o d a y , w i t h o u t fear of being contradicted one can answer; N o . Aspi ra t ions to Jewish art, Jewish music and the Jewish language have not been stifled by twenty years of forced assimilat ion. T h i s need can be seen i n the desire to see and hear the Israeli delegation, to receive some souvenir of Israel, a f lower , an emblem, a t icket, a box of cigarettes. . . .


" I f y o u ask a Jew w h a t he th inks w i l l be the consequences of this Festival , he w i l l w i t h o u t a n y doubt reply that reprisals are foreseen, though i t is uncer ta in w h a t f o r m they w i l l take. T h e y dread doing rash things, and yet the Jews gather where the concerts are to be he ld , d r i v e n b y a force w h i c h springs f r o m every h u m a n heart; the yearn ing for their o w n nat ional c u l t u r e . "

(F. Fejtö, ib id . , p . 225)

A t a conference on this quest ion held by F e j t ö i n Brussels i n September 1958, a y o u n g member of the audience got u p and s a i d :

" A s s i m i l a t i o n - - o r i n other words , integrat ion w i t h the socialist c o m m u n i t y on a basis of perfect e q u a l i t y - - i s becoming more and more dif f icult , i f not impossible. A s s i m i l a t i o n is a fa i lure ; f r o m the outset i t was an impossible a i m to achieve; C o m m u n i s m w o u l d no more be able to impose i t than bourgeois l iberal ism; the Jew's o n l y salvation lies i n Israel, i n the r e t u r n to the judaic traditions, the promised L a n d , the reconstruction of the na t ion . . . . "

(F. Fejtö, i b i d . , p . 253)

T h i s fa i lure is a l l the more remarkable considering that the Soviet regime o w e d its i n i t i a l success to in ternat ional Jewish revolutionaries a n d that Jewish leaders were the masters of Russia u n t i l they were progressively ousted f r o m positions of control by S ta l in and his successors.

A fata l i ty as inexorable as the tunic of Nessus seems to c l i n g to the H e b r e w people; masters i n the art of revolut ion , upheaval and destruct ion, they are powerless to create. Elie Faure depicts this trait i n s t r i k i n g terms :

" T h e Jew's historic mission has been clearly defined, perhaps for a l l t ime. It w i l l be the p r i n c i p a l factor i n every apocalypt ic epoch, as i t was at the end of the ancient w o r l d , and as i t is n o w at the end, amid w h i c h we are l i v i n g , of the C h r i s t i a n w o r l d . At these moments the Jews w i l l a lways be i n the forefront , both to r u i n the o ld edifice and to m a r k out the terrain and materials for the n e w structure w h i c h is to replace i t . It is this d y n a m i c q u a l i t y w h i c h is the mark of their extraordinary grandeur and perhaps also, it must be admit ted, of their visible impotence.

" T h e Jew destroys every ancient i l lus ion , and if he takes more share than a n y b o d y - - S t . Paul former ly and K a r l M a r x today, for e x a m p l e - - i n construct ing the new i l l u s i o n , precisely by reason of his eternal thirst for t r u t h , w h i c h always survives the outcomes of pol i t ica l and religious struggles, he is fated to insert i n the same i l l u s i o n the w o r m w h i c h w i l l undermine i t . T h e patr iarch

ASSIMILATION 69

w h o i n former times agreed to lead the h u m a n conscience towards the promised land across the g l o w i n g stretches of knowledge is not ready to lay d o w n his formidable b u r d e n . "

(Elie F a u r e : La Question Juive vue par v ingt-s ix emminentes personnalités, p . 97)

In another passage, the Jewish scholar concludes on this subject :

" D e s p i t e reasons for hope w h i c h he accumulated i n silence, could the Jew be regarded as a n y t h i n g other than a destroyer armed w i t h the corrosive doubt w i t h w h i c h Israel has a lways opposed the sentimental idealism of Europe since the time of the G r e e k s ? " (Elie Faure, i b i d . , p . 91)

Is Z i o n i s m the solut ion to the problem? N o , answers D r . R o u dinesco :

" T h e n a t i o n a l home i n Palestine does not resolve the Jewish problem. I n real i ty it represents a new danger for Judaism. It is a cruel disappointment to the idealism of l iberal Jews w h o , since Moses Mendelssohn , have made so m a n y attempts at assimilat ion as w e l l as for a l l the Jews w h o have poured out their blood o n the battle-fields i n proof of their l o y a l t y towards their countries of adopt ion.

" H a v i n g fought against nat ional ism and racism, i n Israel the Jews proc la im themselves a na t ion and a race apart. T r i u m p h a n t Z i o n i s m is consol idating everyth ing w h i c h modern nationalist and racist ant i -Semit ism has erected i n the past century . It is the greatest error committed by Judaism since the denial of C h r i s t . H e n c e f o r t h every Jew w i l l be supposed to have a country to w h i c h he can be sent back w i t h o u t being able to raise the slightest va l id protest. T o c la im the H o l y Land as their real fatherland is even more i l log ica l , since his tory tells us that h a r d l y one out of ten Jews can c la im to be descended f r o m Palestinian Jews, and that f r o m the remotest ages the Promised L a n d has o n l y sheltered a smal l f ract ion of the Jewish popula t ion of the w o r l d . H a d it been a question of a pure ly spir i tual home, Jerusalem could have represented for the f a i t h f u l what V a t i c a n Rome represents for Cathol ics .

" T h e Israeli Government has set itself u p as the protector of the Jews of the whole w o r l d . It attacked the Czecho-Slovak legat ion d u r i n g the Slansky t r ia l . It demonstrated i n front of A m e r i can bui ldings i n favour of the Rosenbergs. . . . It asserts its rights over a l l Jewish nationals l i v i n g outside its t i n y frontiers w i t h o u t consul t ing them and in spite of their wishes. It practises a pol icy of racial d iscr iminat ion against 150,000 A r a b s l i v i n g in


Israel i n a special quarter, contrary to the st ipulat ions of the Bal four Declarat ion , w h i c h laid d o w n that the rights of non-Jewish communit ies l i v i n g i n Palestine were not i n a n y w a y to be in f r inged .

" T h e Z i o n i s t solut ion does not resolve a n y of the difficulties of the Jewish problem; it inf l icts an enormous i n j u r y on Judaism of the dispersion, and is grist to the m i l l of the anti-Semites.

( D r . A . Roudinesco, Le Malheur d'Israel, pp. 182-5)

" T h e future of the l i t t le Palestinian State is forb idding . Every historian knows that the H o l y L a n d is the most neuralgic spot i n the w o r l d . It was there that the greatest drama i n the h is tory of h u m a n i t y took place. A l l the empires fought each other for the sacred places. The Cross and the Crescent have confronted each other there for centuries. T h e crusaders came and left their bones and o n l y the V e n e t i a n traders profited f r o m i t . T h e greatest powers i n the w o r l d have got their eyes on this s tr ip of l a n d , o n w h i c h the most i m p o r t a n t commercia l and strategic routes i n the w o r l d converge, across the most h o t l y disputed oil-fields.

( D r . A . Roudinesco, ib id . , p. 185)

" T h e Jewish question is not o n l y confined to the mora l order, it it a social and pol i t i ca l problem w i t h in f in i te repercussions. T h e D r e y f u s affair rent and weakened France. W i t h o u t ant i -Semit ism, H i t l e r w o u l d not have t r i u m p h e d i n G e r m a n y and the Second W o r l d W a r , w h i c h cost the lives of s ix ty m i l l i o n men , could have been avoided.

" D e s p i t e every expectat ion, legal emancipat ion , ass imilat ion, and Jewish blood poured out on the battle-fields have a l l proved i n effectual. A n t i - S e m i t i s m has persisted and become intensif ied. Israel's destiny remains sealed i n mis for tune . "

( D r . Roudinesco, i b i d . , p . 177)

In practice, despite noble professions of democratic fa i th , assimilat ion runs into almost unsurmountable difficulties.

Furthermore , the spir i tual leaders of W o r l d Judaism fiercely oppose each and every different essay at ass imi la t ion ; nat ional integrat ion, mixed marriage, conversion. . . .

T h u s , i n his book Qu'est-ce que le Judaisme? D r . Pasmanik w r o t e :

" Y o u must choose between life or death. Death is conscious, systematic and deliberate assimilation. But a whole people w o u l d never decide to proclaim death as their vital aim. Especially w h e n they k n o w that their nat ional values have preserved their v i t a l i t y . "

( D r . Pasmanik, i b i d . , p . 97)

ASSIMILATION

In a recent study on A n t i - s e m i t i s m , Joshua Jehouda is equal ly categor ica l :

"Assimilation led to the collective suicide of Israel. It has turned the Jewish people, to use A n d r e Spire's expression, i n t o ' i n d i viduals of dust ' , unquest ionably destined to vanish even w i t h o u t the massive blows of anti -Semit ism. If pol i t i ca l Z i o n i s m , w h i c h sprang f r o m the reaction against ant i -Semit ism, had not awoken the old messianic nostalgia of Israel, emancipated Judaism w o u l d have disappeared i n a n o n y m i t y amidst the peoples. O n c e again the messianism w h i c h the Jewish people carries i n its breast has saved i t f r o m total disaster. A s s i m i l a t i o n is the gradual process of detaching the Jews f r o m the spir i tual p a t r i m o n y of Israel. It stems f r o m a false interpretat ion of the French R e v o l u t i o n , w h i c h gave the Jews the d i g n i t y of m a n w i t h o u t abol ishing ostracism w i t h regard to the religious doctrine of Juda ism."

(Joshua Jehouda: Antisémitisme, Miroir du M o n d e , p . 255)

A n d a g a i n :

' T h e conference of European rabbis h e l d i n Great B r i t a i n i n 1960 passed the f o l l o w i n g m o t i o n : ' W e consider i t is our solemn d u t y to w a r n our communit ies and every son and daughter of the Jewish people of the terrible ev i l of m i x e d marriages w h i c h destroy the in tegr i ty of the Jewish people and shatter Jewish f a m i l y l i f e ' . " (Quoted by R a b i i n

A n a t o m i e du Judaisme français, p p . 259-60)

T h i s ban o n assimilat ion extends to every detail of dai ly l i fe , as we are told b y J. M a d a u l e , President of the A m i t i e s Judéo-Chrétiennes Internat ionales :

" A Jew m a y o n l y adopt the c lo th ing and language of the people amongst w h o m he is spread on c o n d i t i o n that he remains a Jew i n h is heart and does not renounce the mysterious pecul iar i ty w h i c h distinguishes h i m f r o m other m e n . "

(J. M a d a u l e : Les Juifs et Ie M o n d e Actuel, p . 23)

In M a r c h 1964 D r . G o l d m a n n , President of the W o r l d Z i o n i s t Organisa t ion , drew the delegates' a t tent ion to the dangers of assimila t ion .

T h e f o l l o w i n g article by A n d r é Scemama appeared i n Le M o n d e :

" Jerusalem, 17th M a r c h 1964. O n M o n d a y D r . N a h u m G o l d m a n n made his first speech at Jerusalem i n his capacity as a c i t i zen of Israel. A s a matter of fact, the m a n w h o for m a n y years


has presided over the destiny of the wor ld Z ion is t movement, had just the week before acquired Israeli na t iona l i ty on landing as an i m m i g r a n t at T e l - A v i v airport .

" O n M o n d a y he opened the first session of the Z i o n i s t action committee, the sub-commission of the W o r l d Z i o n i s t Organisat ion . Once again he emphasised that the gravest danger w h i c h menaced the Jewish people as such today was neither anti-Semiti s m n o r economic d iscr iminat ion , but the l iberal ism of o u r times, w h i c h made it possible for Jews to be assimilated into the surroundings in w h i c h they l ived.

" 'Since we left the ghettos and the mellahs assimilation has become an immense danger,' D r . G o l d m a n n declared."

I n December 1964 the T w e n t y - s i x t h Congress of the W o r l d Z i o n ist Organisat ion took place i n Jerusalem. A g a i n D r . G o l d m a n n warned his audience against the danger of assimilat ion. The f o l l o w i n g extracts are taken f r o m A n d r e Scemama's report, Le M o n d e ' s special correspondent:

"Jerusalem, 31st December 1964. The W o r l d Z i o n i s t Organisat ion , w h i c h gave b i r th to the State of Israel, is h o l d i n g its T w e n t y -s i x t h Congress i n Jerusalem; 540 delegates representing the Z i o n ist federations of thir ty-one countries have gathered here.

" . . . A s opposed to two and a half m i l l i o n Jews l i v i n g i n Israel, near ly thirteen m i l l i o n are scattered throughout the w o r l d i n communit ies .

" . . . T h e strange part about this meeting is that 350 of the 540 delegates are Zionis ts w h o have not chosen to l ive i n Israel.

" T h e real concern of the Z i o n i s t leaders is no longer, as former ly , w i t h at tract ing the Jews of the dispersion to Israel, but w i t h preserving the existence of the Jewish personal i ty , w h i c h threatens to vanish i n the comfort of an exile w h i c h is considered too l iberal . I n his opening speech, N a h u m G o l d m a n n , President of the W o r l d Z i o n i s t Organisa t ion , spoke of this danger i n these terms:

" ' W e are l i v i n g i n an age w h e n m a n y of our people, especially our y o u n g people, are being threatened by a process of disintegrat i o n , not the product of a theory or of a deliberate ideology, but t h r o u g h their dai ly l ife and the lack of a fa i th to keep alive the Jewish conscience and i n f o r m each one w h y he must remain Jewish. If this process is not hal ted, it w i l l represent a greater threat to perennial Jewish existence than persecution, the inquis i t ion , pogroms and exterminat ions have been i n the past ' . "

(Le M o n d e , 1st January 1965)

8

A S T A T E W I T H I N A S T A T E

B Y their refusal to be converted, and since they cannot really be assimilated, nor w a n t to be, the Jews, taken as a whole , wherever they l ive as a m i n o r i t y i n the heart of nations constitute a State w i t h i n a State, " a veritable imperium in imper i i s " , as W i c k h a m Steed described i t i n The Hapsburg Monarchy, (p. 179) even w h e n they enjoy f u l l r ights of c i t i z e n s h i p :

" I t is not just today but since the beginning of their existence that the Jews have been considered as a foreign body, a thorn in the flesh of humanity. In the course of thousands of years it has been as impossible to eliminate them by brutal i ty as it has been to assimilate them by gentleness."

( M e m o r a n d u m of the Commission Théologique de I'Ocuvre Evangelique Suisse, October 1938 quoted by Jules Isaac in

Genèse de I 'Antisémitisme, p. 29)

" T h e Diaspora Jews, though dispersed over three continents and i n three civi l isat ions, represented bur one people, bound by one re l ig ion , one language, and one law. T h e y were organised as 'states w i t h i n states' w i t h the permission of the various Gent i le governments of the countries i n w h i c h they l i v e d . "

( M . I. D i m o n t : Jews. God and H i s t o r y , p. 262)

T h u s , incapable of taking root, Israel lives among the peoples as a stranger, and the Judaism w h i c h it professes separates it f rom the w o r l d by its re l igion, its nat ional ism and its t radi t ions :

" ' T h u s , by its o w n nat ional ism Judaism cuts itself off f rom the exterior w o r l d . It automat ica l ly creates its o w n cul ture and ethnical ghetto. This is w h y it is impossible to be both Jewish and the c i t izen of another nation at the same time. O n e cannot pray " N e x t year Jerusalem" and yet remain at London or else-where' ." (Koestler, quoted by J. Jehouda.

i n L'Autisémitisme, Miroir du M o n d e , p. 268)

73


W e w i l l n o w give three concrete examples f r o m w i d e l y different points i n h is tory of the determinat ion of the Jews to l ive o n the f r inge of nat ions.

Let us first open the B ib le at the Book of Esther. T h e scene takes place i n the fifth century B.C. A t chapter x i i i . 4-5 we read the letter sent b y K i n g A r t a x e r x e s (Assuerus) to a l l the governors of the provinces :

( A n d A m a n ) . . told me that there was a people scattered t h r o u g h the w h o l e w o r l d , w h i c h used no laws, and acted against the customs of a l l nat ions , despised the commandments of k ings , and violated b y their opposit ion the concord of a l l na t ions . "

I n his book Antisémitisme et Mystère d'Israel, F. L o v s k y quotes the same passage f r o m the Bible of Jerusalem:

. . A m a n denounced us as a rebellious people, scattered throughout a l l the tribes of the w o r l d , i n opposit ion w i t h a l l nations by reason of our laws, and constantly despising r o y a l commands to the extent of becoming a n obstacle to the government for w h i c h we v o u c h to the general sat isfact ion."

A n d he continues the quotat ion f r o m the B i b l e :

" C o n s i d e r i n g that the said people, un ique i n its k i n d , is everywhere i n confl ict w i t h the w h o l e of h u m a n i t y , that it differs f r o m the rest of the w o r l d b y a system of foreign laws, that i t is hosti le to our interests, and that i t commits the worst misdeeds even so far as to menace the s tab i l i ty of our k i n g d o m ;

" F o r these reasons we c o m m a n d that a l l (Jewish) persons . . . shall be radical ly exterminated . . . so that . . . absolute stabi l i ty and t r a n q u i l l i t y m a y henceforth be assured the State."

(Book of Esther x i i i . 4-7)

" L e n g t h y commentary is useless", added Lovsky ; " H a v e we not heard s imilar talk and read the same explanations less than twenty years a g o ? " ( ib id . , p . 97)

Let us advance 1,000 years to the M e r o v i n g i a n era. St. A v i t , Bishop of Clermont -Ferrand, said to the Jews:

" S t a y w i t h us and l ive as w e do, or depart as q u i c k l y as possible. R e t u r n us our land i n w h i c h y o u are strangers; free us f r o m contact w i t h y o u or, if y o u stay here, share our f a i t h . "

(F. L o v s k y , i b i d . , p . 182)

A STATE WITHIN A STATE 75

Let us advance a further 1,500 years, to Soviet Russia . T h e fatherland of M a r x i s t in ternat ional i sm, i n the o r i g i n of w h i c h members of the Jewish race played such an important role, Soviet Russia cannot tolerate this part icular f o r m of na t iona l i sm, w h i c h i n fact camouflages a r i v a l internat ional ism c l a i m i n g to escape the Soviet l a w s :

" T h e total i tar ian State is par t i cu lar ly 'al lergic ' to every 'intern a t i o n a l ' thought and connection w h i c h escapes its control . T h u s the Soviet leaders find i t is absolutely inadmissible that Jews of the U.S .S .R . , whether assimilated or not, feel at one w i t h foreign Jews, and that foreign Jews believe that they have a r ight to demand explanations f r o m the Soviet Government as to the treatment of their Soviet co-religionists.

" T h e two pr ime causes of anti-Jewish pol icy since Stal in have not been e l i m i n a t e d :

" F i r s t l y , there is a lways a tendency to consider the Jew as a foreign national ist i n a l l the Republics w h i c h f o r m part of the Soviet U n i o n - - w h i l e pretending to believe that he has been assimilated.

" A n d i n the second place, an atmosphere of suspicion surrounds Soviet Jews, especially because of their sentimental connections w i t h Israel and w i t h the rest of W o r l d J e w r y . "

(F. F e j t ö : Les Juifs et L 'Antisémitisme, pp. 31, 263)

If we can rely on what F e j t ö says, and his remarks are based on various evidence published i n the book referred to above, we realise that a l t h o u g h the Soviet const i tut ion is not exp l i c i t ly anti-Semite, i n practice the U .S .S .R . applies a statute to the Jews w h i c h is comi n g more and more to resemble the one w h i c h used to be enforced by the C h r i s t i a n monarchies i n Europe, w i t h this difference, that f o r m e r l y d iscr iminat ion was almost entirely religious, whereas today i t is b o t h rac ia l , c u l t u r a l and n a t i o n a l : racial by v ir tue of the w o r d Yevre i (Jew) stamped on the passport and ident i ty card; c u l t u r a l b y v ir tue of the fact that certain universit ies are closed to Jews; and nat iona l by v i r t u e of the fact that it is diff icult for Jews to obtain h i g h positions of responsibi l i ty .

A l o n g s i d e this d i scr iminat ion , tension is g r o w i n g i n Russia and the satellite countries between the nat ive populat ions and the Jews, w h o are considered foreigners.

So far integrat ion has completely fai led i n the mother-country of Social ism; the Jews refuse to assimilate and d id not settle i n Biro-bid jan, the province i n nor thern M o n g o l i a offered to them by L e n i n . O n the other hand Soviet Russia seems u n w i l l i n g to a l low them to emigrate to Israel, w h i c h they are more and more coming to accept as their c u l t u r a l father land.


T h u s throughout a period of 2,500 years, under different races, different customs, different attitudes and different rel igions, under the pagan Persians, under C a t h o l i c i s m i n the early M i d d l e A g e s , and under the total i tar ian a n t i - C h r i s t i a n State of the twent ie th century , the Jewish problem has remained and remains to this day identical i n f o r m ever since the dispersion of Israel among the nat ions .

A stranger among the peoples, resisting conversion and assimilat ion , const i tut ing a State w i t h i n a State, the Jew u n t i r i n g l y applies himself to judais ing the nat ions .

I n his book Les Juifs et le M o n d e A c t u e l , J . M a d a u l e shows h o w L u t h e r , at the beginning of the Reformat ion , at first defended the Jews, but was not l o n g i n c h a n g i n g his att i tude towards them, for , as he says :

" I t was not the Jews w h o were becoming Protestants but the Protestants w h o were becoming judaised."

(J. M a d a u l e , i b i d . , p . 171)

K a r l M a r x went even fur ther and s a i d :

" T h e Jew emancipated himsel f i n Jewish fashion, not o n l y b y m a k i n g himself master of the money-market but because o w i n g to h i m and t h r o u g h h i m money has become a w o r l d power, and the practical Jewish spirit has been adopted b y the C h r i s t i a n peoples. The Jews set themselves free in proportion as the Christians became Jews.

" T h u s they contr ibuted considerably to m a k i n g money the means, the measure and the end of a l l h u m a n a c t i v i t y . "

(Quoted i n Sa l lus te : Les Origines Secrètes du Bolchevisme, p . 285)

A l f r e d Noss ig claims that the Jews have a historic mission to f u l f i l :

" T h e Jewish c o m m u n i t y is more than a people i n the modern pol i t i ca l meaning of the w o r d . It is the trustee of an historic w o r l d miss ion , I w o u l d even say cosmic mission. . . . T h e conception of our ancestors was to f o u n d not a tribe but a w o r l d order destined to guide h u m a n i t y . . . . Gesta naturae per Judeos, this is the f o r m u l a of our h is tory . A n d the h o u r of its accompl ishment is a p p r o a c h i n g . "

( A . N o s s i g : Integrales Judentum, p p . 1-5)

Elsewhere, E l ie Faure has w r i t t e n on this subject :

"Sooner or later they must get the upper hand over and against a l l m e n . Later if need be, and i n the dark and silence, provided


that the t r i u m p h , an insatiable t r i u m p h , comes at the end. Later, what does it matter? A t the extreme end of t ime. "

(E. F a u r e : La Quest ion Juive, p. 82)

M a x I. D i m o n t concludes his book, Jews, God and History i n these t e r m s :

. . two thirds of the c iv i l i zed w o r l d is already governed b y the ideas of J ews- - the ideas of Moses, Jesus, P a u l , Spinoza , M a r x , Freud, E i n s t e i n . " ( ibid. , p . 419)

W e w o u l d o n l y draw the dis t inct ion that they themselves have denied, and cont inue to deny, C h r i s t , and at the same t ime g lor i fy M a r x , Freud and Einste in .

T h e Jew often retains o n l y the p u r e l y temporal aspect of the promises of the C o v e n a n t and the Prophets o n w h i c h , even as a n agnostic, he has been brought u p , and w h i c h encourage h i m to pursue earthly happiness for immediate enjoyment . T h i s is w h a t the C h u r c h has called the " c a r n a l " character of Israel and i t is opposed to the spir i tual character of C h r i s t i a n i t y . T h i s quasi exclusive interpretat ion of the Covenant f r o m the outset drew u p the Synagogue against the c h u r c h .

" T h e oldest f o r m of Judaism k n o w s n o t h i n g of another w o r l d . So, wea l and woe can come o n l y i n this w o r l d . If G o d desires to p u n i s h or to reward, H e must do so d u r i n g man's l i fet ime. T h e righteous therefore is prosperous here, and the wicked here suffer p u n i s h m e n t . "

( W . S o m b a r t : The Jews and M o d e r n C a p i t a l i s m , p p . 214-15)

" T h e ideal of H e b r e w monotheism is the happiness of men on earth. T h e Bible never speaks of fu ture l i fe and w e k n o w what l i t t le value Homer ' s heroes attached to 'Hades ' , Both w a n t to achieve happiness on e a r t h : the former t h r o u g h justice and fratern i t y , the latter t h r o u g h beauty and l iber ty . . . . "

( D r . P a s m a n i k : Qu'est-ce que le Judaisme, pp. 18-29)

" T h e beyond does not exist for it," El ie Faure tells us. " W h a t ever may have been said, Israel has never believed i n the beyond, except just at its decline, and except perhaps also i n the bosom of esoteric Cabbal ism reserved to a few initiates. D i d Israel even ever t h i n k about i t? E v e r y t h i n g is na tura l i n the w o r l d , i n c l u d i n g G o d , w h o ends i n becoming the Spir i t . T h e pact of the Covenant is a bilateral contract, obstinately precise and positive. If the


Jew obeys, the w o r l d w i l l be his empire. That is his w a y of doing things. H e lends at heavy interest. Israel is fiercely realistic. It is here below that it wants a reward for those w h o lead a good l i fe and punishment for those w h o f o l l o w evil ways . N o n e of its great prophets differ o n this point . Elias, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekie l w r a t h f u l l y cal l d o w n justice on earth, and i f i t does not descend i t is because m a n is not w o r t h y of i t . It took St. Paul's conjuring-tr ick to remove it beyond death . "

(E. F a u r e : La Quest ion Juive, p p . 83-84)

" T h e phi losophy of the Jew was simple . . . h a v i n g but a l imited number of years allotted to h i m , he wanted to enjoy them, and he demanded not mora l but mater ia l pleasures, to embell ish and make comfortable his existence. A s there was no paradise, he could o n l y expect tangible favours f r o m G o d i n re turn for his fidelity and piety ; not vague promises, good for those seeking the beyond, but actual results, producing an increase of for tune and well-being. . ." Lazare: A n t i - S e m i t i s m , pp. 278-9)

C o n v i n c e d that they are the chosen people destined to possess the whole w o r l d as their empire i n w h i c h to implant their ideal of life, the Jewish people dream of a terrestial reign in w h i c h they w i l l control the social, economic and pol i t ical l ife of the nations. A n d w h i l e C h r i s t i a n i t y dispenses its universal spir i tual message to al l peoples and at the same t ime respects their legit imate tradit ions, cul ture and customs, Judaism seeks to impose itself as the sole standard and to reduce the w o r l d to Jewish values, as has so t r u l y been pointed out by George B a t a u l t :

"Essent ia l ly unadapted, and to a certain extent unadaptable, to the nat ion to w h i c h i n law they belong, the Jews tend fa ta l ly and ins t inct ive ly to reform and transform nat ional inst i tut ions i n such a w a y that they become adapted as perfectly as possible to themselves and to the ends w h i c h they pursue; ends w h i c h are practical at first, but also and above a l l , messianic. T h e final, ' imper ia l ' objective, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g failures and trials a lways remains the t r i u m p h of Israel and its reign over a w o r l d subdued and pacified: it is the prophesy of Isaiah interpreted to the letter. . . .

" T h e y are inst inct ively sympathet ic to everything w h i c h tends to disintegrate and dissolve tradit ional societies, nations and countries.

" T h e Jews have a feeling and love for H u m a n i t y , taken as an aggregate of individuals as abstract and similar to each other as


possible, released from 'the routine' of tradition and liberated from the 'chains' of the past, to be handed over, naked and uprooted, as human material for the undertakings of the great architects of the Future, who will at last construct on principles of Reason and Justice the messianic City over which Israel will reign.

"The power of the Jews is in inverse proportion to the power of the States who receive them, and thus they instinctively work to ruin the power of the State until, in one form or another, they succeed in enslaving and dominating it."

(G. Batault: Israel contre les Nations, pp. 107-109 and 75)

Jewish messianism, Batault shows, which claims to be universal in spirit, is in fact only a disguised form of imperialism:

"This form of universalism is absolutely identical with imperialism: the ideal propounded is panisrealism and panjudaism. In this sense, one could argue that pangermanism, for example, which aimed to subject the world, 'for its own real benefit', to the ideals of the Kultur, is also a doctrine with universal tendencies. But the other is, I repeat, purely and simply political, social and religious imperialism."

(G. Batault: Le Probleme juif, p. 135)

"To be quite sure," Batault continues, "we have only to follow Isidore Loeb's guide to the description of messianic times in Deutero-Isaiah:

" T h e nations will gather to pay homage to the people of God: all the fortunes of the nations will pass to the Jewish people, they will march captive behind the Jewish people in chains and will prostrate themselves before them, their kings will bring up their sons, and their princesses will nurse their children. The Jews will command the nations; they will summon peoples whom they do not even know, and peoples who do not know them will hasten to them. The riches of the sea and the wealth of nations will come to the Jews of their own right. Any people or kingdom who will not serve Israel will be destroyed... .' (Isidore Loeb:

La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible, pp. 219-20)

"As for the final result of the messianic revolution, it will always be the same: God will overthrow the nations and the kings and will cause Israel and her King to triumph; the nations will be converted to Judaism and will obey the Law or else they will be destroyed and the Jews will be the masters of the world.

"The Jews' international dream is to unite the world with the

So JUDAISM AND THE VATICAN

Jewish law, under the direction and dominat ion of the priest ly people . . . i n a general f o r m of imper ia l i sm, w h i c h does not prevent Loeb, Darmesteter, Reinach or Lazare and so m a n y others ca l l ing this conception universal f r a t e r n i t y . "

( G . Batault , ib id . , p p . 133-5)

Imbued w i t h a messianic role, they are nevertheless unable to impose their w i l l openly on the old C h r i s t i a n nat ions. T h e y cannot be classed w i t h the knights of medieval ch iva l ry , w i t h the du Guesclins, w i t h St. Louis or St. Francis of Ass is i or R i c h a r d the L i o n Hearted. Ye t i n certain fields they possess exceptional qualities and powers, as shown i n the f o l l o w i n g remarkable passage:

" H i s pitiless power of analysis , " says Elie Faure, " a n d his irresistible sarcasm have acted l ike v i t r i o l .

" F r o m M a i m o n i d e s to C h a r l i e C h a p l i n the t ra i l is easy to f o l l o w , a l though the c i rculat ion of the Jewish spirit was so to speak ethereal and its power of disintegration was not perceived u n t i l after its passage. . . .

" F r e u d , Einste in , M a r c e l Proust and C h a r l i e C h a p l i n have opened i n us, in every sense, prodigious avenues w h i c h over throw the dividing-wal ls in the classical, Greco-Lat in , catholic edifice, i n the bosom of w h i c h the ardent doubt of the Jewish soul has been w a i t i n g for five or six centuries for an o p p o r t u n i t y to unsettle i t . For it is a remarkable fact that it seems to have been his sceptical role w h i c h was the first to emerge f r o m the complete silence w h i c h enveloped the act ion of the Jewish spirit i n the M i d d l e Ages , a silence w h i c h was broken by a few voices as f r o m the Renaissance and w h i c h masks such a vast uproar today. Lost in the depths of the masses of Western C h r i s t i a n societies, w h a t could the Jew have done, reduced, moreover, to silence for fifteen centuries, but deny, w i t h i n the frontiers and the h ierarchy i m posed by these soc ie t i es - -Chr i s t ian i ty for M o n t a i g n e , cartesianism for Spinoza , capital ism for M a r x , newtonianism for Einste in and if y o u l ike , kant i sm for F r e u d - - w a i t i n g u n t i l f rom this very negat ion there began to appear l i t t le by l i t t le a new edifice pro foundly stamped by an intellect for ever bent on d r i v i n g a w a y the supernatural f rom man's h o r i z o n and on searching, amid the ruins of mora l i ty and i m m o r t a l i t y , for the materials and means for a new spir i tual ism? Despite reasons for hope w h i c h he accumulated i n silence, could the Jew be regarded as a n y t h i n g other than a destroyer armed w i t h the corrosive doubt w i t h w h i c h Israel has a lways opposed the sentimental idealism of Europe since the time of the Greeks? . . .


" I n t r u t h , they have brought every th ing in to question a g a i n : metaphysics, psychology, physics, b io logy, the passions. . . .

(E. Faure, la Question Juive, p . 90)

"The Jew's historic mission has been clearly defined, perhaps for all time. It will be the principal factor in every apocalyptic epoch, as it was at the end of the ancient w o r l d , and as it is now at the end, amid which we are living, of the Christian w o r l d . A t these moments the Jews w i l l a lways be i n the forefront, both to r u i n the o ld edifice and to mark out the terrain and materials for the new structure w h i c h is to replace i t . It is this d y n a m i c q u a l i t y w h i c h is the mark of their extraordinary grandeur and perhaps also, it must be admitted, of their visible impotence. . . .

" T h e Jew destroys every ancient i l l u s i o n , and if he takes more share t h a n a n y b o d y - - S t . Paul former ly and K a r l M a r x today, for e x a m p l e - - i n construct ing the n e w i l l u s i o n , precisely by reason of his eternal thirst for t r u t h , w h i c h a lways survives the outcomes of pol i t i ca l and religious struggles, he is fated to insert i n the same i l l u s i o n the w o r m w h i c h w i l l undermine i t . T h e patr iarch w h o i n former times agreed to lead the h u m a n conscience across the g l o w i n g stretches of knowledge is not ready to lay d o w n his formidable b u r d e n . " (E. Faure, ib id . , p . 97)

9 ANTI-SEMITISM

I T m a y seem paradoxical at first sight that the people w h o were the first to spread the idea of the one G o d , whence C h r i s t i a n i t y proceeds, and w h o i n their h i s tory as " t h e People of G o d " numbered so m a n y prophets and remarkable m e n , should have been the object of such general and permanent repellence, and even hatred, w h i c h is k n o w n as ant i -Semit ism.

T h r o u g h o u t the whole h i s tory of the confrontat ion of Judaism and C h r i s t i a n i t y , the Jews have not fa i led to place the responsibi l i ty for this att i tude on C h r i s t i a n i t y :

" C h r i s t i a n ant i -Semit i sm" , as Jules Isaac tells us, " f r o m the fact that i t is supported by the C h u r c h , bears an off icial , systematic and coherent character w h i c h former pagan anti -Semit ism has a lways lacked. It attends on theology and is nourished b y i t . . . . It also differs f r o m pagan anti -Semit ism, w h i c h i n v a r i a b l y takes the f o r m of a spontaneous reaction, except ional ly w e l l commanded and organised, i n that it pursues a most precise o b j e c t i v e - - w h i c h is to make the Jews h a t e f u l - - a n d i t owes its success i n this achievement to a p lan of act ion w h i c h has proved in f in i t e ly more h a r m f u l than that of pagan ant i -Semit i sm."

(J. Isaac: Genèse de l'Antisémitisme, p . 129)

T h i s is also the o p i n i o n of Joshua Jehouda, w h o w r i t e s :

" I t is the obstinate C h r i s t i a n c l a i m to be the sole heir to Israel w h i c h propagates anti -Semit ism. T h i s scandal must terminate sooner or later; the sooner i t does, the sooner the w o r l d w i l l be r id of the tissue of lies i n w h i c h anti-Semitism shrouds itself ."

(l'Antisémitisme, Miroir du M o n d e , p. 136)

H o w e v e r , for those of us w h o are endeavouring to understand the Jewish problem i n al l its complex i ty throughout the ages, it w o u l d be va in to attempt to reduce it to such a v iew, over-simplif ied, part ia l and suggestive of contempt, for a l l historians, whether Jewish or not , agree that anti-Semitism existed long before C h r i s t i a n i t y .

T h u s Doctor A . Roudinesco w r i t e s :

82

ANTI-SEMITISM 83

" T h e hatred of the Jew is very ancient; it appeared before the C h r i s t i a n era, f r o m the very first moment the Israelites made contact w i t h other peoples. Anti-Judaism has flourished in all climates and in every epoch; it is the only historical phenomenon which has resisted the usury of time. T h e w o r d anti-Semitism is m o d e m and comprises a n ethnic idea . " (Le M a l h e u r d'Israel, p . 11)

" A n t i - S e m i t i s m dates back w e l l before C h r i s t i a n i t y " , says the learned French social anthropologist , V a c h e r de Lapouge; " w h e n one considers that it existed at least fifteen centuries before the present era, it is diff icult to see i n the agony of C h r i s t the unique cause of the hatred w i t h w h i c h they (the Jews) have been pursued by the Chr is t ians . . . . "

(Les Sélections sociales, cours pro fessé à l ' U n i v e r s i t é de M o n t p e l l i e r , 1888-9, PP. 465-7)

Indeed, m a n y sociologists consider that other causes, inherent i n the very character of the H e b r e w people themselves, are at the root of the phenomenon of ant i -Semit ism.

T h i s is demonstrated very clearly by the two Jewish writers , Bernard Lazare and El ie F a u r e :

" A n opinion as general as anti -Semitism, w h i c h has flourished in all countries and in all ages, before and after the C h r i s t i a n era, at A l e x a n d r i a , Rome and A n t i o c h , i n A r a b i a , and i n Persia, i n medieval and i n modern Europe, i n a w o r d , i n a l l parts of the w o r l d wherever there are or have been J e w s - - s u c h an o p i n i o n , it has seemed to me, could not spring from a mere whim or fancy, but must be the effect of deep and serious causes.

(B. L a z a r e : A n t i - S e m i t i s m , Preface)

" W h e r e v e r the Jews settled after ceasing to be a nat ion ready to defend its l iberty and independence, one observes the development of anti -Semitism, or rather anti-Judaism; for anti-Semitism is an il l-chosen w o r d , w h i c h has its raison d'être o n l y i n our d a y . . . .

"If this host i l i ty , this repugnance had been s h o w n towards the Jews at one time or i n one country o n l y , it w o u l d be easy to account for the local causes of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred w i t h a l l the nations amidst w h o m it ever settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of the Jews belong to divers races; as they dwelled far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge alike of any sub-


ject, it must need be that the general causes of anti-Semitism have a lways resided in Israel itself, and not in those w h o antagonised it.

(B. Lazare, i b i d . , p p . 7-8).

" W h i c h virtues or w h i c h vices have earned for the Jews this universal enmi ty? W h y was he ill-treated and hated al ike and i n turn b y the A l e x a n d r i a n s and the Romans, by the Persians and the A r a b s , by the T u r k s and the C h r i s t i a n nations? Because everywhere, u p to our o w n days, the Jew was an unsociable being.

" W h y was he unsociable? Because he was exclusive, and his exclusiveness was both pol i t i ca l and religious, or rather, he held fast to his pol i t ica l and religious cul t , to his l a w . "

(B. Lazare, i b i d . , p. 9)

" A n t i - S e m i t i c persecut ion" , writes El ie Faure, "has never abated. It sprang f r o m exterior causes, and not o n l y f r o m the too often quoted theocratic act ion, the accusation w h i c h preceded the Jews everywhere, that they had crucified the G o d they gave to Europe w h o m they did not w a n t . T h e y are possessed of a n eternal anguish , w h i c h alienates them f r o m al l the peoples of the earth; they upset their habits, they devastate their w e l l - w o r n paths, and they dislocate their ancient mora l structures. . . .

" T h e i r anguish is expressed i n constant dissatisfaction, i n stubborn recr iminat ion, i n a need to convince w h i c h gnaws at them l ike a prur ient and w h i c h was o n l y permitted them w h e n they could not lay c la im to pol i t i ca l dominat ion , and i n inte l lectual restlessness; and thus they are led to criticise everyth ing , to judge everything , to speak i l l of everyth ing , w h i c h automatica l ly draws upon them the double t y r a n n y of persecution and exile. T h i s did not happen but yesterday. N o r does it date f r o m the t ime of C h r i s t . T h e y so exasperated the Egypt ians that they had to flee en masse f r o m Egypt , and the Persians were so tired of them that they encouraged them to return home. T h e Romans, w h o were not interested i n moral problems and whose firm tolerance kept religious peace everywhere, slit their throats and drowned their furious protests and passionate anathemas in blood. Pilate delivered Chr is t up to them i n order to 1 id himself of them.

"Le t it be s a i d : they have annoyed the whole w o r l d . But therein perhaps lies their greatness. T h e y refused silence and the slough of torpor. Everywhere they have w i t h invinc ib le obstinacy denied their surroundings, whether , dragged f rom capt iv i ty to capt ivi ty or sent away into exile after exi le , they were forced into them or adopted them of their o w n free w i l l . A n d this obstinacy w i l l not I imagine die out before the last of them is gone. . . .

ANTI-SEMITISM

" I t is not surpris ing then that f r o m the earliest times u n t i l today, the Jew has awoken almost everywhere a frank or veiled h o s t i l i t y w h i c h has been expressed i n almost every degree f r o m p u r e l y speculative anti-Semitism to the most atrocious massacres. . . . (E. F a u r e : La Question juive)

R e n a n , w h o can h a rd ly be described as a m a n w i t h a " C h r i s t i a n c o m p l e x " , or menta l ly u n w e l l i n terms of modern psychiatry , as apparent ly is the case, according to Joshua Jehouda, w i t h a l l w h o do not admire the Jewish people, (L'Antisémitisme, Miroir du M o n d e , pp. 72-73), is no less explic i t on this p o i n t :

" H a t r e d of the Jews was, moreover, so generally diffused a feeling i n the ancient w o r l d that there was no need to spur i t . T h i s hatred marks one of the trenches of separation w h i c h , perhaps, w i l l never be filled u p i n the h u m a n species. It is due to something more than race. It cannot be w i t h o u t reason that poor Israel has spent its l i fe as a people i n being massacred. W h e n a l l nations and al l ages have persecuted y o u , there must be some m o t i v e behind it a l l .

" T h e Jew, u p to our o w n time, ins inuated himself everywhere, c l a i m i n g the protection of the c o m m o n law; but , i n real i ty, rem a i n i n g outside the common l a w . H e retained his o w n status; he wished to have the same guarantees as everyone else, and, over and above that, his o w n exceptions and special laws. H e desired the advantages of the nations w i t h o u t being a nation, w i t h o u t helping to bear the burdens of the nations. N o people has ever been able to tolerate this. T h e nations are m i l i t a r y creations founded and maintained by the sword; they are the work of peasants and soldiers; towards establishing them the Jews have contr ibuted n o t h i n g . H e r e i n is the great fal lacy inspired i n Israelite pretensions. The tolerated alien can be useful to a c o u n t r y , but o n l y on condit ion that the country does not al low itself to be invaded by h i m . It is not fair to c la im f a m i l y rights in a house w h i c h one has not bui l t , l ike those birds w h i c h come and take u p their quarters i n a nest w h i c h does not belong to them, or l ike the crustaceans w h i c h steal the shell of another species." R e n a n : The A n t i c h r i s t , pp. 126-7)

A n t i - S e m i t i s m - - a n d it should be noted that the term " a n t i -S e m i t i s m " is, properly speaking, incorrect i n itself, since m a n y Semite peoples, such as the Arabs or Egypt ians , are or have been " a n t i -Semi t i c " i n the customary use of the w o r d - - a n t i - S e m i t i s m , as we


have s h o w n , has existed for more than 3,000 years under m a n y different f o r m s :

1. There was anti -Semit ism i n Egypt , as the Bible relates; 2. There was anti -Semit ism i n Persia, as described i n the Book

of Esther; 3. There was anti-Semitism i n Greece; 4. There was anti-Semitism i n A l e x a n d r i a , w i t h the celebrated

controversialist A p p i o at its head; 5. There was anti-Semitism at Rome, w h i c h numbered among its

ranks some of the Eternal C i t y ' s most famous sons : C icero , Taci tus , Seneca, Juvenal and others.

" H o w glorious for anti -Semit ism to be able to inscribe on its honours list the names of Seneca, Juvenal and Tacitus . . . " wri tes Jules Isaac i n his Genèse de l 'Ant i sémit i sme . "Tac i tus is unquest ionably the most noble flower of a l l time i n the c r o w n of anti-S e m i t i s m . " (ibid., pp. 114-15)

There was thus a general form of pagan anti-Semitism. Religious anti-Semitism has been equally diverse. T h e w o r l d has

seen:

1. Zoroastr ian anti-Semitism; 2. Gnost ic and M a n i c h e a n anti -Semit ism; 5. O r t h o d o x anti-Semitism; 4. M o s l e m anti-Semitism; 5. Protestant anti -Semit ism.

O f the latter f o r m , nobody, perhaps, has used more violent language than Luther .

B u t among the Protestants, the most redoubtable adversary the Synagogue has ever had to face was, according to Massoutié, John A n d r e w Eisenmenger (1654-1704), professor of oriental languages at the U n i v e r s i t y of Heidelberg. For it is f rom Eisenmenger's book, Judaism Unmasked, that

"Ant i -Semites i n G e r m a n y and other countries i n t u r n have to this very day obtained most of their arms against the Synagogue. . . .

"Eisenmenger is bent on s h o w i n g above a l l i n his w o r k at h o w m a n y points Judaism and C h r i s t i a n i t y differ, two religions w h i c h or ig ina l ly o n l y differed f r o m one another i n the lightest shades of m e a n i n g . "

(L. Massout ié : Judaisme et Hitlerisme, pp. 138-9, 141)

ANTI-SEMITISM 87

B u t what is perhaps even more extraordinary is the fact of the phenomenon of pol i t ica l and phi losophical anti-Semitism. T h e pages of h is tory bear witness t o :

1. Rat ional is t anti -Semitism, led b y V o l t a i r e ; 2. Socialist anti-Semitism, under Toussenel ; 3. Rac ia l anti -Semitism under H i t l e r ; 4. N a t i o n a l i s t and patriotic anti-Semitism i n almost every

c o u n t r y , and;

5. Economic anti-Semitism, w h i c h is s imi lar ly universal .

F i n a l l y today, most incredible of a l l , we are confronted w i t h

1. Soviet anti -Semit ism. In short, every country and every epoch has i n t u r n k n o w n ant i -

Semit ism i n one form or another, sometimes smouldering under the surface, sometimes prescribed b y l a w , sometimes erupt ing i n fur ious and bloody explosions.

A n d i n the course of 3,000 years a l l possible and imaginable solutions have been tried i n an endeavour to solve the Jewish p r o b l e m :

1. Peaceful coexistence; 2. C o n v e r s i o n ; 3. Segregation and the Ghetto ; 4- E x p u l s i o n ; 5. Pogroms; 6. Po l i t i ca l emancipation; 7. A s s i m i l a t i o n ; 8. M i x e d marriages; 9. The numerus clausus;

10. T h e spur and the ye l low star;

and finally, the most recent solutions that have been attempted are :

11. Rac ism; 12. M a r x i s m .

A l l these solutions have i n the end proved inoperative. D o c t o r Roudinesco records t h a t :

" A n t i - S e m i t i s m appeared f r o m the first moment w h e n the Jews came i n t o contact w i t h the rest of the w o r l d ; it has endured throughout the centuries to our o w n day . It has resisted pol i t i ca l revolut ions , social transformation and mental evo lu t ion . It is as active today as i t has been i n the past; it has assumed very varied forms according to the specific i l lus ion of each epoch; it has often changed its name but its character has remained the


same. There is no reason to hope that i t w i l l disappear. If one measures its power b y the n u m b e r of its v ic t ims , one is obliged to recognise that it has become more intense. T h e carnage of A l e x a n d r i a , the massacres of the M i d d l e Ages , the Russian and Pol ish pogroms are insignif icant compared w i t h the recent exterminat ions under H i t l e r . . . .

" T h e Jewish question is not o n l y confined to the moral order, it is a social and pol i t i ca l problem w i t h inf inite repercussions. T h e D r e y f u s affair rent and weakened France. W i t h o u t anti-Semitism, H i t l e r w o u l d not have t r iumphed i n G e r m a n y and the Second W o r l d W a r , w h i c h cost the lives of s ix ty m i l l i o n men, could have been avoided.

"Despi te every expectat ion, legal emancipat ion, assimilat ion, and Jewish blood poured out on the battle-fields have al l proved ineffectual. A n t i - S e m i t i s m has persisted and become intensified. Israel's destiny remains sealed i n mis for tune . "

( D r . A . Roudinesco : le M a l h e u r d'Israel, pp. 173, 177)

T h e Jewish people tend to t h i n k of themselves as the innocent vict ims of the hatred of the w o r l d , but most of the defensive measures against them i n the W e s t - - r e g a r d e d b y them as manifestations of prejudice, intolerance, hatred and ant i -Semit i sm--have been borrowed f r o m Jewish legislation and turned against its authors.

Rel igious intolerance was u n k n o w n i n pagan soc ie ty :

" E a c h people had its o w n part icular gods and recognised the legit imate sovereignty of foreign deities over other countr ies . "

(E. B e n a m o z e g h : Israel et l ' H H u m a n i t é , p. 21)

The Jews alone i n a n t i q u i t y professed uncompromis ing religious exclusiveness, as G . Batault explains i n detail i n the f o l l o w i n g passage:

" A certain apologetic school of history has for too long insisted on the idea that the pagans held the monopoly of intolerance and religious persecution. N o t h i n g could be more false, and modern scholarship and i m p a r t i a l h is tory prove that this assertion is more than f u l l y justified. Intolerance, proceeding directly f r o m the religious exclusiveness of the Israelites, is a pure ly Jewish i n v e n t i o n , w h i c h was inherited by C h r i s t i a n i t y and so transmitted to the modem w o r l d .

" H o w e v e r the chosen people carried w i t h i t something w h i c h was to have an amazing destiny in the future i n the heart of the western w o r l d , a strong and rigorous conception of the d i v i n i t y , and a proud unshakeable and fanatical fa i th i n an a l l -powerful ,

ANTI-SEMITISM 89

author i tar ian , exclusive and jealous G o d , and i n the height of virtuousness of a minutely-detai led, captious l a w .

" W h i l e the A l e x a n d r i n e c iv i l i sa t ion , the heir of both the Greek and a l l the Mediterranean civi l isat ions, meted out to the w o r l d , under the aegis of the m i l i t a r y and pol i t i ca l genius of A l e x a n d e r , the arts, the sciences, and the highest phi losophical speculations, the Jews, w h o were beginning to spread over this immense sort of ' in ternat ion ' w h i c h the hellenic w o r l d formed, presented i t w i t h jealous monotheism, exclusive r i tua l i sm and religious intolerat ion; ideas w h i c h were u n k n o w n u n t i l then , though their significance and influence were later to be unequal led. . . .

" Judaism was not o n l y an exclusive belief w h i c h contradicted the pagans' profound convict ions and feelings of tolerance, i t was also a n exclusive and tyrannica l l a w w h i c h contradicted their habits , their customs, their manners and par t i cu lar ly their noble and touching sense of hospi ta l i ty . . . Jewish exclusiveness made itself felt i n the everyday commerce of dai ly life i n a thousand and one l i t t le ways , by their refusal to eat w i t h the pagans, or take part i n their games and exercises, or serve under their standards, b y their judic ia l autonomy and their separate marriages. W h e r e v e r rather numerous Jewish colonies became established, whether v o l u n t a r i l y or not, i n the midst of Greek or hel lenic peoples, the Jews inevi tably adopted and kept a foreign appearance. I n spite of the fact that they could talk and wr i te Greek, and organise their l ife i n the Greek fashion, their t ight sol idari ty and their social and legal isolat ion, w h i c h b y its mal ignancy exaggerated its significance and the consequences, placed them i n opposi t ion to l i fe under the Greeks and the Romans , so that they were l ike strangers, 'more distant f r o m us' , said Philostrates, ' than Susa, Bactr ia or India ' .

" T o the minds of the ancients, so open, so comprehensive and so tolerant, Jewish exclusiveness was a m o n s t r o s i t y : intolerance, a Jewish invent ion and v ir tue , was completely incomprehensible to them. I n the hellenistic period they were perfectly able to conceive of one G o d , worshipped everywhere under different names, and possessing different attributes, but they were quite unable to understand that this one G o d should be precisely and exclusively the G o d of the Jews. . . .

" C o n t r a r y to w h a t one is too often led to believe, the Jews did not introduce to the w o r l d an internat ional and universal or metaphysical conception of monotheism, w h i c h was derived quite n o r m a l l y f rom the pol i t ical state of the t ime and f r o m the speculations of Greek phi losophy; but they did introduce the idea of the exclusive monotheism of Jahve, the jealous and tyrannica l G o d .


"By a s ingular ly i ronica l stroke of Fate, w h e n u p o n two occasions, first w i t h C h r i s t i a n i t y and later w i t h Islam, the exclusive and jealous God of the Jews, w i t h his inseparable companions intolerance and fanat ic ism, t r i u m p h e d , he turned against the chosen people and added to their troubles ."

( G . B a t a u l t : Le Problème Juif, p p . 60, 63, 64 , 65, 85)

T h e intolerance w h i c h the Jews b i t ter ly accuse C h r i s t i a n i t y of pract is ing against them takes its roots, as we shall see, f r o m essent ia l ly Judaic concepts :

" W e can n o w see h o w the forces shaping Jewish his tory i n the early Feudal A g e began w i t h two paradoxes. N o t o n l y were the Jews the o n l y non-Chr is t ians left i n the entire C h r i s t i a n w o r l d , but , i ron ica l ly , they l ived i n freedom outside the feudal system, w h i l e the Genti les were imprisoned w i t h i n i t .

" W h y had the Jews not been converted or k i l led as had the other pagans and non-believers? W h y had they received special exemption? W h y did the C h u r c h protect them?

" T h e C h u r c h had manoeuvred itself in to this paradoxical i m passe b y the force of its o w n logic. Because the c ivi l isat ion of the M i d d l e Ages was rel igiously oriented, it was important that the Jews be converted to C h r i s t i a n i t y . . . .

" A t first every conci l ia t ion was held out to the Jews as an inducement to accept C h r i s t i a n i t y . T h e Jews w o u l d not convert. . . . T h e Jew was a n ambivalent figure i n the W e s t e r n w o r l d . H e could neither be converted nor k i l l e d . . . . T h e Jew therefore was excluded f r o m the feudal system. . . .

"Some of the laws enacted against the Jews i n these centuries were not new. T h e y were, i n fact, patterned after O l d Testament and T a l m u d i c laws against non-Jews. O l d Jewish laws forbade a non-Jew being appointed k i n g of Israel, or h o l d i n g a post f r o m w h i c h he could govern Jews. T o prevent too great an i n t e r m i x i n g between Jews and Greeks, Palest inian law forbade a Jew to sell land to a non-Jew. The Chr i s t ians enacted l ike laws against the Jews. These cannot be judged as good or bad i n terms of today's society. T h e y were an expression of society i n those d a y s . "

( M . I. D i m o n t : Jews, G o d and History, p p . 218-19)

Let us take as a par t i cular instance, the Inquis i t ion , set u p i n the thirteenth century to p u t an end to the A l b i g e n s i a n heresy.

A f t e r the crusade against the Albigens ians , w h i c h numbered a great m a n y v i c t i m s :

" T h e Papacy became alarmed at al l this bloodshed, forbade the private h u n t i n g of heretics (as it was later to forbid the local

ANTI-SEMITISM 91

h u n t i n g of Jews), and inst i tuted the Inquis i t ion (from the L a t i n inquisitio, m e a n i n g an ' i n q u i r y ' ) i n order to determine whether an accused actual ly was a heretic. D u r i n g the first centuries of its existence, the Inquis i t ion had no power to deal w i t h Jews, M o h a m m e d a n s , or a n y other non-believers, o n l y w i t h Chr is t ians .

" A s the C h u r c h abhorred the shedding of blood, i t was decided that those convicted should be burned. I ronica l ly , modern m a n looks w i t h horror u p o n b u r n i n g someone for his religious beliefs, yet sees n o t h i n g incongruous i n shooting or h a n g i n g a m a n for his pol i t i ca l convict ions . A l s o , i ronica l ly , the author i ty for k i l l i n g a heretic stems f r o m the O l d Testament itself, f r o m D e u t e r o n o m y x v i i . 2-5: 'If there be f o u n d i n the midst of thee . . . m a n or w o m a n , that does that w h i c h is ev i l i n the sight of the Lord thy God i n transgressing H i s covenant, a n d has gone and served other gods, and worshipped them . . . and it be told thee . . . then shalt thou b r i n g f o r t h that m a n or w o m a n . . . t h o u shalt stone them w i t h stones that they die. ' Because o n l y Chr is t ians could commit heresy i n the eyes of the C h u r c h , this M o s a i c l a w , w i t h an updated punishment , was applied o n l y to them. A n d thus came about the twist of fate w h i c h brought Jews comparative safety f r o m the Inquis i t ion w h i l e Chr is t ians burned one another at the

stake." ( M . I. D i m o n t , i b i d . , pp. 224-5)

D o c t o r Roudinesco too agrees that the burden of intolerance must be divided among the Jews and the C h r i s t i a n s :

" T h e y were monsters, these men w h o b u r n t other men alive w h o were not of their f a i th . T h e sole g r o u n d for complaint against the Jews at this t ime was of a religious order. B u t the theological anti-Judaism of the M i d d l e A g e s is easy to understand. Religious tolerance did not exist. T h e Jews were as intolerant as the Chr is t ians. T h e former persecuted their heretics just as the Chris t ians persecuted theirs. The Synagogue excommunicated as r igorously as the C h u r c h . " (Dr. A. Roudinesco: Le Malheur d'Israel, p . 40)

A g a i n , it was the Synagogue w h i c h was the first to impose on Jews the d u t y of w e a r i n g a dist inct ive badge; and yet among the different measures w h i c h the C h u r c h has taken against the Jews to thwart their po l i cy of in f i l t ra t ion and corrupt ion , there is one against w h i c h they have a lways v io lent ly protested, considering i t part icular ly defamatory, namely , the obl igat ion to wear a dist inct ive badge, such as a spur, a hat or a star.

T h i s measure, w h i c h was imposed by the 4th Lateran C o u n c i l i n 1215, and renewed by the bulls of H o n o r i u s III (1221). M a r t i n V


(1425), P a u l I V (155s), St. Pius V (1566) and Clement V I I I (1593), was o n l y r e v i v i n g an old Jewish custom, w h i c h la id d o w n that the Jews should dist inguish themselves f rom other peoples by their dress. Th is was emphasised b y C l e m e n t III w h e n he made k n o w n the decision of the C o u n c i l to the f a i t h f u l :

" A l l that we have to d o . " he said, " i s to b r i n g the Jews back again to the observation of the laws of Moses commanding them to wear dist inct ive dress."

St. Thomas A q u i n a s , w r i t i n g to the Duchess of Brabant , makes the same comment on the dec is ion :

" I t is what they are commanded i n their o w n l a w , that is to say, to wear fringes on the four corners of their cloaks so that they may be dist inguished f r o m other peoples."

(Quoted by Lovsky i n Antisémitisme et Mystère d'Israel, p . 199)

Let us finally deal w i t h the question of race. T h e Jews protested vehement ly against H i t l e r ' s racial regime; and

yet they were the first people i n h is tory to exalt the idea of race, t h i n k i n g of themselves as belonging to the "chosen race". In other words, they created a concept of race w h i c h other peoples, h a v i n g long ignored, have borrowed f rom them, at times even to t u r n it against them.

It is opportune to remark here that the Jews are the o n l y ethnic group w h o are n a t u r a l l y and f u n d a m e n t a l l y race conscious, since their ideas of race and rel igion are inextr icably e n t w i n e d . " T h e Semitic re l ig ions" , wrote K a d m i - C o h e n i n Nomades, "are o n l y the spiritualised deification of the race."

T h u s it is not w i t h o u t a certain i r o n y that we are n o w witnessing a flood of rage against a pol icy w h i c h i n G e r m a n y revived the idea of race, t u r n i n g it against its inventors .

In the Revue de I'Histoire des Rel igions, E . D h o r m e wrote i n 1934:

" Judaism has made a p o w e r f u l contr ibut ion i n i m p l a n t i n g i n the w o r l d this concept of race, or more specifically of the seed . . . w h i c h should be traced back to great ancestors and endure w i t h out m i x t u r e throughout the ages. T h e persecutions w h i c h the Jews have suffered i n C h r i s t i a n countries are due, i n part , to the fus ion of race and rel igion w h i c h marked out the chi ldren of Israel as a special category of unassimilable cit izens. Racism is a dangerous theory, but let us recognise that it was upheld by the Semites long before it was by the Aryans."

(Quoted by Lovsky , ib id . , p. 364)

ANTI-SEMITISM 93

A l l Jewish writers exalt the indestruct ib i l i ty and superiori ty of their race, w h i c h they regard as destined to exert a great influence on a l l others. Dis rae l i , the Prime M i n i s t e r of Great B r i t a i n , w r o t e :

" E v e r y generation they must become more p o w e r f u l and more dangerous to the society w h i c h is hosti le to them. D o y o u t h i n k that the quiet h u m d r u m persecution of a decorous representative of a n E n g l i s h un ivers i ty can crush those w h o have successfully baffled the Pharaohs, Nebuchadnezzar , Rome, and the Feudal ages? . . . N o penal laws, no phys ica l tortures can effect that a superior race should be absorbed i n an infer ior , or be destroyed by i t . T h e m i x e d persecuting races disappear; the pure persecuted race remains. A n d at this moment, in spite of centuries, of tens of centuries, of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe."

( D i s r a e l i : Coningsby, pp. 226-7)

I n N o t r e Jeunesse, Charles Péguy draws a very characteristic portrait of his f r iend Bernard Lazare, i n w h i c h the w o r d " race" recurs as the central theme, pregnant w i t h meaning . W e have taken the f o l l o w i n g extract f r o m i t :

" T h e r e was never a moment w h e n every muscle and every nerve was not strained to answer his secret miss ion. N e v e r was a m a n more conscious of his role as the leader of his race and of his people, nor more responsible for them; a m a n perpetually taught-ened b y an unatonable reverse and sub-tension. N o t a sentiment, not a thought , not the shadow of a passion, but was not strained and governed by a commandment fifty centuries o ld ; a whole race, a w h o l e w o r l d he carried on his bowed shoulders, a race, a w o r l d of fifty centuries on r o u n d , heavy shoulders; and his heart was consumed w i t h fire, w i t h the fire of his race and of his people; his heart was on fire, his m i n d was passionate, and f r o m his prophetic lips came for th l ive c o a l s ! " Péguy:

N o t r e Jeunesse dans Oeuvres en prose 1909-14, p . 560)

In 1936 the Jewish author K a d m i - C o h e n wrote a book called Nomades to g lor i fy and indeed to deify his race w h i c h , according to h i m , has succeeded i n preserving its u n i t y and p u r i t y throughout its nomadic l ife. T h e extracts below have been taken f rom his w o r k :

O n e cannot ignore the " E x t r a o r d i n a r y and absurd persistence of the Semite race and,

w i t h i n the race, the persistence of phys ica l types. Sometimes one


notices a s t r i k i n g resemblance i n the cast of features between a f e w w h o has been completely westernised and the A r a b Bedouin , f r o m w h o m he is separated b y a stretch of some 3,000 years.

"Besides, the perpetui ty of certain manners is s ignif icant . C e n turies of l i v i n g amidst Slav and N o r d i c peoples have not lost the Jew his f r e n z y , his need to gesticulate nor his immoderate love of the highly-seasoned cooking of the Medi terranean .

" E x a m p l e s of this s tabi l i ty , w h i c h is so surpris ing that one is compelled to cal l i t s u r v i v a l , are so numerous that they embody the w h o l e of A r a b and Jewish l i fe .

" T h e r e is i n the dest iny of the race, as i n the Semitic character, a fixity, a s tabi l i ty and an i m m o r t a l i t y w h i c h are most striki n g . . .

" I am w h a t I a m , says the Eterna l . T h e Eternal , it is the race. " O n e i n its substance, not differentiated. O n e i n t i m e - - s t a b l e - -

eternal. ( K a d m i - C o h e n : Nomades, p . 14)

" T h e u n i t y of the Semitic concept is p r i m a r i l y and absolutely explained b y the nomadic character of the Semites' w a y of l i fe . A race of nomads, they were shepherds w h o roamed f r o m pasture to pasture rather than farmers w h o t i l led the l a n d . T h e y have remained nomads. T h e i m p r i n t is as indelible as a m a r k cut on the t r u n k of a tree, for as the t r u n k grows and expands the mark becomes protracted and disf igured, but it remains none the less dist inguishable . ( K a d m i - C o h e n , i b i d . , p p . 115-16)

" l e t it be f u l l y recognised; the nomadic state, w i t h the Semite, as opposed to the h is tory of other peoples, has never partaken of a transi tory character or of a stage i n the preparation for a sedentary life. It takes its source f r o m the depth of the Semite heart.

( K a d m i - C o h e n , i b i d . , p . 19)

" T h a t the nomadic l i fe m a y by itself be a factor i n the preservat ion of the race and of its e thnic p u r i t y is conceivable. A tribe w h i c h wanders thereby accepts isolat ion, and i n spite of and even because of its migrat ions, it remains identical and true to itself.

( K a d m i - C o h e n , i b i d . , p. 25)

"So the blood w h i c h runs i n its veins has preserved its p u r i t y first and foremost, and the succession of the centuries w i l l o n l y serve to strengthen the value of the race.

ANTI-SEMITISM 95

" T h e Semites and particularly the Jews provide natural and historical proof of this phenomenon. Nowhere has the respect for the blood been proscribed with equal intransigence. . . .

"The h is tory of this people such as i t is recorded i n the Bible, constant ly insists on the danger of m i x i n g w i t h foreigners . . . and i n our days, just as t h i r t y centuries ago, the v i t a l i t y of this racial characteristic is mainta ined and can be seen b y the i n -frequency of m i x e d marriages between Jews and non-Jews.

" T h u s i t is r o u n d this exclusive love and jealousy, one could say, of race, that the profound meaning of Semitism and of its ideal character is centred. The People constitutes an autonomous and autogenous ent i ty , dependent on no c o u n t r y , not accepting the laws i n force i n the country where it resides, and energetically refusing the in t roduct ion of cross-breeding, f r u i t f u l though i t m a y be. W i t h o u t material or external support , it cultivates solely its o w n u n i t y . . . .

. . and i t is . . . this formidable value, w h i c h is thus conferred on the race, w h i c h alone explains this u n i q u e phenomenon, absolutely w i t h o u t exception, that of a l l the innumerable peoples, one alone, the Jewish people, has survived o n its o w n and remained f r o m time i m m e m o r i a l , i n spite of e v e r y t h i n g . "

( K a d m i - C o h e n , ib id . , pp. 26-28)

Pract is ing a n exclusive form of racial apartheid themselves, the Jews are equal ly uncompromis ing opponents of race w h e n it is a question of r i v a l ideologies of the G e r m a n or other k inds . T h e y urged fanat ica l ly for w a r against H i t l e r . I n scarcely veiled terms, Leon B l u m invi ted the democracies to destroy racial ideology i n an article w h i c h appeared i n Paris-Soir on 23rd M a r c h 1939:

" T h e re-organisation, the reconci l iat ion and the co-operation of a l l the States in the w o r l d that are attached to l iberty and peace, and the s t imula t ion and exal tat ion of the democratic system, and at the same time the systematic destruct ion of the racist ideology, that is the essential task incumbent on the great movements of publ ic o p i n i o n , w i t h o u t w h i c h the governments w o u l d be i m potent . "

10

WORLD R E V O L U T I O N

S i x m i l l i o n dead, such is the fearful figure w i t h w h i c h the organisations of Jewry ceaselessly confront the w o r l d ; it is the unanswered argument of w h i c h they availed themselves at the C o u n c i l i n order to obtain a revision of the C a t h o l i c L i t u r g y .

Le M o n d e of the 3rd January 1965 recently publ ished an article à propos of this subject by V l a d i m i r Jankélévitch, f r o m w h i c h we

have taken the f o l l o w i n g passage:

" T h i s crime w i t h o u t name is a crime that is t r u l y inf ini te , and the fur ther i t is analysed the fur ther its inexpressible horror deepens. W e ourselves, w h o should have so m a n y reasons to k n o w , are da i ly learning something n e w , some par t i cu lar ly revol t ing detai l , some torture of special ingenui ty , some M a c h i a v e l l i a n a troc i ty of w h i c h one is compelled to say that o n l y G e r m a n i c sadism could be g u i l t y . It is not surpris ing that a fathomless cr ime should produce some sort of meditat ion that k n o w s no exhaust ion . T h e unheard of invent ions of cruel ty , the depths of the most diabolical perversi ty, the unimaginable refinements of hatred, a l l this leaves us d u m b and at first baffles the m i n d . O n e w i l l never p l u m b the depths of the mystery of this gratuitous wickedness.

" C o r r e c t l y speaking, this grandiose massacre is not a cr ime on the h u m a n scale a n y more than are the splendours of astronomy and the l ight years. . . .

"Before i n f i n i t y a l l finite dimensions tend to become equal , w i t h the result that the punishment becomes almost a matter of i n difference; what has happened is l i teral ly unatonable. W e don't even k n o w w h o m to blame or w h o m to a c c u s e . . . .

" T h e methodical , scientific and administrat ive massacre of six m i l l i o n Jews is not a w r o n g per se, it is a crime for w h i c h a whole people is accountable. . . .

" W h a t happened is un ique i n history and w i t h o u t doubt w i l l never happen again, for n o t h i n g l ike it has been seen since the

96

WORLD REVOLUTION 97

w o r l d began; the day w i l l come w h e n w e w i l l no longer even be able to expla in i t . "

A s one can see f r o m the above, the Jews f u r i o u s l y repudiate the very idea of collective responsibi l i ty as far as they are concerned, but do not hesitate to h o l d the G e r m a n people collectively responsible for the wrongs done to Israel under the H i t l e r régime.

H o w e v e r , i t n o w appears that we cannot accept this figure of six m i l l i o n . A French wri ter , Paul Rassinier, has made a very penetrati n g study of this subject, w h i c h he has brought together i n four large volumes, e n t i t l e d : Le Mensonge d'UIysse, Ulysse trahi par les siens, Le Ver i tab le Proces Eichmann on les Vainqueurs incorrigibles and Le Drame des Juifs Europeens.

Rassinier is a le f t -wing Socialist and an agnostic, w h o was himself deported to B u c h e n w a l d ; he cannot therefore be suspected of being sympathetic to N a t i o n a l Social ism. I n A p p e n d i x II we give a resume of these works , and of the author's conclusions.

Since the last w a r , the whole w o r l d has been inundated w i t h a torrent of l i terature, for the most part unreasoning, and at the same time v i o l e n t l y and axiomat ica l ly hosti le to G e r m a n y under H i t l e r , i n w h i c h a l l desire ca lmly and honest ly to seek out the t ru th and face i t , however unpleasant it m a y be, however u n l i k e w h a t i t is pre-conceived to be, appears to have been t h r o w n to the w i n d . " T h e first l a w of h i s t o r y " , wrote the great Pontiff , Leo X I I I , " i s not to say w h a t is false; next , not to fear to say what is t rue . " It is appropriate therefore, at this stage, to recall a few sober facts about the last war , w h i c h are not as w e l l k n o w n or remembered as others.

F i r s t ly , H i t l e r ' s G e r m a n y did not o n l y attack the Jews; if we count a l l the losses suffered d u r i n g the war , more non-Jewish deportees and prisoners of w a r and others died than Jews.

A t the outbreak of w a r there were about 300,000 French Jews and 170,000 foreign Jews i n France. Rather less than 100,000 were deported, of w h o m the major i ty were fore ign Jews. W e recognise that this is a very great number but we are far a w a y f r o m the legendary six m i l l i o n figure.

O n the other h a n d , at the Liberat ion about 105,000 Frenchmen were assassinated b y other Frenchmen i n the name of the Resistance; 95 per cent of these were good m e n whose o n l y faul t was that they were ant i -Communis t and not pro-Gaul l i s t . N o one seems to care about this. The universal conscience is o n l y interested i n Jewish vict ims.

P a u l Serant has described the purges w h i c h took place in France and other European countries after the l iberat ion, and w h i c h i n France went o n for years :

" A s soon as the commissions began to br ing out of prison those


w h o could not be reproached w i t h a n y t h i n g , people began to demand that the purge be mainta ined .

" T h e y were not a l l C o m m u n i s t s . It was i n a paper of a m a i n l y conservative readership, l 'Ordre, that M r . Jul ian Benda demanded the most harsh enforcement of a purge against those w h o were beginning to talk of c lemency. T h e government, i n his o p i n i o n , must agree to be the government of a party , the patriotic par ty . It doesn't matter i f a l l Frenchmen are not represented since those w h o are not patriots ought not to count . H e r e is a good reason to refuse them appeasement: 'It is perfectly false to m a i n t a i n that reconci l iat ion of the type y o u preach is v i t a l for a n a t i o n . T h e Russian government is a one-party government of patriots and it pit i lessly exterminated that class of cit izens w h i c h t h i r t y years ago, itself hoped and worked for the v ic tory of the enemy. O n e cannot exact ly say that the Russian nat ion is no longer i n existence as a result. . . O n e could h a r d l y put it more briefly or more precisely ."

(Paul Serant : Les Vaincus de la Libération, p . 234)

T h e A l l i e s themselves have heavy responsibilities to bear. Take , for example, the h a n d i n g over to the Soviets of the w h o l e

of Wlassow's a r m y by the A n g l o - A m e r i c a n authorit ies . In their zone the A m e r i c a n s were perfectly free to do w h a t they l iked and they must have k n o w n that they were h a n d i n g these men over to certain death.

A t the outset of the invas ion of Russia by the G e r m a n a r m y i n 1941, m a n y thousands of Russ ian officers and soldiers deserted and threw in their lot w i t h the Germans in order to f ight w i t h them against the t y r a n n y of S ta l in . O n e of them, General W l a s s o w , former C o m m a n d e r of the 2nd Soviet A r m y , a nat ional hero of the U .S .S .R . and very popular i n the a r m y , was p u t i n command by G e r m a n officers of various Russian units w h i c h had been formed to fight to liberate their c o u n t r y f r o m the Soviet yoke .

A first W l a s s o w a r m y , a crack u n i t 40,000 s trong, commanded by C o l o n e l B o u d n i t c h e n k o , occupied Prague, replacing the G e r m a n SS uni ts . A t the approach of the Russian troops, this divis ion w i t h drew towards the A m e r i c a n a r m y w h i c h had entered Czechoslovakia and w h i c h compelled them to hand over their arms. W h e n the A m e r i c a n troops retreated the div is ion found they were surrounded by the Soviets. M a n y committed suicide and the rest were taken prisoner; the officers were shot and the non-commissioned officers and soldiers were sent a w a y to concentrat ion camps. But beforehand m a n y were used by Beria for propaganda purposes. M a n a c l e d , they were piled into lorries w i t h posters on them w h i c h read : " T h i s

WORLD REVOLUTION 99

is the fate w h i c h Americans reserve for those w h o put their trust i n t h e m " , and paraded i n front of u n i t after u n i t . Few of them survived.

A second W l a s s o w divis ion , commanded by General M e a n d r o v , was interned by the Amer icans at P la t t ing i n Bavaria ; i n February and M a r c h 1946 they were handed over to the Soviets i n the most disgraceful fashion. A w o k e n at d a w n , the men were penned up like animals , herded to the station and crammed into trucks to the blows of rifle butts, w h i l e jazz music blared to stifle their cries. M a n y committed suicide, and a few succeeded i n escaping.

T h e cavalry uni ts under W l a s s o w formed an autonomous corps and were i n I ta ly at the time of the G e r m a n collapse. M o v i n g u p to Bavaria to re join W l a s s o w , they were halted at L i n z by the B r i t i s h authorit ies , w h o invi ted the Cossack leaders to dine w i t h them. A m o n g them were General Prince Bekovi tch Tcherkassy, General K r a s n o v , his nephew C o l o n e l Semione K r a s n o v and others. W h e n they arr ived i n f u l l evening-dress they were arrested by the B r i t i s h , w h o took them to Ber l in and handed them over to the Soviets. T h e y were a l l hanged.

General W l a s s o w himself was captured by a Soviet u n i t and hanged at M o s c o w .

T h e A m e r i c a n s also handed over to the Soviets General T r o u k h i n e , W l a s s o w ' s deputy-in-chief, General M a l y c h k i n e , his Chie f of Staff, and several other h i g h - r a n k i n g officers.

T w o of Wlassow's envoys, w h o had been sent to negotiate the internment of his troops i n W e s t e r n G e r m a n y , for w h i c h they had obtained safe-conducts f rom the A m e r i c a n s , were nevertheless arrested on their arr iva l and held prisoner. C a p t a i n Lapine refused to commit suicide and was handed over to the Soviets. C a p t a i n Bykadorov was released.

T h e A m e r i c a n s continued h a n d i n g over the remains of Wlassow's units l i t t le by l i t t le u n t i l June 1947. A t that date an important W l a s s o w detachment was put on board ship for Russia , not w i t h o u t h a v i n g first fought a veritable battle w i t h the A m e r i c a n s .

N o forcible repatriations took place i n the French zone of occupat ion . But under the first Gaul l i s t government , the Soviet State Securi t y was authorised to set u p a camp at Beauregard, whence former Soviet cit izens interned in the camp were forc ib ly repatriated to the U.S .S .R . Furthermore , this body was given a free hand to operate i n broad dayl ight i n Paris itself, h a p p i l y o n l y for a short period; o n several occasions its agents entered the flats of former emigres and took a w a y former Soviet subjects w h o did not w a n t to be repatriated and had taken refuge there. Between M a r c h and A p r i l 1946, Lieutenant Laptchinski , a y o u n g Russian, was removed from


the flat of C o u n t Ivan Tols toy , the grandson of the great wr i te r , w h o had been sheltering h i m .

In 1947 the Beauregard camp was closed. A n d after the death of S ta l in the survivors of Wlassow's a r m y

were released f r o m the concentrat ion camps.

Let us n o w t u r n to Soviet Russia . T h e number of the vict ims of M a r x i s t terrorism reaches apoca

l y p t i c proportions. In Russia and i n the satellite countries as w e l l , there have been mi l l ions of deaths of every category; by assassinat ion , by famine, by shoot ing i n street-fighting and massacres by the Tcheka . . . and tens of m i l l i o n s of people have been deported. U p to quite recently, it has been estimated that the camps of pol i t i ca l deportees, par t i cu lar ly those i n the far N o r t h of Siberia, had held sometimes as m a n y as fifteen m i l l i o n prisoners, m a n y of w h o m had died of misery, exhaust ion and illness. It is enough to recall the massive and pitiless deportat ion of the Russian K o u l a c peasants w h o were hosti le to co l lec t iv isa t ion :

". . . according to M a r g a r e t B u b e r - N e u m a n , N a v a r e n o Scariol i , the I ta l ian C o m m u n i s t w h o fled to M o s c o w i n 1925 and experienced the Russ ian concentrat ion camps between 1937 and 1954, painted a picture i n the Rome magazine V i t a o n the 23rd N o v e m b e r 1961 w h i c h surpasses i n horror a n y t h i n g w h i c h could have been w r i t t e n by survivors of the G e r m a n camps, even the most incredible stories."

(Rassinier : Le Véri table Procès Eichmann, p p . 9-10)

U n d e r the heading " A Yugos lav review says that the U . S . S . R . committed the crime of genocide before H i t l e r " , Le M o n d e of the 7th February 1965, analyses an account b y M r . M i h a j l o v , an undergraduate of the U n i v e r s i t y of Z a d a r , D a l m a t i a , of a t r ip he made the summer before to the Soviet U n i o n , published i n the l i terary review, D e l o , f r o m w h i c h the f o l l o w i n g extract is t a k e n :

" . . . this piece of w r i t i n g is going to cause trouble. It consists of a series of reflections and notes on the concentrat ion camps i n the Soviet U n i o n i n w h i c h , u p to 1956-57, between eight and twelve m i l l i o n people were interned. . . .

" T h e great ma jor i ty of those w h o have been rehabilitated and w h o had the luck to survive , do not want to keep silence any more, writes M r . M i h a j l o v . . . .

" A n o t h e r passage . . . deals w i t h the 'death camps'. It is symptomatic , writes M r . M i h a j l o v , that the Soviet Press makes less and less ment ion of N a z i camps and avoids compar ing them w i t h her

WORLD REVOLUTION 101

o w n . T h e first death camp was not organised by the Germans but by the Soviets; it came into operation i n 1921 at H o l m o g o r near A r c h a n g e l . It worked 'successfully' for years.

" R e c a l l i n g the terror i n the first years after the revolut ion and the execution w i t h o u t tr ial i n C r i m e a , 1920-1, of 120,000 prisoners, M r . M i h a j l o v states that a certain V e r a Grebnjakov, k n o w n under the alias of D o r a , is st i l l remembered there. She did her ' w o r k ' at Odessa and w i t h her o w n hand is said to have ki l led and tortured 700 prisoners.

" H i t l e r was not the first to commit the crime of genocide, says the wr i te r . O n the eve of the Second W o r l d W a r , the peoples along the frontiers of T u r k e y and Iraq were deported to northernmost Siberia where, being unaccustomed to the cold, they died

l ike flies. (Le M o n d e , 7th February 1965, f ront page)

I n the last war , one and a half m i l l i o n people f rom Poland and the U k r a i n e were deported b y the Soviet U n i o n :

" Interrogated at N u r e m b e r g o n 21st M a r c h 1946, by General R u d e n k o , the Russian prosecutor, F ie ld -Marsha l Goer ing replied that 'one m i l l i o n people f r o m Poland and the U k r a i n e were deported f r o m territories occupied b y the Soviet U n i o n and taken to the East and Far-East' ( C . R . des débats, v o l . i x , p . 673) but he was not al lowed to quote references or to proceed further . The first Pol ish government of London has however published a document according to w h i c h the n u m b e r of Poles deported was between 1,000,000 and 1,600,000 of w h o m 400,000 died on the journey; among the dead were 77,834 out of 144,000 ch i ldren according to informat ion provided by the A m e r i c a n Red Cross . . . the Russians extended the process to the Balt ic States, whence they deported 60,940 Esthonians, 60,000 Latvians and 70,000 Li thuanians . . . . "

(Rassinier, Le Véritable Procès Eichmann, p. 44)

A f u r t h e r 12,000 officers of the 1939 Pol ish a r m y were massacred to a m a n by the Russians; 4,000 of their corpses were identified i n the K a t y n Forest graves.

O f the 100,000 G e r m a n prisoners captured at Stalingrad o n l y 5,000 came back alive, the others died i n the camps.

Between 1st July 1945 and 1st January 1947, approximately 7,300,000 people were sent back f rom Silesia to G e r m a n y by the Russians, according to Rassinier ( ibid. , p. 107). Jammed into cattle-trucks, they were left w i t h o u t food on a journey of f o u r to five days. In the Revue des D e u x MONDES o n 15th M a y 1952, M r . Jean de


Pange stated that more than four m i l l i o n of these unfortunate people died.

Hideous scenes of massacre and violence accompanied the capture of B e r l i n and the invas ion of G e r m a n y b y the Soviet armies, for on the Eastern Front it was a veritable w a r of ex terminat ion , conducted on both sides w i t h atrocious savagery.

F i n a l l y , one must not forget the bloody repression of the popular upr i s ing i n H u n g a r y i n 1956.

U n t i l the death of S ta l in , terror has a lways been an essential part of the Soviet regime, and i n the realm of revolut ionary terrori s m , and the development of M a r x i s m as a revolut ionary doctrine, the names of outstanding Jewish leaders readily come to m i n d : K a r l M a r x , Lassalle, K a u t s k y , Liebnecht , Rosa L u x e m b o u r g , and others. It is a modern f o r m of messianism, a lways read to over throw everyt h i n g . O n the subject of M a r x , this is what Bernard Lazare has to say i n his celebrated w o r k , A n t i - S e m i t i s m :

" T h e descendant of a l o n g l ine of rabbis and teachers, he inherited the splendid powers of his ancestors. H e had that clear T a l m u d i c m i n d w h i c h does not falter at the petty difficulties of fact. H e was a T a l m u d i s t devoted to sociology and a p p l y i n g his native power of exegesis to the cr i t i c i sm of economic theory. H e was inspired by that ancient Hebra ic material ism w h i c h , rejecti n g as too distant and doubt fu l the hope of an Eden after death, never ceased to dream of Paradise realised o n earth. B u t M a r x was not a mere logic ian, he was also a rebel, a n agitator, an acrid controversialist , and he derived his gift for sarcasm and invect ive, as H e i n e d i d , f r o m his Jewish ancestry ." (pp 315-16)

O n the other hand, this is w h a t R a b i says i n his A n a t o m i e du Judaisme français:

" T h e r e is a lways a chosen people i n the M a r x i s t v is ion but henceforward it is the proletariat . There w i l l be catastrophes, such as the prophets have foretold, but these are the normal results of the inevitable class struggle. There is also a f ina l i ty i n the historical process, its dest iny is sealed, v ic tory is inexorable, the proletariat lives and struggles i n the path of h is tory , and his tory , if not G o d , is on the side of the proletariat. W i t h M a r x , socialism became a secular version of Jewish messianism. T h e idea was born in Palestine and has n o w taken root in M o s c o w and P e k i n g . "

(p. 250)

T h e f o l l o w i n g passage is taken f rom the revolut ionary Jewish wri ter , A . Rosenberg, w h o was a leader of the G e r m a n C o m m u n i s t


Party between 1917 and 1927. It is of capital importance since i t clearly reveals the essentially revolut ionary and destructive nature of M a r x i s m , camouflaged behind the slogan of the l iberation of the proletariat .

" I t was not an o v e r w h e l m i n g consciousness of the necessity for freeing the proletariat f r o m its hunger and misery that caused M a r x to regard revolut ion as the sole means to achieve that a i m . H e did not proceed f r o m the proletariat to revo lut ion . Indeed he chose a path proceeding i n a direct ly contrary direct ion . . .; it was i n his search for a means by w h i c h to achieve this revolut ion that M a r x discovered the proletariat .

( A r t h u r R o s e n b u r g : A H i s t o r y of Bolshevism, p . 3)

" I n 1848-9 M a r x and Engels publ ished i n Cologne the N e u e Rheinische Zeitung as 'a mouthpiece of democracy' . It proved to be the most dar ing and most i n f l u e n t i a l newspaper at the disposal of G e r m a n democracy. . . .

" I t was not a workman's paper i n the customary meaning of the w o r d . Indeed the various occupat ional and class interests of the workers received scant at tent ion i n its p a g e s . . . .

( A r t h u r Rosenberg, i b i d . , p . 12)

" T h e Par ty organisation was looked u p o n by M a r x and Engels s i m p l y as a m e d i u m through w h i c h they could better influence the w o r k i n g class as a whole . . . .

" O n 13th February 1851, Engels gave open expression to these views i n a letter to M a r x . H e w r o t e :

" ' H a v e we not pretended for many years that K r e t h i P l e t h i was our Party, a l t h o u g h we had no Party there, and those w h o m we at least officially recognised as members of our Party . . . did not comprehend the very A B C of our movement? W h a t have we to do with a Party that is nothing more than a herd of asses, and that swears by us because its members look upon us as their equals?' . . . .

" I t m a y be discerned clearly f r o m t h i s , " Rosenberg added, " h o w i n those days M a r x i s m was introduced into the w o r k i n g classes as something extraneous to t h e m . "

( A r t h u r Rosenberg, i b i d . , pp. 14-15)

S i m i l a r l y , the pr inc ipa l leaders of Soviet Russia u n t i l the advent of the dictator Stal in were of the same enigmatic race :

" I earnestly desire to avoid w r i t i n g one single l ine w h i c h might tend to inflame a festering w o u n d " , wrote Sarolea i n 1924. " B u t


it is no use denying that the festering w o u n d is there. . . . T h a t the Jews have played a leading part i n the Bolshevist upheaval and are s t i l l p l a y i n g a leading part i n the Bolshevist Government is a proposit ion w h i c h no one w i l l deny w h o has taken the trouble to s tudy Russian affairs at first h a n d . I am quite ready to admit . . . that the Jewish leaders are o n l y an inf ini test imal f ract ion. B u t it is none the less true that those few Jewish leaders are the masters of Russia, even as the fifteen hundred A n g l o - I n d i a n c i v i l servants are the masters of India . For a n y traveller i n Russia to deny such a t ru th w o u l d be to deny the evidence of his o w n senses."

(Charles Sarolea : Impressions of Soviet Russia , pp. 158-9)

Thei r dictatorship fe l l not o n l y u p o n Russia but u p o n every c o u n t r y i n C e n t r a l Europe w h e n Bolshevism attempted to i m p l a n t itself by a bloody reign of terror; under Bela K u h n and Szamuel ly at Budapest, Liebnecht and Rosa L u x e m b o u r g at B e r l i n , and K u r t Eisner and M a x Lieven at M u n i c h .

I n this, i t is w o r t h n o t i n g that their deeds are absolutely consistent w i t h their words, and i n support of this contention we quote below f r o m the foremost Jewish theoreticians of Bolshevik t e r ror i sm: K a r l M a r x , Engels, Leon T r o t s k y and N e u m a n n .

First , let us take a passage f rom M a r x w r i t t e n o n l y two years before his death, w h i c h puts i n clear relief his ideas about dictatorship and violence. In a letter to the D u t c h Social-Democrat, D o m e l a N i e u w e n h u y s , M a r x wrote o n 22nd February 1881:

" A socialist government cannot put itself at the head of a c o u n t r y if adequate condit ions do not exist to enable it immediately to take the requisite measures to terri fy the bourgeoisie and so achieve the first step for the u n f o l d i n g of its p o l i c y . "

(Pravda, 14th M a r c h 1928; quoted by Leon de Poncins i n Le P lan Communiste d'lnsurrection armée, p . 17)

This is Engel's judgment on the c o m m u n e :

" T h e revolut ion is undoubtedly the most author i tar ian t h i n g i n the w o r l d . Revolut ion is an act i n w h i c h one section of the populat ion imposes its w i l l upon the other by rifles, bayonets, guns, and other such exceedingly author i tar ian means. A n d the party w h i c h has w o n is necessarily compelled to main ta in its rule by means of that fear w h i c h its arms inspire in the reactionaries. If the comm u n e of Paris had not relied upon the armed people as against the bourgeoisie, w o u l d it have mainta ined itself more than twenty-four hours? Are we not, on the contrary, justified in reproaching


the commune for h a v i n g employed this author i ty too l i t t le? (p. 20)

" A s long as the proletariat st i l l needs the State, it needs it not i n the interests of freedom, but i n order to suppress its opponents ."

(Engels, quoted by Lenin i n The Proletarian Revolut ion and Kautsky the Renegade, p. 24)

T r o t s k y , for his part, has wr i t ten a w h o l e book to just i fy the necessity of the red terror, called Defence of Terrorism, f rom w h i c h we have taken the f o l l o w i n g :

" T h e man w h o repudiates terrorism in principle, i.e. repudiates measures of suppression and i n t i m i d a t i o n towards determined and and armed counter-revolut ion, must reject a l l idea of the political supremacy of the working class and its revolutionary dictatorship. The m a n w h o repudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat repudiates the Socialist revolut ion, and digs the grave of Socialism. . . . (pp. 23-24)

" T h e Red Terror is a weapon uti l ised against a class doomed to destruction, w h i c h does not w i s h to perish. If the W h i t e Terror can o n l y retard the historical rise of the proletariat, the Red Terror hastens the destruction of the bourgeoisie. T h i s hastening --a pure question of accelerat ion-- is at certain periods of decisive importance. W i t h o u t the Red Terror , the Russian bourgeoisie, together w i t h the w o r l d bourgeoisie, w o u l d thrott le us long before the c o m i n g of the revolut ion i n Europe. O n e must be b l ind not to see this, or a swindler to deny i t .

"The man who recognises the revolut ionary historic importance of the very fact of the existence of the Soviet system must also sanction the Red Terror. . . . (pp. 60-61)

" C o n c e r n i n g the destruction of w h i c h the C o m m u n e is accused, and of w h i c h n o w the Soviet Government is accused, M a r x speaks as of *an inevitable and comparat ively ins ignif icant episode i n the t i tanic struggle of the new-born order w i t h the old i n its collapse'. Destruct ion and cruel ty are inevitable i n a n y war . O n l y sycophants can consider them a cr ime ' i n the w a r of the slaves against their oppressors, the o n l y just w a r i n his tory ' ( M a r x ) . "

(L. T r o t s k y : The Defence of Terrorism, p. 89)

Let us not forget that Trotsky describes as sycophants those w h o were horrif ied by the crimes of genocide committed by the Soviets on their c o u n t r y m e n .

F i n a l l y , N e u m a n n , under the nom de plume of Neuberg , wrote a thick book called L ' lnsurrect ion a r m é e as a guide towards the


practical applicat ion of revolut ionary terrorism, a resume of w h i c h was published i n Leon de P o n c i n ' s : Le Plan Communiste d'Insurrection armée, 1939.

I n 1927 N e u m a n n , w h o was regarded as a n expert i n the art of insurrec t ion , was sent to C h i n a by M o s c o w w i t h Borodin and Galen (General Blücher), both of w h o m were Jewish, to organise the C o m munis t upris ings i n Shanghai and C a n t o n .

It was put d o w n i n blood b y C h i a n g Kai-shek, and most of the C o m m u n i s t leaders were executed. O n l y M a o Tse-tung and two or three of the present rulers of C o m m u n i s t C h i n a escaped the massacre and undertook the famous retreat of " t h e l o n g m a r c h " i n order to avoid f a l l i n g in to the hands of the troops p u r s u i n g them. N e u m a n n , Borodin and Galen fled to Russia , and after this fa i lure N e u m a n n ' s name went d o w n i n h is tory as the " B u t c h e r of C a n t o n " . Later he took part as a Soviet delegate i n the Spanish c i v i l war , and finally al l three disappeared and were executed b y Stal in at the famous M o s c o w tr ia l .

W h e n the Soviet armies began to invade Eastern G e r m a n y i n their march u p o n B e r l i n , the celebrated Jewish journalist I lya E h r e n b u r g proclaimed to the w i n d s :

" ' K i l l ! K i l l ! In the G e r m a n race there is n o t h i n g but ev i l ; not one among the l i v i n g , not one among the yet u n b o r n but is e v i l ! F o l l o w the precepts of Comrade Sta l in . Stamp out the Fascist beast once and for a l l i n its l a i r ! U s e force and break the racial pr ide of the Germanic w o m e n . T a k e them as y o u r l a w f u l booty. K i l l ! as y o u storm onwards k i l l , y o u gallant soldiers of the Red

Army!' " (Quoted by A d m i r a l D o e n i t z i n : Memoirs, Forty Years and Twenty Days, p . 431)

T h e y were not o n l y the theorists of the Red Terror; they were the pr inc ipa l agents i n c a r r y i n g i t out .

" U n f o r t u n a t e l y , not o n l y have men belonging to the Jewish race played a very large part both i n the beginning and i n the development of the Bolshevist R e v o l u t i o n , but they have also been the chief participators i n some of the worst crimes of that Revolut ion . In the annals of terrorism there are four names w h i c h stand out i n sinister i s o l a t i o n - - J a n k e l Y o u r o w s k i , the monster w h o shot d o w n the twelve members of the Imperial f a m i l y i n the cellars of the E l p a t i n s k i H o u s e i n Yekater inburg , i n c l u d i n g the four y o u n g daughters of the Tsar; Moses U r i t s k i , the first executioner-in-chief of the Tcheka; Bela K u n , the butcher of Budapest and of the C r i m e a ; D j e r d j i n s k i , the present Inquisi tor-General of


the Tcheka . O f those four names there is not one w h o is a Russ ian. O n e of the four is a Pole; the three others happen to be Jews."

(C . Sarolea, Impressions of Soviet Russia, pp. 160-1)

A n d Sarolea concluded w i t h these prophetic w o r d s :

" W e have s imply to admit the fact that the Bolshevist Revolut ion has been largely engineered by men belonging to the Jewish race. W e have to face the further fact that the deeds committed by those men have roused fierce v indic t ive passions i n the hearts of the Russian people. . . . (p. 159)

" T h e Bolshevist fever w i l l b u r n itself out; but the anti-Semitic passion w i l l g r o w as Bolshevism decreases. A l r e a d y signs of the c o m i n g storm are visible a l l over Cent ra l Europe. . . . W h a t , then, must we not expect i n Russia? For not o n l y is the anti-Semitic passion inf in i te ly greater i n Russia than i n a n y other c o u n t r y , but it also affects very m u c h larger n u m b e r s . "

(C. Sarolea, ib id . , p. 166)

A propos of the Spanish revolut ion the documents published i n the Off ic ia l Report of the Portuguese Government to the Commit tee of N o n - i n t e r v e n t i o n provide a v i v i d i l lustrat ion of the C o m m u n i s t p l a n for armed insurrect ion, f r o m w h i c h the f o l l o w i n g extract has been t a k e n :

" . . . In the session on the 27th February the K o m i n t e r n paid special attention to the question of the 'bolshevisation' of Spain . Th is organisation sent to the Peninsular two technicians, both w e l l - k n o w n revolutionaries, to direct the w o r k of the C o m m u n i s t s : Bela K u n and Losovski . T h e y were given ample financial resources and ordered to achieve the C o m m u n i s t objectives. . . .

" T h e agitator Bela K u n and his comrades Losovski , Janson, Riedal Pr iamo (or Primakoff) , Berzine and N e u m a n n arrived at Barcelona i n M a r c h and set to w o r k w i t h o u t delay. . . .

" T h e sight of their work must fill the organisers of the Spanish revolut ion w i t h satisfaction. Spain is a sea of blood. The immense wea l th , the masterpieces w h i c h a l l the gold i n the w o r l d could not reconstruct and the historical relics w h i c h formed a p a t r i m o n y c o m m o n to m a n y countries have been sacrificed and lost for ever. A great number of some of the highest m o r a l , artistic and intellectual achievements lie shrouded i n the eternal silence of death.

" A l l parts of the programme d r a w n up some months ago by the K o m i n t e r n have been carried out i n the terri tory subject to the Government of M a d r i d . If they have not been put into execution throughout the country , it is because the nat ional reaction did not permit it .


" E v e r y t h i n g had been foreseen f r o m a distance and executed methodica l ly . "

F i n a l l y , the heads of the Soviet regimes instal led b y M o s c o w i n the satellite countries after the war were J e w i s h : Rakos i i n H u n g a r y , A n n a Pauker i n R o u m a n i a , S lansky i n Czecho-Slovakia and Jacob Berman i n Poland.

For, as A r t h u r Bliss Lane, the former U n i t e d States Ambassador to Poland (1944-7), said:

" . . . the g r o w i n g anti-Semitism, even our Jewish sources admitted, was caused by the great u n p o p u l a r i t y of the Jews i n key government positions. These men included M i n c , Berman, O l s z e w s k i (whose real name was said to be Specht), R a d k i e w i c z and Spychalsk i . O u r Jewish friends said that the Jews i n Poland had l i t t le regard for the government and resented the i m p l i c a t i o n that the Jews i n it were representative of their people. I told the Depar tment of State that , f r o m the reports received, I believed there was bitter feeling w i t h i n the m i l i t i a against the Jews because the Security Police, controlled b y R a d k i e w i c z , dominated the m i l i t i a and the A r m y , and a Russian general, K i z i e w i c z , dominated the Internal Securi ty Police ( K . B . W . ) . It was k n o w n , furthermore, that both the U . B . and the K . B . W . had , among their members, m a n y Jews of Russian o r i g i n . "

( A . B . Lane, U . S . A . Ambassador to Poland, 1944-7, in I Saw Poland Betrayed, p p . 250-1)

Since then, i n Russia as i n the satellite countries, they have been progressively e l iminated f r o m positions of control to be replaced by Russians and natives.

B u t before their evict ion the chiefs of the terrible secret police were often of Jewish o r i g i n . The Jewish wr i te r Fejtö, a convert of H u n g a r i a n o r i g i n , says i n his excellent w o r k , Les Juifs et l ' A n t i -semitisme dans les Pays communistes:

" T h e highest placed amongst the Pol ish C o m m u n i s t Jews servi n g the Terror was Jacob Berman. . . . (p. 71)

and speaking of H u n g a r y he tells u s :

"Between 1945 and 1948 . . . the populat ion did not seem to pay m u c h attention to the fact that the higher ranks i n the ( H u n g a r i a n ) regime were m a i n l y composed of Jews (Rakosi , Gero, Reva i , V a s , A n t a l A p r o , George Lukacs and others . . .). T h e country o n l y became aware of this fact after 1948, at w h i c h date C o m m u n i s m changed its appearance and became increasingly sectarian and oppressive in its police measures. Several notorious


agents of this oppression, notably Gabor Peter, the H u n g a r i a n 'Beria ' , M i h a l y Farkas, M i n i s t e r of Defence, and his son W l a d i -m i r , w h o was the foremost torturer of the pol i t i ca l police, were l ikewise of Jewish or ig in . A good m a n y H u n g a r i a n Jews already foresaw w i t h terror that the people, enraged b y the regime of p e n u r y and oppression w h i c h the popular democracy had become, w o u l d rise u p against their tormentors. O n c e again, as i n 1919 after the f a l l of Bela K u h n , the Jews seemed predestined to pay the cost of a regime of w h i c h some of them appeared to be the p r i n c i p a l beneficiaries." (p. 93)

D u r i n g the present century there have been a number of w o r l d shattering pol i t i ca l crimes i n w h i c h m e n of Jewish race have been the pr inc ip le instigators. T h e f o l l o w i n g are some of the best k n o w n cases:

Between 1905 and 1917 i n Russia there was a cont inuous series of v io lent pol i t i ca l crimes to w h i c h some of the highest dignitaries of the Czar i s t régime fel l v i c t i m i n c l u d i n g the C z a r ' s uncle, the G r a n d D u k e Sergius, the Pr ime M i n i s t e r Plehve, S to lypine and others. T h e two most prominent leaders of the terrorist organisations responsible for these murders were the Jewish revolutionaries , G u e r s h o u n i and A z e f i n col laborat ion w i t h Silberberg, M a x Schweitzer and Routen-berg. In 1907 a bomb was t h r o w n at the State Bank i n Ti f l i s k i l l i n g a n u m b e r of Cossack Guards , and a considerable q u a n t i t y of money was stolen for the purpose of financing the Bolshevik agents. The f o l l o w i n g year, one of the pr inc ip le organisers, M e y e r Genoch M o i s e v i t c h W a l l a c h , alias F inkels te in was arrested i n Paris charged w i t h being concerned in the theft of 250,000 roubles f rom the T i f l i s Bank . H e was deported f r o m France and came to England where he l ived under the aliases of B u c h m a n n and H a r r i s o n , and on the outbreak of the First W o r l d W a r he was active i n stopping recrui t ing among the Jews of the East End of L o n d o n . W i t h the assistance of t w o other Jewish revolutionaries f r o m M o s c o w , H o l t z m a n n and Fineberg he was concerned w i t h the c i rcula t ion of seditious l i terature on behalf of G e r m a n y . A f t e r the Bolshevik revolut ion i n 1917 he subsequently became Soviet Ambassador to the C o u r t of St. James i n L o n d o n , assuming the name of M a x i m Li tv inof f . Later he became President of the C o u n c i l of the League of N a t i o n s .

T h e assassination, after the w a r of C o u n t Stephen T i z a , Pr ime M i n i s t e r of H u n g a r y was at the inst igat ion of three Jewish terrorists, K e r i , Fenyes and Pogany.

C o u n t Stürgkh, Prime M i n i s t e r of A u s t r i a was murdered by the Socialist Jew A d l e r , son of the leader of the A u s t r i a n Socialist Democratic Par ty .


H e t m a n Petliouva was assassinated i n Paris by the Jewish C o m munis t Schwartzbart .

In 1938, the G e r m a n diplomat , von Rath was assassinated i n Paris by the y o u n g Jew G r y n s p a n .

The B r i t i s h H i g h Commissioner in C a i r o , Lord M o y n e was assassinated by Jewish terrorists.

T h e dynamite outrage on the K i n g D a v i d H o t e l i n Jerusalem w h i c h k i l l e d a great m a n y B r i t i s h officers was undertaken by a Jewish underground movement.

Both C o u n t Bernadotte of Sweden, plenipotentiary of the U n i t e d N a t i o n s and C o l o n e l Sérot of France fe l l v i c t i m to Jewish assassins.

F i n a l l y , of recent years there was the murder of Lee O s w a l d , the assassin of President K e n n e d y by Jack Rubins te in .

W h o sows the w i n d reaps a w h i r l w i n d . W h e n y o u unleash revolut ionary terror on the w o r l d it is not surpris ing if y o u fa l l v i c t im to it yourself one day. It is the innate justice of h is tory .

W h e n terrorism is exerted i n the revolut ionary sense, described i n school text books as " t h e sense of h i s t o r y " , and w h e n i t is directed by Jews, it is a social experience "broad , h u m a n and generous" , despite the mi l l ions of deaths it involves .

W h e n revolut ionary violence turns against its instigators and the vict ims are Jewish, then it becomes a " m o r b i d cancer of c i v i l i s a t i o n " , a "sadistic form of anti-Jewish h a t r e d " and a "retrogression by h u m a n i t y towards the dark ages of medieval obscurant ism" . T h e Jews become the innocent vict ims of anti-Semite barbarity and the martyrs of h u m a n i t y .

II

E T E R N A L A N T A G O N I S M

T H E i rreducible antagonism w i t h w h i c h Judaism has opposed C h r i s t i a n i t y for 2,000 years is the k e y and m a i n s p r i n g of modern s u b v e r s i o n - - a posi t ion w h i c h , as we have attempted to show b y quotations f r o m learned and respected Jewish doctors and scholars, far f r o m being preposterous, as i t m a y at first appear, is quite understandable w h e n one grasps t h a t it flows n a t u r a l l y f r o m the Judaic m i n d and spiri t . For , as Darmesteter tells us, " the Jew championed reason against the m y t h i c a l w o r l d of the spirit . . . d u r i n g the intellectual n i g h t of the M i d d l e A g e s . . . and he understood as nobody else did h o w to find the vulnerable points i n its doctrine. . . . H e was the doctor of unbel ief . " (Quoted b y A . Spire i n Quelques Juifs, p. 233)

T h e advent of C h r i s t was a nat iona l catastrophe for the Jewish people, especially for its leaders. U n t i l then they, and they alone, had been the Sons of the Covenant ; they had been its sole high-priests and beneficiaries.

The p o w e r f u l empires w h i c h surrounded them either ignored or treated w i t h scorn the obscure, rather sparsely populated nat ion of Israel.

In his Genèse de L ' A n t i s é m i t i s m e , Jules Isaac describes w h a t the Greeks and Romans thought about Israel.

A f t e r a t i m e :

" T h e Greek w o r l d became more heedful of the Israelite n a t i o n , w h i c h it had hi therto regarded as insignif icant . . . a s ingular , incomprehensible people, l ack ing every th ing w h i c h , i n the eyes of the Greeks, gave h u m a n life meaning , l ight and beauty; lacking a n y visible c iv i l i sat ion or w o r k s of art; fanat ica l ly pious, but i n an obscure fa i th whose abstract gods could not be formed by the sculptor's chisel and worshipped as images. A n d yet this nonent i ty of a people l a i d c la im to e v e r y t h i n g : it s t o o d u p to radiant Hel las ; m o r e than that, it d a r e d to p r e a c h to the l a t t e r , to set itself u p as t h e m a s t e r of prayer a n d the Chosen o f the D i v i n i t y . W h a t as tounding i n c o n g r u i t y and exasperating f o l l y . The anti-Judaism

111

1 12 JUDAISM AND THE VATICAN

engendered i n certain Greek circles was p r i m a r i l y a reaction against claims that were considered intolerable and outrageous, a reflex of in jured self-esteem, complicated by mistrust , ignorance and misunderstanding. It was destined to spread throughout the w h o l e length and breadth of that w o r l d w h i c h had been more or less brought under the sway of the hellenes; but o r i g i n a l l y and essentially it was o n l y one aspect of the violent antagonism w h i c h had just arisen i n Palestine between the Judeans and Greeks, a m u t u a l w a r of exterminat ion , as Father Lagrange has said, w h i c h was to extend far beyond the borders of Palestine, to fester and subsequently break out in to n e w and bloody conflicts, i n w h i c h massacrers and massacred changed sides f requent ly , as the strongest side prevailed, and each opponent strained his utmost to m o u n t a fresh p o g r o m . " (p. 70)

T h e Romans adopted the same a t t i t u d e :

" I t was an unheard of t h i n g to them that the pax R o m a n a , R o m a n order and the imper ia l re l igion w h i c h was its symbol , should be disputed and shaken by a breed of indecent, superstitious O r i e n t a l agitators.

" 'The quarrel redoubled its f u r y , solely because the Judeans w o u l d not give u p the fight,' wrote Taci tus . T h e scoundrels.

" T h i s righteous anger surges throughout T a c i t u s . " (pp. 120-1)

But Israel attached no importance to w h a t the pagans m i g h t t h i n k or say. It d id not feel it was being interfered w i t h because the cr i t i c ism came f r o m outside. It touched neither Israel's inter ior cohesion, nor its immeasurable pride, nor its unshakeable belief i n an imper ia l f u t u r e :

" T h e l i t t le people of Israel, such as the prophets conceived of it , became the navel of the w o r l d . Jahve, its god, brought about every event, whether good or bad, and a l l were related to h i m . Israel became the centre of the universe and the centre of h is tory . N o t h i n g has existed, n o t h i n g does exist a n d n o t h i n g w i l l exist except i n terms of its o w n destiny. T h i s v iew of prophetic myst i c i sm, so naive i n its v a n i t y a n d so p r o u d , leads to a veritable rel igious imper ia l i sm. A c c o r d i n g to the prophets, Israel, b y the grace of Jahve, its god, is destined to govern the w o r l d ; w h e n the people of the servants of Jahve conform to the divine ordinances, the time w i l l come w h e n Israel shal l re ign over a l l the

earth." ( G . B a t a u l t : Le Problème Juif, p p . 69-70)

But suddenly there arose up among them a p r o p h e t - - m a n or G o d --who was indeed the son of the royal race of D a v i d , and also the

ETERNAL ANTAGONISM 113

son of the Covenant , heir to the Promise. H e claimed that he had been sent f rom above by G o d his Father, to carry out and complete the promise of the Covenant . " I am not come to destroy the L a w , but to fu l f i l i t . " ( M a t t h e w v. 17). A n d i n proof of his mission he performed a number of unheard of wonders; the mult i tudes , subdued, fo l lowed h i m .

B u t - - a n d this is the most serious point about his m i s s i o n - - h e interpreted the Promise i n a new and ent i re ly different sense, w h i c h threatened to overturn and destroy the w h o l e proud Judaic edifice, by rendering it sp ir i tual and universal .

T h e realisation of the Promise was transferred f rom the material to the spir i tual level; it overflowed beyond nat ional l imits and was no longer reserved to the Jews as its sole beneficiaries, but extended to include the w h o l e w o r l d .

" T h e idea of a celestial fatherland c o m m o n to a l l souls replaced that of Jerusalem of the Jews; i t no longer conceived of the floweri n g of one race nor of the t r i u m p h of one n a t i o n , for the chosen people was lowered to the level of just one among the peoples. T h i s was something to w h i c h neither the pride nor the religious nat ional ism of the Jews could consent, i t was contrary to the L a w and the Prophets, and contrary to the messianic promises. T h e time was to come w h e n the k ingdoms w o u l d submit to Israel . "

(G . Batault , ib id . , p. 91)

T h e chief-priests and the pharisees, unable to tolerate such a blasphemy and infr ingement of their privileges, delivered the dangerous agitator to the Romans, i n order to be r id of h i m , and had h i m put to death.

But C h r i s t rose f r o m the dead and his teaching spread l ike a train of powder across the ancient w o r l d . H i s disciples were denounced to the R o m a n authorit ies as rebels against the emperor, and they were pursued, fed to the beasts, tormented and crucif ied. H o w e v e r , the flood rose unceasing, penetrated the higher spheres of Imperial power, and suddenly the w o r l d s w u n g i n favour of the C h u r c h of C h r i s t :

" O n 28th October A.D. 312, the battle of M i l v i a n Bridge took place. Constant ine was victorious against M a x e n t i u s , w h o was believed to have drowned in the waters of the Tiber .

" O n e battle sufficed to change the face of the wor ld and its religious countenance. . . .

"Constant ine ' s v ic tory is r i g h t l y considered as the starting-point of a new era, that of the C h r i s t i a n empire. It is true that its immediate result seems to have been the establishment of the


l iberty and equal i ty of creeds (313). . . . Thenceforward, for reasons w h i c h have not been completely clarified, the victorious Constan-tine united his destiny w i t h the C h u r c h of C h r i s t , and the latter had w o n the game. T h e C h u r c h conquered and retained imperia l favour , it took a privi leged posit ion w i t h i n the State, and began to move towards even greater and more perilous heights, where the C h u r c h was closely l inked w i t h the State and became, i n other words, a State C h u r c h . A great and a surpris ing revolut ion , deplored by some and praised by others, one of the most important revolutions i n H i s t o r y , to w h i c h the reign of Constant ine was o n l y a prelude, since it reached its complet ion i n the extraordinary and chaotic f o u r t h century . But the unheard of success of the C h u r c h was to br ing i n its wake the misfortune of the Synagogue, for w h i c h the f o u r t h century was a fatal epoch, m a r k i n g the commencement of a future of anguish , sorrow and catastrophes."

(Jules Isaac: Genèse de l 'Antisémitisme, p p . 155-6)

The Jews did not then, and they do not n o w , accept this defeat. T h e rupture between Judaism and C h r i s t i a n i t y is total. T h e posi t ion is one of m u t u a l , u n y i e l d i n g antagonism. It could hardly be stated more clearly than i n the f o l l o w i n g remarkable passage f rom the Jewish convert, F e j t ö :

" I f the Jew is r ight , C h r i s t i a n i t y is o n l y an i l l u s i o n . " I f C h r i s t i a n i t y is r ight , the Jew is, i n the most favourable

hypothesis, an a n a c h r o n i s m - - t h e image of something w h i c h ought no longer to exist.

" C h r i s t i a n i t y , for the Jew, means the renunciat ion of a monopoly and of a 'national ist ' i f not to say racialist interpretat ion of ' the election'; it means opening oneself to h u m a n fraternisation and at the same t ime a great 'amen' to God and al l that G o d decides; it means accepting suffering and death, and it means renouncing one's pride, one's love and one's distrust of Self.

"I k n o w of no other people that has been submitted to such a diff icult tr ia l by C h r i s t i a n i t y .

"Since for no other people has the change to C h r i s t i a n i t y signified, i n the short or long r u n , the disappearance of the people itself as such. N o other peoples' religious traditions, w h i c h fa i th i n C h r i s t demanded they should abandon, were so int imate ly connected w i t h all the condit ions of their c i v i l existence.

" F o r the other peoples of the R o m a n empire, rel igion was in effect a 'superstructure' or an embell ishment. It could be replaced w i t h o u t shaking the edifice. But for the Jew, rel igion was the infrastructure, the raison d'être, the base of his being. But the apostles


invited them to sell a l l their goods, for H e a v e n was at hand and the gates beyond were wide open. T h e Jew s a i d : no , i t is not true, it cannot be true that G o d wants me to do this. Prove it to me.

" A n d i t is at that point that we reach the other reason (or pretext) w h i c h justifies the Jew saying 'no ' to C h r i s t - - t h a t he did not correspond to the i d e a - - w h e t h e r true or f a l s e - - w h i c h the Jew-had developed of the Mess iah , and of his o w n sa lvat ion . "

(F. Fejtö: D i e u et Son Juif, pp. 34, 190-2)

" B y c l a i m i n g to be the true ' Israel ' - - Israel according to the 'spir i t ' and not according to the 'contemptible ' f l e s h - - C h r i s t i a n theology intends to permanent ly replace Israel. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , Israel has not disappeared and does not want to do so."

(J. J ehouda : L'Antisémitisme, Miroir du M o n d e , p. 50)

The irremediable difference is to do w i t h Jesus:

" I f we take i t that he did exist i n h is tory , for the Jew he was neither G o d nor the son of G o d . T h e most extreme concession the few can possibly make was expressed by Joseph K l a u z n e r , accordi n g to w h o m Jesus, w h o m he said was neither the Mess iah , nor a Prophet, nor a lawgiver , nor the founder of a rel igion, nor tanna, nor rabbi , nor pharisee, 'is considered as a great moralist and artist i n the use of parables by the Jewish nat ion . . . the day w h e n he is cleared of the stories of his miracles and myst ic i sm, the Book of the M o r a l i t y of Jesus w i l l become one of the most precious jewels of Jewish l i terature of al l t ime' .

" C h r i s t i a n i t y is essentially preoccupied w i t h the individual salvation of man. Judaism only contemplates the salvation of the House of Israel, which alone can permit the salvation of the seventy nations of the universe. For centuries this has been the constant objective of the talmudists and cabbalists. T h e y have one fundamenta l a i m : to mainta in one c o m m u n i t y on w h i c h the salvation of the w h o l e wor ld depends. O n l y by vir tue of his rite is the Jew al lowed to integrate w i t h his c o m m u n i t y . "

( R a b i : A n a t o m i e du Judaisme français, pp. 203-204)

" T h e steps by w h i c h the C h r i s t i a n fa i th conquered its independence were to lead it rapidly and inevi tably into a merciless w a r against Israel 'according to the flesh', the new C h u r c h proc l a i m i n g itself the true Israel of G o d and the o n l y Israel 'according to the spir i t ' . But was the grav i ty of such a c la im f u l l y realised? It amounted to something m u c h worse than a slander on


the Jewish people; it was an attempt to make away w i t h its spark of life, w i t h its sacred fire, one could even say w i t h its soul; and even m o r e - - s o closely are the spir i tual and temporal elements l inked to each o t h e r - - i t was an attempt to make a w a y w i t h its place i n the sun , w i t h its privi leged status i n the E m p i r e . "

(J. Isaac, Genèse de l 'Ant i sémit i sme , p . 150)

C h r i s t i a n i t y was on the ascendance for fifteen centuries, and throughout the whole of the medieval period Judaism was powerless to influence the destinies of nations. Prof i t ing f rom the tolerance of the authorities and f rom the protection of the Popes, it could o n l y l ive o n , w a i t i n g for a n o p p o r t u n i t y to penetrate the monol i th ic C h r i s t i a n structure f r o m w i t h i n . It looks upon this period as one of dark obscurantism and barbari ty , for Israel tends to judge the w o r l d i n relation to itself, itself being the salt of the earth and the measure of a l l things.

T h e n , w i t h the Renaissance and the Reformat ion, the u n i t y of the Fa i th was broken. Judaism advanced through the breach w h i c h had thus been opened and thenceforward threw its weight behind every movement w h i c h weakened and unsettled C h r i s t i a n i t y - - t h e Renaissance, the Reformat ion, the R e v o l u t i o n of 1789 and M a r x i s m .

T h r o u g h o u t the whole of this period, Darmesteter tells u s :

" T h e Jew championed reason against the m y t h i c a l w o r l d of the spir i t . It was w i t h h i m that thought took refuge d u r i n g the inte l lectual night of the M i d d l e A g e s . Provoked by the C h u r c h , w h i c h sought to persuade h i m , h a v i n g i n v a i n attempted to convert h i m by force, he undermined it by the i r o n y and intell igence of his arguments, and he understood as nobody else did h o w to f ind the vulnerable points i n its doctrine. H e had at his disposal i n this search, apart f rom the wisdom of the sacred scriptures, the redoubtable wisdom of the oppressed. He was the doctor of unbelief; a l l w h o were mental ly i n revolt came to h i m , either secretly or i n broad dayl ight . H e was at work in the vast laboratory of blasphemy under the great emperor Frederick and the princes of Swabia and Aragon. It was he who forged all that deadly arsenal of reasoning and irony w h i c h he bequeathed to the sceptics of the Renaissance and the libertines of the grand siècle (the reign of Louis X I V ) ; Vol ta i re ' s sarcasm, for example, was n o t h i n g more than the resounding echo of a w o r d m u r m u r e d six centuries previous ly i n the shadow of the ghetto, and even earlier ( in the Counter-Evangelists of the first and second centuries) at the t ime of Celsus and Or igen at the very cradle of the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n . "

(Quoted by A . Spire in Quelques Juifs. p. 233)


Bernard Lazare, for his part, depicts Jewish ant i -Chris t ian action i n the eighteenth c e n t u r y :

" I n l ike manner we w o u l d have to inquire w h a t was the importance, I w i l l not say of the Jew, but of the Jewish spirit throughout the period of fierce revolt against C h r i s t i a n i t y w h i c h characterised the eighteenth century. W e must not forget that i n the seventeenth century , scholars l ike Wagense i l , Bartolocci , Buxtor f and W o l f , had brought for th f rom obl iv ion old volumes of H e b r e w polemic, w r i t t e n i n refutat ion of the T r i n i t y and Incarnation and at tacking a l l dogmas and forms of C h r i s t i a n i t y w i t h a bitterness ent ire ly Judaic, and w i t h a l l the subtlety of those peerless casuists w h o created the T a l m u d . T h e y gave to the w o r l d not only treatises on questions of doctrine and exegesis, l ike the Nizzachon or the Chizuk Emunah, but published blasphemous tractates and pseudo-lives of Jesus, of the character of the Toldoth Jesho. The eighteenth century repeated, concerning Jesus and the V i r g i n , the outrageous fables invented b y the Pharisees of the second century; w e find them i n V o l t a i r e and i n P a r n y , and their rationalist satire, pe l luc id and mordant , lives again i n H e i n e , i n Boerne and i n Disrael i ; just as the p o w e r f u l logic of the ancient rabbis lives again i n K a r l M a r x , and the passionate thirst for l iberty of the ancient H e b r e w rebels breathes for th again i n the g l o w i n g soul of Ferdinand Lassalle. L a z a r e : Anti-Semitism, pp. 306-307)

A c c o r d i n g to Jehouda:

" T h e Renaissance, the Reformation and the R e v o l u t i o n (of 17S9) constitute three attempts to rectify C h r i s t i a n mental i ty by bringi n g it into tune w i t h the progressive development of reason and science.

" A s dogmatic theology began to y ie ld its oppressive control over man's conscience, the Jews began to breathe more freely. . . . T h e three breaches opened i n the decrepit fortress of C h r i s t i a n obscurantism extend over r o u g h l y five centuries, i n the course of w h i c h the Jews were s t i l l considered as the pariahs of his tory . . . .

"If the Jews were st i l l removed f rom al l the intellectual and social ac t iv i ty of the C h r i s t i a n peoples, nevertheless, despite the ostracism to w h i c h they were subjected, their thought played a preponderant though unacknowledged role i n the Renaissance, the Reformat ion and the R e v o l u t i o n , w h i c h are al l indirect ly stamped w i t h its mark . . . and it is certainly not by chance that these attempts (to rectify C h r i s t i a n mental i ty) were inspired by the


assiduous s tudy of Jewish sources at a time w h e n the Jews were st i l l looked upon w i t h suspicion and mis t rus t . "

(J. Jehouda: L'Antisémitisme, Miroir du M o n d e , pp. 161-2)

Jehouda gives us concrete examples of the part played by Jewish proselytizers such as Pico de M i r a n d o l a and John R e u c h l i n i n this transformation of C h r i s t i a n i t y .

Pico de M i r a n d o l a , w h o died i n Florence i n 1494, was a hebraiser w h o devoted himself to s t u d y i n g the Cabbala under the direction of Jewish masters such as Jehuda A b r a v a n e l :

" I t was i n the pr ince ly house of Pico de M i r a n d o l a that the Jewish scholars used to meet. . . . T h e discovery of the Jewish Cabbala , w h i c h he imparted to various enlightened Chr is t ians contr ibuted far more than the return to Greek sources to the extrao r d i n a r y spir i tual blossoming w h i c h is k n o w n as the Renaissance. A b o u t half a century later, the rehabi l i tat ion of the T a l m u d was to lead to the Reformat ion . . . Pico de M i r a n d o l a had understood that the indispensable puri f icat ion of C h r i s t i a n dogma could o n l y be effected after a profound study of the authentic Jewish Cab-

bala. . . . (Joshua Jehouda, i b i d . , p . 164)

" W i t h the Reformat ion , w h i c h broke out in G e r m a n y fifty years after the Renaissance, the universa l i ty of the C h u r c h was destroyed. A new age began. The Renaissance had not succeeded i n p u r i f y i n g C h r i s t i a n dogma, and the Reformation finished by compl ica t ing even more ' the problem' of C h r i s t i a n i t y , evident though i t was. It may be summarised as a question of h o w to overcome its fundamental dua l i sm, the contradictory two-fold o r i g i n i n Jerusalem and A t h e n s to w h i c h Rome succeeded. It is indeed a w e l l - k n o w n fact that the Reformat ion was achieved by Luther (1483-1546), C a l v i n (1509-64) and Z w i n g l i (1484-1531), but it is not so w e l l - k n o w n that previously John R e u c h l i n (1455-1531), Pico de M i r a n d o l a ' s disciple, shook the C h r i s t i a n conscience by suggesting as early as 1494 ' that there was n o t h i n g higher than hebraic w i s d o m ' . A n d w h e n i n 1509 a renegade Jew, Joseph Pfefferkorn, had the T a l m u d seized and finally obtained, after several previous attempts, the definite condemnation of this collective compendium w h i c h contains a thousand years of Jewish wisdom, John Reuchl in did not shr ink f rom exposing himself to every menace and danger i n order to defend before the Emperor and the Pope the extraordinary value of the T a l m u d , whose veritable meaning he had fathomed.

" R e u c h l i n advocated re turn ing to Jewish sources as wel l as to


ancient texts. F i n a l l y , he w o n his case against the convert Pfeffer-k o r n , w h o l o u d l y demanded the destruction of the T a l m u d . 'The n e w spir i t w h i c h was to revolutionise the whole of Europe became apparent w i t h regard to the Jews and the T a l m u d ' , wrote the his tor ian Graetz . H o w e v e r , the Reformat ion , w h i c h made k n o w n the bare text of the Bible, proved even more incapable than the Renaissance of p u r i f y i n g C h r i s t i a n i t y of its congenital anti-Semitism. O n e is astonished to f ind that there were as m a n y Protestant as C a t h o l i c anti-Semites. The Reformat ion , f inding itself i n an intel lectual impasse, adopted the pr inciple of f ideism, thus excluding all possibi l i ty of it reasoning its f a i t h . . . .

" T h e Reformat ion itself submitted to the irresistible attraction of the 'Greek miracle ' , w h i c h splits thought by separating it f r o m fa i th and by adopting, albeit it impercept ibly , the pagan laicism w h i c h prepares the ground for atheism. T h e French Revolut ion marked the beginning of atheism i n the h i s t o r y of C h r i s t i a n peoples and, declaredly anti-religious, it continues, through the influence of Russian C o m m u n i s m , to make a power fu l contr ibut ion to the dechristianisation of the C h r i s t i a n w o r l d . . . .

" T h e t h i r d attempt to amend the C h r i s t i a n posi t ion, after the fa i lure of reformed C h r i s t i a n i t y to uni te , took place under the impetus of the French R e v o l u t i o n .

" A l t h o u g h the French R e v o l u t i o n and the Russian R e v o l u t i o n w h i c h fo l lowed it liberated the Jew i n the social and pol i t ica l fields, they both ho ld the monotheist ic rel igion of Israel i n the same contempt as C h r i s t i a n theology. . . .

" L a i c i s m , to w h i c h the Revolut ion gave b i r t h , confers on the Jew his d i g n i t y as a m a n , but C h r i s t i a n theology has not yet abolished its spir i tual contempt for h i m . T h i s accounts for the twofold att i tude of the modern w o r l d w i t h regard to the Jew and for the successive outbursts of anti -Semit ism. . . .

" T h u s anti-Semitism, the foot-and-mouth-disease of C h r i s t i a n i t y , is s t i l l rebellious even after the three attempts to p u r i f y C h r i s t i a n dogma. But , no twi ths tanding al l the successive purgings, Chr i s t iani ty remains firmly fastened to its m y t h i c a l dogmatism w h i c h inevi tably engenders anti-Semitism. T h e aff irmation that Chris t i a n i t y holds out to Judaism the last phase of its spir i tual future must i n the end be completely rethought f rom top to bottom i n the interests of C h r i s t i a n i t y itself, and thus of western civi l isa-

tion . . . (Joshua Jehouda, ib id . , p p . 169, 170, 172-4)

" W h o e v e r looks deep into the meaning of universal h is tory , in order to see it as a whole , discovers that f r o m a n t i q u i t y u n t i l the present day it has been penetrated and fashioned unceasingly


by two contrary currents, k n o w n under various names : messianism and anti -Semit ism. . . .

" B u t the p r o f o u n d meaning of h is tory , w h i c h remains u n altered i n every epoch, is that of a veiled or open struggle between the forces w o r k i n g for the advancement of h u m a n i t y and those that c l i n g to coagulated interests, obstinately determined to keep them i n existence to the detriment of w h a t is to come.

" F o r messianism and anti-Semitism constitute the two opposite poles of the progress of h u m a n i t y . A n t i - s e m i t i s m is the negative pole of messianism. . . . " (Joshua jehouda, ib id . , p . 186)

Today the attack is renewed under the banner of ecumenism and the w a r is being carried into the very interior of the C h u r c h itself. Supported by progressive parties, the spir i tual leaders of W o r l d Jewry are asking for a reconsideration of the C h u r c h ' s t radit ional doctrine on Judaism, as we showed i n the first three chapters of this w o r k .

W e are told that reconci l iat ion is possible and desirable. W e are the first to agree that i t is desirable, but it is far more diff icult to defend the proposit ion that it is possible. For people of the Jewish f a i t h , steeped i n the T a l m u d , reconci l iat ion, as we have demonstrated, means n o t h i n g less than the abandonment by C h r i s t i a n i t y i n its entirety of everyth ing that constitutes the essence of its doctrine, and its integral re turn to Judaism, w h i c h for its part intends to y ie ld n o t h i n g , and firmly mainta ins its posit ion of intransigence.

A l l the Jewish thinkers , the rabbis and the leaders of Judaism are unanimous on this point . H e a r w h a t A n d r e Spire has to say, speaking about Darmeste ter :

" B e y o n d every confession, above every dogma, he (the Jew) has remained anchored to the spir i t of the Scriptures. B y an or ig ina l twist of thought , he incorporates the most attractive features of C h r i s t i a n i t y in to Judaism and, leading the C h u r c h back to the synagogue, reconciles the mother w i t h her daughter i n an ideal Jerusalem. But it is the daughter, as one w o u l d expect, w h o recognises her wrongs and confesses her errors."

( A . Spire, Quelques Juifs, p . 255) Joshua Jehouda w r i t e s :

" A modern prophet once e x c l a i m e d : 'Shame and curse on you Christian peoples if you obstinately persist in stifling the monotheistic tradition of Israel. For without the renewal of monotheistic messianism there is no hope of salvation f o r y o u and the rest of the w o r l d . ' "

(J. Jehouda: Antisémitisme, Miroir du M o n d e , p. 349)


Rabi makes the f o l l o w i n g c o m m e n t :

" I t is not the cross w h i c h w i l l repair the schism between the Jewish people and the rest of the nations, as Lovsky believes. It w i l l o n l y become possible w h e n the w o r l d t r u l y accepts the Jewish idea of common filiation. M a n need seek no other moral and his tory no other e n d . "

( R a b i : Anatomie du Judaism? français, p. 186)

Elie Benamozegh, one of the most eminent Jewish thinkers , who is k n o w n as " the Plato of Italian Juda ism" , wrote an important introduct ion to his work Israel et l ' H u m a n i t é w h i c h perfectly summarises Jewish thought o n this subject, of w h i c h we give a brief account here.

A f t e r describing the religious crisis i n the w o r l d , Elie Benamozegh th inks that the o n l y w a y to resolve it is by reaching religious u n i t y and he examines the conditions under w h i c h agreement should be reached.

I n the v i e w of this rabbi , a fervent cabbalist, the rel igion of the f u t u r e could not be rat ional ism, w h i c h , i ssuing solely f r o m the h u m a n m i n d , o n l y clings to inte l l ig ible and changing things. For re l ig ion, the act of adoration and w o r s h i p of the A b s o l u t e , surpasses our senses and faculties and implies a t r u t h founded u p o n Revelat ion.

O n l y the religions that have sprung f rom the Bible and tradi t ion, o n l y Judaism, C h r i s t i a n i t y and Islam f u l f i l l these condit ions.

B u t among them, Judaism occupies a pre-eminent posi t ion. The first-born of the chi ldren of G o d , the guardian of messianism, i t is to Israel that the priest ly f u n c t i o n belongs b y r ight i n the great f a m i l y of the nations, for i n ant iqui ty the first-born:

" . . . was the priest of the f a m i l y w h o carried out the orders of his father and took his place i n his absence. T h e sacred things were i n his charge, he officiated for the f a m i l y , he taught them, he gave them his blessing. I n recognit ion of his services, he was given a double share of the paternal inheri tance and the consecrat ion or imposi t ion of hands. . . . Such was the Jewish concept ion of the w o r l d . In heaven, one sole G o d the father of a l l men, and on earth one f a m i l y of peoples among w h o m Israel is the first-born, charged w i t h the priest ly f u n c t i o n of teaching and adminis ter ing the true rel igion of h u m a n i t y . "

(E. B e n a m o z e g h : Israel et l ' H u m a n i t é , p. 40)

T h u s Judaism is to become the rel igion of the h u m a n race and the Jewish conception of the w o r l d is to prevail over every other.

C h r i s t i a n i t y , issued from Hebraism, is to return to the older and


more authent ica l ly d i v i n e t radi t ion w h i c h formed i t , i n spite of its o w n venerable and antique t radi t ion. T h e excessive number of C h r i s t i a n sects, its errors and discords and the obscurity of its dogmas, no longer corresponds to the needs of modern times. In order to continue to exist, i t must reform its defects by accepting the ideal that Judaism is based on man and on society and by re turning to the p r i m i t i v e fa i th i n God and i n his revelation. O n this condi t ion , i t w i l l preserve its messianic character, i t w i l l uni te w i t h Judaism i n order to secure the religious fu ture of h u m a n i t y , and it w i l l remain the re l ig ion of the Gent i l e s :

" T h e reconci l iat ion dreamt of by the early Chr i s t ians as a condit ion of the Parousia, or the final coming of Jesus, the return of the Jews to the bosom of the C h u r c h , w i t h o u t w h i c h , as a l l the C h r i s t i a n communions agree, the w o r k of Redemption is i n complete, this re turn we say w i l l take place not i n t r u t h as it is expected to happen, but i n the o n l y genuine, logical and last ing fashion possible, and above a l l i n the o n l y w a y i n w h i c h it w i l l benefit the h u m a n race. It w i l l be a reunion between the H e b r e w rel igion and the others that have sprung f rom it and . . . 'the return of the children's heart to their fathers ' . "

(E. Benamozegh, i b i d . , p . 48)

T h e defence of the tradit ional C h r i s t i a n standpoint penned i n answer to these crit icisms, w i t h w h i c h we conclude this chapter, is taken f r o m Le M a l h e u r d'lsrael by the Jewish wri ter , D r . Roudinesco:

" T h e persistence to our day of this small c o m m u n i t y i n the face of unheard of persecution and suffering has been described as a Jewish miracle . T h e i r surv iva l is not a miracle; at best it m a y be called a misfortune. T h e veritable Jewish miracle is the spi r i tua l conquest of h u m a n i t y by C h r i s t i a n i t y . T h e mission of the chosen people has long since terminated. Those of the Jews w h o hope to complete C h r i s t i a n i t y one day by a renewed messianism ignore the fundamenta l laws of the evolut ion of h u m a n i t y . " (pp. 197-8)

12

" P O R T R A I T O F A J E W "

I N 1962 a Jewish wr i te r f r o m T u n i s , A . M e m m i , w h o had been l i v i n g for m a n y years i n France, published a book called Portrait of a Jew.

T h i s w o r k is h i g h l y instructive for it does i n effect present us w i t h a portrait depict ing, w i t h the utmost c lar i ty , the profound reactions of a Jew confronted w i t h the old C h r i s t i a n c iv i l i sat ion of a na t ion such as France, a reaction w h i c h is typica l not of France alone but of every C h r i s t i a n country .

M e m m i ' s discomfort and apprehension as soon as i t is a question of a n y t h i n g to do w i t h France's past his tory is conspicuous i n the f o l l o w i n g passages, w h i c h i n a remarkable w a y confirm and summarise the points we have been m a k i n g i n the previous chapters of Part II of this w o r k .

" N o Gauls , please. Enough of Celts , ancient Romans and conquer ing A r a b s ! For then, I find myself naked and a lone : m y o w n ancestors were neither Gauls , Celts , Slavs, ancient Romans, Arabs , or T u r k s . . . .

" I have never been able to say ' W e ' i n referring to those historical pedigrees o n w h i c h m y fel low-cit izens pride themselves. I have never heard another Jew say ' W e ' w i t h o u t w i n c i n g , w i t h o u t vaguely suspecting h i m of an inadvertent blunder, of complacency or of a slip of the tongue."

( A . M e m m i : Portrait of a few, p . 199)

T h u s there is racial and nat ional antagonism between the Jews and the nations, but , deeper s t i l l , there is religious antagonism:

" W h e n , several years ago, I left T u n i s i a to come to France, I knew that I was leaving a M o s l e m c o u n t r y , but I did not understand that I was going to a Catho l i c country . A few weeks were enough to impress that fact on me. . . .

"I q u i c k l y discovered that French reality is an inextricable m i x t u r e of l iberalism and C a t h o l i c i s m , clericalism and anti-cleri-

123


calism at the same time . . . but the common Chr is t ian background is everywhere- -somet imes more or less buried, other times more or less obvious. . . .

"France remains a pro foundly Catho l i c country just as A m e r i c a is a Protestant country . . . .

" W h e n I travel i n the inter ior of this country , what do they show me w i t h righteous pride? W h a t do I ask myself spontaneously to see because I k n o w that they are w o r t h seeing, if not churches, chapels, baptisteries, statues of V i r g i n s , objects of worship and very few other things. I have verified the accuracy of those descriptions by orthodox w r i t e r s : the villages are crowded around their churches, around bell-towers that can be seen f rom afar and that really do seem to protect them.

"Is this o n l y so i n France? B y no means. I was s tunned, outraged, and then w r y l y amused, w h e n I read i n the Italian newspapers the solemn declaration of Togl ia t t i , leader of the Italian C o m m u n i s t s , encouraging and blessing 'the C o m m u n i s t c o m m u n i cants' . I am wel l aware that it was o n l y a matter of s t rategy: but if there must be strategy, there is a reality to evade. N o w the real i ty of the Ital ian people is profoundly Catho l i c , l ike Pol i sh real i ty , Spanish reali ty, etc.

" M y religious s i tuat ion is the result not so m u c h of the degree of m y profound rel igion, but of the fact that I do not belong to the rel igion of the men among w h o m I l ive , that I am a Jew among non-Jews. A n d this also means that m y chi ldren , m y relatives, m y friends frequent ly f ind themselves i n the same s i tuat ion. I am always i n a certain w a y outside of the religious w o r l d , the culture and the society to w h i c h I otherwise belong.

" T h e l a w of C h r i s t i a n countries is a law of t h i n l y disguised and often proclaimed C h r i s t i a n inspirat ion; the law of M o s l e m countries is a M o s l e m l a w , taken for granted and openly acknowledged. . . .

" T h e religion of non-Jews is. i n fact, e v e r y w h e r e - - o n the street as i n inst i tut ions , i n shop-windows and newspapers, i n m o n u ments, i n conversations, in the very air i tself : art, morals and phi losophy are as C h r i s t i a n as law and geography. T h e phi losophic tradit ion taught i n the schools, the great motifs of pa in t ing and sculpture, are as impregnated w i t h C h r i s t i a n i t y as are the laws of marriage and divorce. W h e n I was on the Riviera last year I amused myself not ing the villages that bear the names of sa ints : St. Tropez , St. M a x i m e . St. Raphael , St. A y g u l f . The i r number is astonishing. It is the same, for that matter, in the stations of the Paris M e t r o . M y first i r r i ta t ion against Paris, a c i ty I love so dearly in other respects, had a religious basis, if I remember

" P O R T R A I T O F A J E W " 125

correctly. W o r k i n g for part of the day on a miserable job, I used to stay up late at n ight to get ahead in m y studies. Every morni n g I was a w a k e n e d - - a n d to m y exasperation several times i n success ion--by bells r i n g i n g at f u l l peal, c o n t i n u i n g at great length, pausing, and then re turn ing to the charge just as I was doz ing off a g a i n ! True , I was l i v i n g i n a small hotel a few steps a w a y f rom a church but i n this c i ty y o u are a lways two steps a w a y f rom a c h u r c h . . . those bells summoned men to duties they shared w i t h other men and were a symbol of their or ig in ; at the same time, for me they sounded the signal of m y exclusion f rom that c o m m u n i t y . I was i n a C a t h o l i c country ; everyone must f ind those m a t i n bells normal and perhaps pleasant--except me and those like me w h o were embarrassed and annoyed. A hopeless rebell ion, h o w e v e r : the non-Jews, w h o were not annoyed, nor perhaps even awakened, represented numbers and power. W h a t ever concerns them, whatever they approve of, is l a w f u l . Those bells are merely the fami l iar echo of their common soul . . . .

( A . M e m m i , ib id . , pp. 184-8)

" D o Chr is t ians realise w h a t the name of Jesus, their G o d , can mean to a Jew? For a C h r i s t i a n , even an atheist, it evokes, or at least has evoked at some time, a being inf in i te ly good, w h o offers himself as T h e Good, w h o desires at least to carry on the torch of a l l bygone philosophies and al l morals. For the C h r i s t i a n w h o is s t i l l a believer, Jesus epitomises and fulf i ls the better part of himself . The C h r i s t i a n w h o has ceased to believe no longer takes that ideal seriously; he may even resent it, accuse the priests of incompetency or even of deception; but t h o u g h he denounces it as an i l lus ion he generally leaves no doubt as to the grandeur and beauty of that i l l u s i o n . To the Jew who still believes and professes his own re l igion, Christianity is the greatest theological and metaphysical usurpat ion i n history; it is a spiritual scandal, a subversion and blasphemy. T o a l l Jews, even if they are atheists, the name of Jesus is the symbol of a threat, of that great threat that has h u n g over their heads for centuries and w h i c h may, any moment , burst for th i n catastrophes of w h i c h they k n o w neither the cause nor the prevent ion. T h a t name is part of the accusation, absurd and frenzied, but so efficientlv cruel , that makes social life barely liveable. That name has, in fact, come to be one of the signs, one of the names of the immense apparatus that surrounds the Jew, condemns h i m and excludes h i m . I hope m y C h r i s t i a n friends w i l l forgive me. That they may better understand, let me say that to the Jews, their God is, in a way, the D e v i l , i f . as they say, the D e v i l is the symbol and essence of all


evil on earth, iniquitous and a l l -powerful , incomprehensible and bent on crushing helpless human beings.

" O n e day i n T u n i s , an idiot Jew (we always had a certain number of them w h o haunted cemeteries and c o m m u n i t y gatherings) seeing a C h r i s t i a n funera l pass, was suddenly seized w i t h an uncontrol lable rage. K n i f e i n h a n d , he f l u n g himself on the funera l procession w h i c h scattered terror-stricken i n a l l directions. B u t the idiot , p a y i n g no attent ion to the crowd screaming i n terror, rushed straight at the acolyte . . . grabbed the cross out of his hands, f lung it on the g r o u n d and trampled it f u r i o u s l y .

" I did not understand his action u n t i l later. A n x i e t y expresses itself as best it can; the idiot reacted i n his o w n w a y to our comm o n malaise before that w o r l d of crosses, priests and churches, those concentrated symbols of hos t i l i ty , the strangeness of the w o r l d that surrounds us the moment we leave the narrow confines of the ghetto. . . (A. M e m m i , ib id . , pp. 188-9)

"I am n o w convinced that the his tory of peoples, their collective experience, is a religious h is tory ; that it is not o n l y marked by re l ig ion, but l ived and expressed through re l ig ion. It was one of o u r greatest and most disastrous naivetes to have believed, l ike our Leftists, i n the end of religions. It was a great mistake, i n our efforts to understand the past of nations, to t ry to m i n i m i s e the part re l igion played. There was no need either to rejoice i n it or to deplore i t , o n l y to note its extraordinary importance and to take i t in to account. . . . (A. M e m m i , ib id . , p . 190)

" D u r i n g the Chr is tmas week, scientific and pol i t ica l speeches on the radio and television a l l begin w i t h the i n v o c a t i o n : i n these days w h e n the hearts of a l l men are as a l i t t le chi ld 's . . . .' A l l men? N o t mine certainly; I do not belong in that c o m m u n i o n . O n e of Genera l de Gaul le ' s first gestures on assuming power was an address to the Pope i n w h i c h he asked h i m to bless France and the French . Is the Jew a part of that France? If so, how w o u l d he like to have his country blessed by the Pope, and himself included in it? In reality, the head of state acts as if the Jew did not exist. A n d it is true that he scarcely counts, that he dare not even count h i m s e l f : otherwise w h y w o u l d he permit the chief of state, his representative, to appeal to the C h u r c h i n his name? The Papal nunc io is the doyen of the diplomatic corps : by what r ight if not by an admitted pre-eminence of the Catho l i c re l igion, w h i c h is not his? . . .

" I realise, even as I am saying this, h o w u n c o n v i n c i n g , h o w

" P O R T R A I T O F A J E W " 127

r idiculous m y rebellion may seem and h o w exorbitant m y demand. W o u l d I pretend to impose m y law on the major i ty? Is it not normal for a nation to l ive according to the desires, customs and m y t h s of the greatest number of its ci t izens? Perfectly n o r m a l , I admit immediate ly . I scarcely see h o w it could l ive otherwise. . . .

( A . M e m m i , ib id . , pp. 191-2)

" W h a t is not normal i n al l this is m y life , different for that reason, i n the bosom of the nat ion . T h e Jew is the one w h o does not belong to the rel igion of the others. I merely w i s h to draw attention to the difference and those consequences I have experienced, and w h i c h are not part of that n o r m a l i t y . It is clear that I must l ive a rel igion that is not mine, a rel igion that regulates and sets the r h y t h m for all collective l ife. I must take a hol iday at Easter and not at Passover. D o not tell me that many non-Jewish cit izens also condemn this contaminat ion . Theirs is merely a theoretical c o n d e m n a t i o n : their dai ly life is ordered by the common rel igion, w h i c h is at least their o w n rel igion and does not tear them to pieces. T h e trouble w i t h y o u ' , said one of m y non-Jewish friends, half seriously, 'is that y o u have never been a C h r i s t i a n . . . . (A. M e m m i , ib id . , p . 193)

" I have wr i t ten elsewhere that as adolescents and later as y o u n g men we refused to take seriously the persistence of nations. W e lived in enthusiastic expectation of a n e w age, such as the wor ld had never k n o w n before, signs of which we thought we could already d e t e c t - - t h e death (which had certainly begun) of religions, families and nations. W e had noth ing b u t anger, scorn and irony for the die-hards of history who clung to those residues. T o d a y I see more clearly w h y we expanded so m u c h energy on c u l t i v a t i n g those hopes. C e r t a i n l y the impatient and generous nature of adolescents w h i c h drives them to free themselves, and the w h o l e w o r l d , of a l l shackles, is par t i cu lar ly suited to revolut ionary ideologies. But , in addit ion, we were Jews. I am convinced that this had m u c h to do w i t h the vigour of our choice. Beyond our desire to be accepted by the families, religions and nations of non-Jews w h o rejected and isolated us because we were Jews, we longed to be one w i t h all men and so, at last, become men like others.

" U n f o r t u n a t e l y , whether we were deluding ourselves, whether we may have relapsed since then in to a period of regression, or whether it is s imply that I have g r o w n older, I have to admit t h a t those res idues were as stubborn as w e e d s and persisted in


remaining fundamental structures i n the lives of nations, essential aspects of their collective being. T h e post-war period saw an i n disputable religious revival w h i c h swept the orthodox parties to power throughout Europe. Because they understood that s i tuat ion, the C o m m u n i s t s , w h o keep their ringers on the pulse of nations, extolled the 'Cathol ic communicants ' , offered their 'outstretched hands' to Chris t ians and called themselves patriots and nat ional ists. T h e Socialists d id not even need to resort to t r ickery . . .

" T o a l l appearances we were doomed to religions and nations and for a long time. O n c e again I am not passing judgment , I a m s i m p l y stating facts.

" W h a t was going to become of us, of our adolescent hopes? W h a t we felt confusedly, w h a t we were t r y i n g to suppress by rejecting the society of those days, I neither can, nor do I w i s h to make a secret of a n y longer. The religious state of nations being what i t is, and nations being w h a t they are, the Jew finds himself , i n a certain measure, outside of the nat ional c o m m u n -

ity . . . . ( A . M e m m i , i b i d . , pp. 195-6)

" T h e h is tory of the c o u n t r y i n w h i c h I l ive is, to me, a borrowed his tory . H o w could I feel that Joan of A r c is a symbol for me? W o u l d I hear w i t h her the patriotic and C h r i s t i a n voices? Yes, a lways r e l i g i o n ! But show me a w a y to separate nat ional tradit ion f r o m religious t radi t ion. . . . It is impossible for me to identify myself seriously with the past of any nation."

( A . M e m m i , ib id . , p p . 197-8)

Since the Jews are not of our race, being "nei ther Gauls , nor Celts , nor Slavs, nor R o m a n s " . ( M e m m i ) .

Since our nat ional traditions are completely foreign to them. Since our c h i v a l r y and the past h is tory of its code of h o n o u r

and self-sacrifice is looked u p o n by them as a hateful epoch. Since our rel igion is " a blasphemy, a spir i tual scandal and a sub

vers ion" . ( M e m m i ) . Since our God is i n the eyes of the Jews " i n a w a y , the D e v i l ,

that is to say, the symbol and essence of a l l evi l on earth, w h i c h makes social life barely l iveable" . ( M e m m i ) .

Since the Evangelists are, according to Jules Isaac, liars and per-verters of the t r u t h .

Since our great saints and Fathers of the C h u r c h are, ag3in accordi n g to Jules Isaac, scurri lous pamphleteers, venomous theologians f u l l of hatred, torturers, the veritable forerunners of H i t l e r and Streicher, answerable, f rom a distance, for A u s c h w i t z .

' P O R T R A I T O F A J E W " 129

Since our gothic cathedrals are, according to H . H e i n e , " the most terrible fortresses of our enemies".

Since they take offence at our villages and metro stations named after saints.

Since the bells of our churches in jure Jewish ears. Since i n their eyes it is inadmissible that

1. T h e President of the Republ ic should attend a Cathol ic relig-l igious ceremony i n his official capacity (or Protestant cerem o n y i n a Protestant country)

2. T h a t the Pope should bless our c o u n t r y . 5 . T h a t the Papal n u n c i o should be doyen of the diplomatic

corps by v i r tue of the very fact that he is the nunc io .

Since they f ind it intolerable that C h r i s t i a n and not Jewish feasts regulate hol idays i n the calendar.

Since they desire w i t h a l l their m i g h t to see the death agonies of rel igions, nat ions and f a m i l i e s - - o f others at least, for the Jewish re l ig ion, Jewish families and the Jewish nat ion preserve their o w n untouchable character.

A n d since i n France they constitute a m i n o r i t y of scarcely hal f a m i l l i o n people i n a country of fifty m i l l i o n inhabi tants , and l ikewise in every other c o u n t r y i n the w o r l d except Israel.

T h e n one is n a t u r a l l y led to ask whether i t is l a w f u l , useful , wise or opportune that Jews i n our c o u n t r y are or have been :

Minis ters and Presidents of the C o u n c i l , Ambassadors , Members of the Académie Française, Lord Chancel lors of the Legion d ' H o n n e u r , Generals, Rectors of Univers i t ies and Inspectors of Publ ic Instruct ion, Keepers of the Bibliothèque N a t i o n a l e , Chiefs of Police and of the Informat ion Service, E x a m i n i n g magistrates, Directors of nat ional banks, Directors of great nat ional industr ies : the automobile indus t ry ,

the aviat ion indus t ry , etc., Directors of nat ional theatres, A u t h o r s of academic manuals on the H i s t o r y of France,

and l ikewise i n regard to the other nations of the w o r l d . A f t e r reading the works of H e i n r i c h H e i n e , Bernard Lazare, J.

Darmesteter, K a d m i - C o h e n , L u d w i g L e w i s o h n , E m i l L u d w i g , W a l t e r Rathenau , A l f r e d Noss ig , Leon B l u m , Joshua Jehouda,


E d m o n d Fleg, Elie Benamozegh, A n d r e Spire, Elie Faure, Jules Isaac, Rabi , M a x I. D i m o n t , and A . M e m m i , one is inevi tab ly led to the conclusion that it is perfectly legit imate and praiseworthy for Jews to defend and m a i n t a i n their traditions and l ive i n the different W e s t e r n countries w i t h o u t being harassed or persecuted.

But it is quite inadmissible that they should be a l lowed to profit f r o m this tolerant att i tude in order to undermine, disintegrate and finally destroy our o w n religious, nat ional and cu l tura l traditions. T h e y style the reactions against them ' 'ant i -Semit ism" , but they are i n reality measures of defence to protect the c o m m u n i t y f r o m a foreign influence, a l l the more dangerous since it is at w o r k i n the heart of our inst i tut ions , protected by fraudulent abuse of the term c i t izenship , ca l l ing itself French i n France, Engl ish i n England , Germ a n i n G e r m a n y , and so o n . . . .

Indeed, one can go so far as to ask whether it is legitimate, wise and consistent w i t h the respect w h i c h the C h u r c h has a lways professed towards the H o l y Scriptures, that a n assembly of bishops, coming to Rome f rom a l l over the w o r l d to meet i n C o u n c i l , should seek advice f r o m a Jewish wri ter , Jules Isaac, w i t h a v i e w to "rect i fying and p u r i f y i n g " t radi t ional C h r i s t i a n teaching w i t h regard to Judaism.

Jules Isaac, about w h o m one of his co-religionists, R a b i , w r o t e :

" H i s Jésus et Israel, published in 1948, is the most specific weapon of w a r against a par t i cu lar ly harmful Christian doctrine."

( R a b i : Anatomie du Judaisme français, p . 183)

But , if one is to judge by the C o u n c i l vote of N o v e m b e r 1964, the desiderata of Jules Isaac, the B 'na i B ' r i t h and the W o r l d Jewish Congress weighed heavier in the minds of the 1,300 bishops and C o u n c i l fathers than the Evangelists, than St. A u g u s t i n e , St. John C h r y s o s t o m , St. Gregory the G r e a t - - a n d practical ly a l l the doctors of the C h u r c h and al l the P o p e s - - w h o elaborated the doctrine w h i c h is today denounced by Jules Isaac and others as par t icular ly h a r m f u l .

P A R T III T H E C O U N C I L ' S S O L U T I O N

A t the (Orthodox) Rabbinical Counci l of America, attended by 900 rabbis representing one and a half mil l ion Jews i n the U . S . A . and Canada, Rabbi Dr . Joseph B. Soloveitchik, professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University, told the assembled rabbis:

" W e are opposed to any public debate, dialogue or symposium concerning the doctrinal, dogmatic or ritual aspects of our faith.

"There cannot be any mutual understanding concerning these topics, for Jew and Christ ian w i l l employ different categories and w i l l move w i t h i n incommensurate frames of reference and evaluation.

" W e believe i n and are committed to our Maker i n a specific manner and we w i l l not question, defend, offer apology, analyse or rationalise our faith i n dialogues centred about these 'private' topics which express our personal relationship to the God of Israel."

(Reported i n the Jewish Chronicle, 28th January, 1966, p. 40)

13 THE V A T I C A N V O T E

T H E f o u r t h and last session of the C o u n c i l opened o n 14th September 1965, and the schema on the Jewish q u e s t i o n - - " T h e schema on n o n - C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n s " - - w a s again submitted to the C o u n c i l Fathers on 14th and 15th October .

A f t e r the Pope had refused to promulgate the vote taken i n November 1964, the or ig ina l text was p r o f o u n d l y reshaped by the con-ci l iar commission i n charge of the preparation of the schema. T h e new text submitted for the approval of the C o u n c i l was d is t inc t ly less favourable to Jewish demands and more acceptable to conservative consciences; however, i t s t i l l contained a few ambiguities w h i c h could be interpreted as promis ing a prudent revis ion, but a revision nevertheless, of the tradit ional C a t h o l i c at t i tude towards Judaism, w h i c h has remained unaltered for fifteen centuries.

Later we w i l l s tudy the new text, w h i c h regulates the posit ion of the C h u r c h today w i t h regard to contemporary Judaism, but let us begin w i t h a rapid sketch of this historic vote.

E a r l y i n October 1965 the great battle on the Jewish question commenced, and f r o m the start i t took a n extremely violent t u r n . I n N o v e m b e r 1964 the conservative m i n o r i t y had been taken ent irely by surprise, but meanwhi le it had had time to take stock of the s i tuat ion , and, realising the extreme grav i ty of this vote for the C h u r c h , i t energetically combated the Jewish-Catholic coal i t ion, w h i c h was able to dispose of a Press almost entirely at its service.

A t the fore i n favour of the schema was C a r d i n a l Bea, the theologian Fr . Congar , and papers such as Le M o n d e ( H . Fesquet) and Le Figaro ( A b b é Laurent in) . T w o arch-bishops and a Bishop led the conservative o p p o s i t i o n : M g r . de Proenca Sigaud, archbishop of Diamantina i n B r a z i l , M g r . Lefebvre, Superior General of the H o l y Ghost Fathers, and M g r . C a r l i , Bishop of Segni i n I ta ly .

T h e battle was fought w i t h a relentless tenacity w h i c h rapidly spread into the heart of the C o u n c i l and was echoed i n the columns of the French da i ly Press. The f o l l o w i n g extracts demonstrate the bitterness of the struggle and the capital importance of the stakes.

133


O n 14th October, 1965, France-Soir (whose director is P. Lazareff) launched the campaign w i t h the f o l l o w i n g paragraph, under the h e a d i n g : " A n t i - S e m i t i c tracts distributed at the C o u n c i l " .

" A tract signed 'Leon de Poncins ' of anti-Semitic inspirat ion and d r a w n up i n French has been sent to quite a number of the C o u n c i l Fathers. O n T h u r s d a y and Friday the C o u n c i l is due to take a final vote on the text of relations w i t h non-Chris t ians and i n part icular w i t h the Jews."

O n 15th October, A b b é Laurent in wrote several columns on the vote i n Le Figaro under the h e a d i n g : " T h e Jews and D e i c i d e : A n inextricable vote . " In it he s a i d :

Rome, 14th October. " T h e vote o n the question of the Jews and deicide has dominated the C o u n c i l for the past eight days. T h e first po l l took place this m o r n i n g and the result w i l l not be k n o w n u n t i l tomorrow.

" B u t it is a b u r n i n g , complex question. There has been a spate of propaganda. Three v igorously anti-Semitic documents have been l iberal ly distributed to the Fathers, i n the f o l l o w i n g o r d e r :

"1. T h e first is a pamphlet b y Leon de Poncins, pr inted i n I t a l i a n - - L e Problème des Juifs au Concile. T h i s is his t h e s i s - - ' T h e text on the Jews voted on last year is the w o r k of progressive or ignorant bishops w h o have ratified the themes of judaic hatred of the Chr is t ians . T h e Sovereign Ponti f f refused to r a t i f y i t for this reason. T h i s accounts for the profound modifications brought in to the new text, the object of today's ballot . '

"2. T h e second pamphlet , also pr inted i n I tal ian, is the w o r k of Edoardo d i Z a g a . H i s thesis is that ' the declaration i n favour of the Hebrews favours pro-Semite racism, and attacks the legit imate r ight of Chr is t ians and a l l peoples to defend themselves against the danger of Jewish hegemony. '

" 3 . F i n a l l y , they received two days ago directions for v o t i n g f r o m Coetus internationalis patrum, the organ of the conci l iar m i n o r i t y w h o are demanding the non placet on the w h o l e of the schema and on the b u r n i n g question concerning the Jews. M g r . C a r l i , Bishop of Segni, one of its three signatories and directors, had publ ished, i n February 1965 i n Palestra del C lero , the great review of the I tal ian clergy, a long article w h i c h mainta ined the f o l l o w i n g thesis : 'The Jewish people at the t ime of Jesus, as understood i n the religious sense, that is to say, as a group professing the rel igion of Moses, was j o i n t l y responsible for the cr ime of deicide. A l t h o u g h o n l y the leaders, fo l lowed by a small number

T H E V A T I C A N V O T E 135

of the people, mater ia l ly consummated the offence, Judaism of subsequent times shares objectively i n the responsibil i ty of the deic ide ' . "

A b b é L a u r e n t i n then devoted several co lumns to the modifications introduced into the schema between 1964 and 1965. A c c o r d i n g to h i m , the Fathers of a progressive tendency sharply regretted the reductions i n the text of the previous year, and he c o n c l u d e d : " A s is evident, the s i tuat ion is f u l l of ambiguit ies . O n the one h a n d , the cardinal has acceded to the p r i n c i p a l requests, either f r o m A r a b circles or f r o m the group whose spokesman, M g r . C a r l i , has expressed views hosti le to the Jews. O n the other h a n d , he firmly asserts that the intent ion and sense of the text remains unchanged. It w o u l d be diff icult to deny that there has been a split between the dual purpose of the cardinal and of his secretariat. N o r could one deny that i n the s i tuat ion i n w h i c h they f o u n d themselves, it was almost impossible to resolve this dis tor t ion. T h e problem conf r o n t i n g the Fathers was i n a certain sense inextr icable . "

O n 17th October the news of the C o u n c i l vote occupied the front page of Le M o n d e , and the whole of an inter ior page, and the fo l lowi n g is an e x t r a c t :

F I N A L L Y A D O P T E D B Y T H E C O U N C I L

T h e Dec lara t ion on the Jews evokes satisfaction, though not w i t h o u t reserves.

" T h e declaration on the Jews included in the schema on non-C h r i s t i a n religions was finally adopted on Wednesday by the C o u n c i l . A s Le M o n d e announced i n its latest issue yesterday, the ballot on the text, i n w h i c h 2,023 Fathers took part, produced the f o l l o w i n g results : 1,763 placet, 250 non placet, and 10 abstentions.

" Israel i circles and the A m e r i c a n Jewish C o m m i t t e e - - a s w e l l as C h r i s t i a n circles attached to the cause of reconci l iat ion w i t h the Jews--express satisfaction, tempered w i t h regret that the text was finally sweetened, in several respects. O n the other h a n d , the G r a n d Rabbi K a p l a n deplored the fact that the term 'deicide' as applied to the Jews was not e x p l i c i t l y condemned.

" H o w e v e r , the major i ty of the reactions are that, now that the text has been a d o p t e d - - a n d it s t i l l has to be promulgated by the Pope, i t w i l l be judged by its f ru i t , that is to say, by the w a y in w h i c h it is translated into religious teaching and by the att i tude of Catho l i c circles w i t h regard to the Jews.

" N o reaction had yet been received by late Saturday m o r n i n g


f r o m the A r a b countries, w i t h the exception of a cr i t ic ism from the orthodox Patr iarch of A n t i o c h . "

From our special correspondent H E N R I F E S Q U E T

Rome, 16th October. " T h e vote on the declaration on the Jews brings to an end the incredible n u m b e r of advances, visits, letters, tracts, pamphlets and pressures w i t h w h i c h the secretariat for u n i t y has been assailed for more than three years. W h e n the f u l l details of the various attempts to frustrate or minimise the significance of the concil iar declaration become k n o w n , people w i l l be amazed at so m u c h passion, aberration, hatred and, i n a w o r d , ignorance and s tupidi ty .

" O n the other h a n d , several w i l l regret w i t h good cause that the last version of the text presented by the secretariat for u n i t y had lost a l i t t le of its bite. It is especially sad that the real reasons for w h i c h these modifications were made have been more or less concealed behind pious motives. R o m a n dip lomacy has once again t r i u m p h e d over complete frankness. M a n y Fathers have said as m u c h .

" B u t we must remember that the declaration, such as it was w h e n voted u p o n , did rescue the essentials. T h e observers at the intercession w h o spread the most a larming rumours were heavi ly deceived. V a t i c a n II has achieved the w i s h of John X X I I I grosso modo by severely censuring ant i -Semit ism. T h e C h u r c h has i m p l i c i t l y recognised her past faults i n the matter, and they are heavy, last ing and numerous. T h e n e w ecumenical menta l i ty has overcome the prejudices of former times. I n this connect ion, the vote on Fr iday inaugurates a fresh page i n the his tory of relations between Rome and the Jews.

" U p to the last day the C a t h o l i c anti-Semites worked together i n an attempt to m u z z l e the counc i l . W e have already d r a w n attent ion to the pamphlet i n I ta l ian by M r . di Z a g a . A n o t h e r , f r o m the pen of a Frenchman, Leon de Poncins, accuses the bishops w h o approved of the text last year of being ' ignorant (of the nature of their actions)'.

" A declaration w o r t h y of an anti-Pope.

" B u t ment ion must above a l l be made of the four page tract w h i c h the bishops received. It is preceded by a paragraph as long as i t is c u r i o u s : ' N o c o u n c i l , nor any Pope, can condemn Jesus, the R o m a n , C a t h o l i c and A p o s t o l i c C h u r c h , her pontiffs (the tract lists fifteen 'anti-Semitic ' Popes, f r o m N i c h o l a s I i n the n i n t h century to Leo X I I I ) , and her i l lustr ious counci ls . But the declara-


tion on the Jews i m p l i c i t l y contains such a condemnation, and for this very good reason it should be rejected'."

O n 22nd October, a long article filled almost the whole of the front page of the dai ly evening paper, Paris-Presse. It was m u c h more objective than those i n Le Figaro and above a l l of Le M o n d e , and despite its length we have quoted considerable extracts. The author of the article was w e l l in formed, since i n fact the H o l y Father d id promulgate the schema on non-Chr i s t ian religions (without change) on October 28th, a l though the date had been previously fixed for the end of November .

W e quote Paris-Presse:

T H E A F F A I R O F T H E A N T I - J E W I S H T R A C T S A T T H E C O U N C I L

compels the Pope to promulgate the schema on non-Chr is t ian religions sooner than foreseen.

A violent corridor campaign aimed at C a r d i n a l Bea.

(From our special correspondent, Charles Reymondon)

V a t i c a n C i t y , 21st October " T h e Pope has decided to promulgate on 28th October the

schema on n o n - C h r i s t i a n religions, that is to say, the schema w h i c h deals essentially w i t h relations between the Jews and the C h u r c h .

" H e intends thus to put an end to an anti-Semitic campaign w h i c h had acquired extraordinary vo lume i n the heart of the C o u n c i l , and w h i c h was accompanied by grave insinuations against C a r d i n a l Bea.

" I t is an event of considerable significance and has shaken this week at the C o u n c i l , w h i c h i n principle is committed to silence and to the work of the commissions alone.

"Last F r i d a y , Pope P a u l had announced that o n l y four texts w o u l d be promulgated before A l l Saints day. But on the same day the vote on the most controversial schema of a l l , the one i n quest ion, took place. It revealed a strong enough m i n o r i t y , absolutely opposed to the schema: 250 fathers, 245 of w h o m total ly refused the passage o n the Jews, w i t h o u t there being a n y question of m o d i f y i n g or replacing i t .

[ T h u s the opposit ion was m u c h stronger i n 1965 than i n 1964 since, despite the indisputable improvement i n the text, the number opposing it rose f r o m 99 to 2 5 0 - - A u t h o r ' s note.]

" A s i n previous sessions no document had been promulgated w i t h more than 10 per cent opposing, nobody believed on Friday,

J U D A I S M A N D T H E V A T I C A N

or even on Saturday, that the 'declaration o n n o n - C h r i s t i a n religions' w o u l d be promulgated before N o v e m b e r 18th at the earliest.

" Y e t o n Sunday , f r o m his w i n d o w over looking St. Peter's Square, the Pope precipitated things.

" W h y ? Unacceptable terms

" I t is probable that a n e w element moved the sovereign pontif f . O n e should not t ry to find the explanat ion f r o m the list of his visitors between times. W h e t h e r P a u l V I was inf luenced or not , i t is h i g h l y l i k e l y that he had become anxious at possible backw a s h , and that , b y a swift stroke of a u t h o r i t y , such as is his custom, he meant to p u t a n end to campaigns of o p i n i o n that were dangerous w h i l e he equivocated.

" T h e critics of the actual project of the declaration o n the Jews are strong. O n the one h a n d there is the objection raised b y the A r a b w o r l d : that Jewish pol i t i ca l intent ions ate behind this move ( w h i c h is w h y chapters were finally added to the text, to balance it , o n Is lam, then o n B u d d h i s m , and then, yet again, o n a l l other religions). T h e Eastern patriarchs h a d spoken u n a n i m o u s l y last y e a r : ' W e don' t even w a n t to talk about this declaration; its terms are quite unacceptable to us. ' T h r o u g h diplomatic channels , the A r a b states had threatened the Pope most c learly w i t h reprisals against the Eastern churches, their missions and their schools. President Soekarno, representing the M o s l e m governments, h a d visited the Pope and told h i m the same t h i n g . F i n a l l y , the Pope had received letters f r o m Eastern C a t h o l i c hierarchies w h i c h i n formed h i m of the scandalised reaction of their flocks. T h e y foreshadowed the risk of a schism on the part of these Churches to w h o m fidelity to Rome has already proved so costly i n h i s tory .

M i n o r i t y

" B y contrast w i t h the opposit ion f r o m the East, w h i c h is expla ined b y motives of expediency or pol i t i ca l justice, the accusations ar is ing f r o m the rest of C h r i s t i a n i t y are m u c h more serious, even though they are o n l y representative of a small m i n o r i t y .

" T h e y are based, indeed, i n a m u c h more d is turbing manner , on the doctr ina l level . T h e y c la im to demonstrate, b y reference to authorit ies and documents, that there is an ignominious contrad ic t ion between w h a t the C o u n c i l proposes to say about the Jews, and h o l y scripture, the fathers of the C h u r c h , preceding Counc i l s and some of the most eminent popes.

" B u t they go m u c h further . Less and less indirect ly , they are i n s i n u a t i n g against C a r d i n a l Bea, w h o is p r i n c i p a l l y responsible for the text, the suspicion of s imony . S i m o n y is one of the gravest


crimes w h i c h have poisoned the h is tory of the C h u r c h , and one w h i c h the Pope recently told the correspondent of Corriere della Sera had completely disappeared today. T h e w o r d comes f r o m the A c t s of the Apost les , where i t is w r i t t e n h o w S imon the M a g i c i a n offered money to St. Peter i n order to receive spir i tual powers f r o m h i m . T o be g u i l t y of s imony is to traffic i n h o l y t h i n g s : the sacraments, nominat ions to ecclesiastical positions, or the transformation of doctrine itself, a l l for a sum of money.

" N o w , C a r d i n a l Bea is accused of h a v i n g accepted Jewish capital for the funct ions of his secretariat for u n i t y . (The journeys necessitated b y relations w i t h the O r t h o d o x and the Protestants are obvious ly costly.) H e is accused of h a v i n g i m p r u d e n t l y promised, per contra, a declaration w h i c h w o u l d , as far as it concerns the C h u r c h , be the epilogue to the N u r e m b e r g t r i a l : that she should demand pardon f r o m the Jews for al l the persecutions w h i c h C h r i s t i a n doctrine has caused them throughout the centuries (deicide Jews, the people accursed by G o d , etc.).

" T h a t denuncia t ion is w i t h o u t proof. It is probable that if the C a r d i n a l publ ished his accounts, and the sources, that there w o u l d be silence at once. B u t it is inconceivable that a m a n i n such an elevated posit ion should lower himself to such a dispute.

" B u t the f o l l o w i n g extract, w h i c h is taken f r o m a tract i n Spanish circulated i n the corridors of the C o u n c i l , w i l l give one an idea of the violence of the accusations w h i c h originated two years ago i n a L a t i n - A m e r i c a n c o u n t r y :

" ' W e are ready to take the necessary steps to save the C h u r c h f r o m such an i g n o m i n y . W e appeal to the C o u n c i l Fathers w h o have not yielded to Jewish pressure, or w h o have not sold themselves i n s imony to Jewish gold . . . to repel the perfidious declarat ion . . . .'

" T h e document is signed by twenty-eight organisations f rom the U n i t e d States, Spain, France, Por tugal , G e r m a n y , A u s t r i a and six L a t i n - A m e r i c a n countries, Jordan and I ta ly . H o w e v e r , several leaders of these organisations, notably four out of five of the French, denied w i t h i n the first twenty-four hours that they were signatories.

[ In their issue of 21st October, Le M o n d e , w h i c h had already d r a w n at tent ion to this document, announced that it was spurious, at least as far as the signatures were c o n c e r n e d - - A u t h o r ' s note.]

" T h e whole affair constitutes an incredible hornet 's nest. It is impossible here to get to the bottom of the t h r i l l i n g , luminous and terrible ' Jewish question' , for h is tory has coloured its blood red. Th is part of the record can o n l y serve to give an idea of the


importance w h i c h the present decision of the Pope carr ies : throwi n g a l l his author i ty into the scales, he is free to modi fy the text himself before his final decision, i n order to ra l ly the opposi t ion , a possibi l i ty w h i c h may not be ruled o u t . "

W e w i l l n o w compare the 1964 and 1965 texts and examine the essential points of the schema, w h i c h are: the question of deicide, the collective responsibi l i ty of the Jewish people for the death of C h r i s t , and anti-Semitism and persecution.

T h e 1964 text "deplored and condemned hatred and maltreatment (vexationem) of Jews", but the 1965 and final text "condemns al l persecutions of any m e n " and "deplores manifestations of anti-S e m i t i s m " .

These are the actual words of the latter tex t :

" T h e C h u r c h condemns al l persecutions of any men; she remembers her common heritage w i t h the Jews and, act ing not f rom a n y pol i t i ca l motives, but rather f r o m a spir i tual and evangelical love, deplores a l l hatred, persecutions and other manifestations of anti-Semitism, whatever the period and whoever was responsible."

(De Ecclesiae: Dec lara t ion on the Relat ion of the C h u r c h to N o n - C h r i s t i a n Rel igions, T r . by T . A t t h i l l , C .T .S . ,

1966, p . 7)

T h e 1964 text was very dangerous--unacceptable , according to the conserva t ives - -when examined i n the l ight of Jewish demands, whose spokesman was Jules Isaac.

It p u t the C h u r c h i n the posi t ion of the accused, g u i l t y of the permanent, unjusti f iable and unatonable cr ime of anti -Semit ism for two thousand years.

It questioned the good f a i t h and truthfulness of the Evangelists, of St. John and St. M a t t h e w i n part icular ; i t discredited the teaching of the Fathers of the C h u r c h and of the great doctrinarians of the papacy b y depict ing them i n distasteful colours; i n short, i t threatened to demolish the very bastions of C a t h o l i c doctrine.

W e readily grant that the 1,651 C o u n c i l Fathers w h o voted on this text were quite unaware of a l l that the vote i m p l i e d , for a p r e l i m i n a r y survey had convinced me that the vast ma jor i ty of the C o u n c i l Fathers had read none of the books of Jules Isaac, Joshua Jehouda and others whose demands, supported by the great w o r l d Jewish organisa t ions- - the B ' n a i B ' r i t h , the W o r l d Jewish Congress, the A m e r i c a n Jewish Commit tee , the A l l i a n c e Israelite Universe l le --formed the basis of the schema submitted to them. The w h o l e affair had been hatched i n semi secrecy and w i t h supreme s k i l l by C a r d i n a l Bea, Jules Isaac and a small group of progressives and Jewish


leaders, 1 whose antagonism to tradit ional C h r i s t i a n i t y was veiled under appearances of C h r i s t i a n char i ty , ecumenical u n i t y , and comm o n bibl ical re lat ionship. W e have revealed the manoeuvre i n the first chapters of this book, and w i l l not repeat i t here, except to remark that it came very near to succeeding. In fact, it had already succeeded; but the Pope opposed it, i n extremis, refused to p r o m u l gate the 1964 vote, and sent the text back to the commission to w o r k o n .

Let us re turn to the 1965 text, w h i c h formulates the official doctrine of the C h u r c h . W h a t was the reaction of the A r a b countries? T h e y had reacted extremely v io lent ly to the 1964 text. In the course of an interview w i t h Le Figaro, publ ished i n their issue of October 25th, the patriarch M a x i m o s I V , w h o is himself of A r a b o r i g i n , revealed their reaction to the 1965 t e x t :

" M a x i m o s I V being A r a b himself , I asked h i m : ' W h a t is the reaction of the A r a b countries to the C o u n c i l ' s declaration on the J e w s ? ' "

This was his r e p l y :

" I n v i e w of the notable amendments introduced into the new text of the declaration, the reaction of the A r a b countries was semi-neutral this time. T h e n e w amendments w i l l prevent pol i t ica l exploi ta t ion i n favour of universa l Z i o n i s m and the State of Israel, for it is n o w a p u r e l y religious text.

" A n t i - S e m i t i s m is not A r a b i c for the A r a b s are Semites. The unfavourable and often violent reaction of Z i o n i s t propaganda to the publ icat ion of the new text proves that Z ion is t circles are seeking something other than an appeal to forget the past and to universa l char i ty . T h e y wanted a declaration of a pol i t ica l tendency. A n d that the C o u n c i l was bound to refuse them. A s for the rest, we are the first to invi te C h r i s t i a n char i ty among al l peoples w i t h o u t dist inct ion of race or re l ig ion . But C h r i s t i a n justice equal ly obliges us to c la im the rights of the oppressed, the robbed and the refugees un jus t ly dr iven f r o m their homes and reduced to l i v i n g on internat ional char i ty . If we reprove persecutions against the Jews, we must equal ly reprove persecutions and injustices done by the Jews."

[Several h u n d r e d thousand A r a b s were bruta l ly dr iven out of

1 According to Fr. Weigel , S.J., professor of ecclesiastical history at Woodstock College, Maryland, who is on the staff of the review America, the declaration condemning anti-Semitism which was accepted by Cardinal Bea i n 1964, was suggested by Zachariah Schuster, President of the American Jewish Committee.


Palestine by the Israeli Government , where they had been l i v i n g for centuries, and they have been l i v i n g i n misery ever since i n refugee c a m p s - - A u t h o r ' s note.]

' T h u s since the C o u n c i l text can no longer be used for pol i t ical ends i n favour of Z i o n i s m , the opposit ion of the M o s l e m peoples no longer has any basis."

Passing f r o m the content matter of the various texts, we now come to the question of deicide.

A n early text, elaborated i n 1963, declared that it is an error and an injustice (injuria) to describe the Jewish people as deicide.

T h e 1965 text suppressed this clause, the question of deicide was w i t h d r a w n f r o m discussion and the C h u r c h remains at the status quo.

In February 1965, M g r . C a r l i ended a long article on this subject, published i n the Ital ian review Palestra del Clero (15th February), w i t h the f o l l o w i n g passage:

" W e must n o w draw a genera! conclusion f r o m the preceding bibl ical excursus. It seems to me that it may be summed u p t h u s : for textual as w e l l as for author i tar ian reasons, the thesis accordi n g to w h i c h Judaism should be considered as responsible for deicide, and reproved and accursed b y G o d , i n the meaning and w i t h i n the l imits out l ined above, is s t i l l legit imately defendable or at least legit imately probable.

" F o r this reason, a prohib i t ion by the C o u n c i l tending to put an end to free discussion one w a y or the other seems to me inopportune . Indeed, it w o u l d be more i n h a r m o n y w i t h the nature of the C o u n c i l and w i t h the practice adopted w i t h regard to other schemas to leave it to the study and discussion of theologians and exegetes. . . .

" I n a n y event, customary char i ty and C h r i s t i a n prudence ought to dictate the most suitable means and occasion for announc ing a t ru th w h i c h , a l though displeasing--as one m a y wel l understand --to the parties concerned, does not meri t for that reason alone to be consigned to absolute silence if, as m a n y consider, it is effect ively to be found in the deposit of d iv ine Reve la t ion . "

T h u s M g r . Car l i ' s conclusion was accepted b y the concil iar commission w h e n it w i t h d r e w the discussion on the mot ion of deicide.

T h i s decision aroused the w r a t h of the G r a n d Rabbi , Joseph K a p l a n . Interviewed by " E u r o p e I " , he s a i d :

'I want it to be recognised that i n 1965 the w o r d deicide has no meaning and that fur thermore it has an odious resonance. But

c

precisely by reason of a l l the h a r m w h i c h this false accusation has

T H E V A T I C A N V O T E

done to the Jews for seventeen centuries, the schema should have clearly proclaimed that the accusation ought no longer to be brought against the Jews because it has no meaning and because it has an odious resonance. But the schema d id not m e n t i o n i t . O n e can perceive the open determination of those w h o modified the text last year not to wash the Jews of the accusation of deicide and that is extremely serious."

(Reproduced by Le Monde, 17th October 1965)

Likewise, the C h i e f Rabbi of Rome, El io Toaff, v i o l e n t l y protested on 4th A p r i l 1965, w h e n the Pope delivered a h o m i l y o n the Passion, i n the course of w h i c h he s a i d :

" I t is a n extremely solemn and sad page w h i c h recalls for us the meeting between Jesus and the Jewish people. T h i s people was predestined to receive the Mess iah and had been w a i t i n g for h i m for thousands of years and was completely absorbed i n this hope and certitude, but at the very moment , that is to say w h e n Chr is t came and spoke and showed himself , not o n l y d id they not recognise h i m , but fought h i m , slandered h i m , abused h i m and finally put h i m to death . " (Osservatore Romano. 7th A p r i l 1965)

D r . Toaff and D r . Sergio Piperno, President of the U n i o n of Italian Jewish communit ies , sent the f o l l o w i n g telegram to the V a t i c a n :

" I t a l i a n Jews express their sorrowful amazement at charge H e b r e w people i n death of Jesus contained i n Sovereign Pontiff 's h o m i l y , delivered short ly before Easter R o m a n parish O u r Lady of Guadalupe and reported official V a t i c a n Press, thus renewing deicide accusation, secular source tragic injustices towards Jews, to w h i c h solemn affirmations V a t i c a n C o u n c i l seemed to terminate for ever." (Il Messagero de Roma, 8th A p r i l 1965)

The 1964 text pract ical ly absolved the Jews of a l l responsibil i ty for the death of C h r i s t . T h e 1965 text f o r m a l l y recognises the responsibi l i ty of the Jewish leaders and their fol lowers for the death of C h r i s t but does not extend this responsibil i ty to the whole Jewish people l i v i n g i n C h r i s t ' s t ime, s t i l l less to the Jewish people of today.

T h e f o l l o w i n g is the relevant passage f rom the text concerning the collective responsibil i ty of Israel :

" E v e n if the Jewish authorities, together w i t h their fol lowers, urged the death of Chr i s t (cf. John x i x . 6), w h a t was done to h i m in his passion cannot be blamed o n a l l Jews l i v i n g at that rime indiscr iminate ly , or on the Jews of today. A l t h o u g h the


C h u r c h is the new People of G o d , the Jews should not be presented as rejected b y God or accursed, as though this fol lowed from Scripture. Therefore al l must take care that i n instruct ion and i n preaching the W o r d of G o d , they do not teach a n y t h i n g w h i c h is not i n complete agreement w i t h the t r u t h of the gospel and the spirit of C h r i s t . " (De Ecclesiae, ib id . , p p . 6-7)

In the final version, therefore, in 1965, the C o u n c i l did not fo l low Jules Isaac o n this point , for Jules Isaac denies the responsibil i ty of the leaders of Judaism and throws it a l l u p o n the Romans, but it yields on another point by absolving the Jewish people of any responsib i l i ty for the decision of their leaders.

T h e 1965 m o t i o n before the C o u n c i l absolutely conforms w i t h historical t ruth such as it appears f rom the accounts of the Evange l i s t s - - i t is the leaders of Judaism and their followers w h o are responsible for the death of C h r i s t . S t r ic t ly speaking, one can say that the w h o l e of the Jewish people was not consulted and does not carry the direct responsibil i ty for i t , but the question of collective responsibil i ty is very complex.

In fact, the decisions of leaders a lways involve the collective responsib i l i ty of peoples, even if the latter have taken no part i n the decision, and i n the last resort it is the peoples w h o undergo its consequences. H i s t o r y is f u l l of examples of this sort. Take the last war , for example. Hi t l e r ' s leaders d id not consult the G e r m a n people as far as the outbreak and conduct of the war is concerned, but it l e d finally to murderous bombardments, the destruction of w h o l e towns, the invasion of their c o u n t r y , the v io la t ion of mi l l ions of their women, massive deportations and mi l l ions of deaths. S i m i l a r l y , C h u r c h i l l did not consult the Br i t i sh people before i n v o l v i n g his c o u n t r y i n war w i t h G e r m a n y .

D o the legal principles accepted by the Western peoples recognise collective responsibil i ty i n law? Yes, to a certain extent they do, if one is to judge by the N u r e m b e r g tr ia l .

A s far as Judaism is concerned, the C o u n c i l ' s decision raises thorny problems: numerous and eminent doctors of the C h u r c h , for example, have upheld the pr inciple of the collective responsibil i ty of Israel. O n this point , i n the course of two resounding articles w h i c h he devoted to the Jewish problem i n the Italian review Palestra del Clero (15th February and 1st M a y 1965), M g r . C a r l i quoted some s t r ik ing authorit ies , and concluded one of the articles w i t h these w o r d s :

" C a n one call the Jews deicide? "It has been said that one ought not to speak of 'deicide' be-

THE V A T I C A N V O T E 145

cause, according to etymology, God cannot be put to death. But it is easy to reply that the murder of Jesus C h r i s t , the true son of G o d , merits the name of deicide i n strict (exact) theological terminology.

" T h e real question is whether the w h o l e Jewish 'people' should be considered as g u i l t y of 'deicide'. T h e 1964 declaration says no i n a n indisputable fashion.

" H o w e v e r , the numerous scholars and exegetes w h o clearly find evidence i n the O l d Testament- -despi te Ezekiel x v i i - - o f the pr inc iple of 'collective responsibi l i ty ' for good as w e l l as for evi l , seem to me to be r ight . The whole history of Israel is woven on a doubly polarized canvas : on the one h a n d , there is God w i t h his collective gifts and punishments , and on the other, there is the 'chosen people' w h i c h accepts or refuses. The whole people is considered responsible and subsequently punished for faults officially committed by its leaders, even w h e n they are u n k n o w n to a great part of the people.

"Examples of such an attitude may be f o u n d i n the N e w Testam e n t " - - M g r . C a r l i quotes a great number of extremely s t r ik ing passages, w h i c h unfor tunate ly we have not the space to reproduce h e r e - - a n d then goes on to a d d :

" W i t h o u t the doctrine of collective responsibil ity all this w o u l d remain i n undecipherable mystery.

" T o conclude, I consider that one can legit imately assert that the whole Jewish people at the time of Jesus, as understood in the religious sense, that is to say, as a group professing the rel igion of Moses, was jo int ly responsible for the crime of deicide, a l though o n l y the leaders, fol lowed by a small number of the f a i t h f u l , mater ia l ly consummated the cr ime.

"These leaders were not, of course, elected democratical ly by universal suffrage, but according to the legislation and attitude of m i n d then i n force, they were considered by G o d himself (cf. M a t t h e w x x i i i . 2) and by public o p i n i o n , as the legitimate religious authorit ies, the officials responsible for the acts w h i c h they took in the name of rel igion itself. But it is precisely by these leaders that Jesus C h r i s t was condemned to death: and he was condemned precisely because he claimed to be G o d (John x . 33; x i x . 7) , and yet he had given sufficient proof to be believed (John x v .

24). " T h e sentence of condemnation was taken by the C o u n c i l (John

x i . 49 et seq.), that is to say, by the highest author i ty of the Jewish re l ig ion, appealing to the Law of Moses ([ohn x i x . 7), and l a y i n g the motive for the sentence upon an action in defence of the whole people (John x i . 50) and of rel igion itself ( M a t t h e w


x x v i . 65). It was the priesthood of A a r o n , the synthesis and pr inc ipa l expression of the theocratic and hierocratic pol icy of the O l d Testament, w h i c h condemned the Mess iah . Consequent ly , one m a y attribute deicide to Judaism, w h e n considered as a religious c o m m u n i t y .

" W i t h i n this very l imi ted meaning, and bearing i n m i n d bibl i cal menta l i ty , Judaism of the times after O u r L o r d also objectively shares the collective responsibi l i ty for deicide i n as far as this Judaism constitutes the free and v o l u n t a r y cont inuat ion of Judaism at that t ime.

" A n example taken f r o m the C h u r c h w i l l he lp us to understand this fact. Each t ime that a Sovereign Ponti f f and a n ecumenical C o u n c i l take a solemn deliberation i n the plenitude of their a u t h o r i t y , a l t h o u g h they are not elected b y the catholic comm u n i t y on a democratic system, yet b y this decision they render co-responsible n o w and for al l centuries to come, a l l 'catholic-i s m ' and the w h o l e c o m m u n i t y of the f a i t h f u l . "

(Palestra del Clero, 1st February 1965)

Let us take the most celebrated of the numerous texts i m p l y i n g the collective responsibi l i ty of Israel, the Gospel of St. M a t t h e w .

B y Judas' treason, Jesus was delivered to the chief priests and they " took counc i l against Jesus to p u t h i m to d e a t h . " F i n a l l y :

" W h e n they had bound h i m they led h i m a w a y and delivered h i m to Pont ius Pilate . . . and the governor asked h i m , s a y i n g : ' A r t thou the K i n g of the Jews? ' A n d Jesus said unto h i m : T h o u sayest. A n d w h e n he was accused of the chief priests and elders he answered n o t h i n g . T h e n said Pilate unto h i m : 'Hearest thou not h o w m a n y things they witness against thee? ' A n d he answered to h i m never a w o r d ; insomuch that the governor marvelled great ly . N o w at that feast the governor was w o n t to release u n t o the people a prisoner, w h o m they w o u l d . A n d they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas. Therefore, w h e n they were gathered together, Pilate said u n t o t h e m : W h o m w i l l ye that I release u n t o y o u ? Barabbas, or Jesus w h i c h is called C h r i s t ? For he k n e w that for envy they had delivered h i m . W h e n he was set d o w n on the judgment seat, his wi fe sent u n t o h i m saying, H a v e thou n o t h i n g to do w i t h that just m a n : for I have suffered m a n y things this day i n a dream because of h i m . But the chief priests and elders persuaded the m u l t i t u d e that they should ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus. T h e governor answered and said u n t o them, W h e t h e r of the t w a i n w i l l ye that I release unto y o u ? T h e y said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, W h a t shal l I do then w i t h Jesus w h i c h is called C h r i s t ? T h e y al l say unto h i m , Let h i m be

THE V A T I C A N V O T E 147

crucified. A n d the governor said, W h y , what evi l ha th he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let h i m be crucif ied. W h e n Pilate saw that he could prevai l n o t h i n g but that rather a t u m u l t was made, he took water and washed his hands before the m u l t i tude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person : see ye to i t . T h e n answered al l the people and said, H i s blood be on us and o n our ch i ldren . Then released he Barabbas unto them and w h e n he had scourged Jesus, he delivered h i m to be cruc i f ied . "

( M a t t h e w x x v i i . )

Th is Gospel formal ly implies the collective responsibi l i ty of the Jewish people for the death of Jesus.

W h a t att i tude w i l l the C h u r c h adopt on this point after the last C o u n c i l , and h o w does one reconcile the above passage w i t h the 196s schema?

W i l l the C h u r c h admit to the thesis of Jules Isaac, w h i c h asserts that St. M a t t h e w is a l iar , that he falsified historical t r u t h and completely invented this dramatic scene solely i n order to reproach the Jews, St. M a t t h e w , w h o was of their race?

O r w i l l the C h u r c h , on the contrary, u p h o l d and defend the historical t r u t h of the Gospels?

The C o u n c i l and the H o l y Father have already taken their decisi o n . T h e y have vigorously re-asserted the t ru th of the Gospels.

" A n inextricable vote ," wrote A b b e Laurent in i n Le Figaro, speaki n g about the Jewish question at the C o u n c i l . " A n incredible hornet's nest," as Paris-Presse described i t i n an article f r o m w h i c h we have quoted at l ength . C a r d i n a l T a p p o u n i , Patr iarch of the Catho l i c Churches of the O r i e n t a l Rite , told me at Rome at the time of the concil iar discussions: " W e Fathers of the O r i e n t a l C h u r c h have clearly taken our posi t ion. W e have declared once and for a l l that any discussion of the Jewish problem was inopportune . I have n o t h i n g to add or retract f r o m this declaration for a w o r d too m a n y or too few o n such a neuralgic problem could lead to disaster. The facts have proved us r ight , and no good w i l l come out of i t either for the Chr is t ians or the Jews."

C a r d i n a l T a p p o u n i was probably r ight but i n fact the question has been raised and it can no longer be eluded. It has already caused quite a stir throughout the w o r l d , as M g r . C a r l i remarks i n his ar t ic les :

" T h e declaration on non-Chr is t ian religions . . . has unleashed an indignant Press campaign, it has provoked pol i t ical and diplomatic complications and, unfor tunate ly , i n the East i t has pro-


vided an excuse for some to abandon C a t h o l i c i s m i n favour of O r t h o d o x y . T h e Fathers w h o support it are slandered w i t h havi n g sold themselves to internat ional Jewry, whereas those w h o , for various reasons, consider the declaration inopportune or at least want to see it modif ied, are labelled ant i -Zionists and practica l ly held co-responsible for the N a z i camps."

Jules Isaac protests v io lent ly i n his w o r k s against the pr inciple of the collective responsibi l i ty of Israel, and Rabbi K a p l a n echoes h i m .

B u t on the subject of collective responsibi l i ty , the Jews place themselves i n a false posit ion w h i c h renders them very vulnerable. They fur ious ly repulse any suggestion of collective responsibil i ty w h e n they themselves risk being found g u i l t y of it but vehemently insist on it when it is to their advantage to do so.

I n chapter ten of this w o r k we have quoted a typica l article by V l a d i m i r Jankélévitch, an important personali ty i n Israel. In Le M o n d e , 3 r d January 1965, speaking of H i t l e r ' s Jewish v ic t ims , he w r o t e :

" T h i s cr ime w i t h o u t name is a crime that is t r u l y inf ini te . . . of w h i c h one is compelled to say that o n l y Germanic sadism could be g u i l t y . . . . The methodical , scientific and administrat ive massacre of six m i l l i o n Jews is not a w r o n g per se, i t is a cr ime for w h i c h a w h o l e people is accountable ."

Indeed, the G e r m a n people was declared collectively responsible at N u r e m b e r g for H i t l e r ' s anti-Jewish measures and every taxpayer i n Federal G e r m a n y (except those i n Eastern G e r m a n y under the Soviet regime) pays considerable sums every year to the State of Israel by w a y of indemnif ica t ion for the wrongs undergone by internat ional Judaism at the hands of H i t l e r .

B u t one cannot refuse the pr inc ip le of collective responsibi l i ty w h e n i t is not to one's advantage and c l a i m it w h e n i t is. O n e must choose one w a y or the other. If this pr inc ip le is not admitted, and it w o u l d seem that the C o u n c i l opted i n favour of the negative, it is h a r d to see w h y Israel continues to exact a heavy tr ibute f r o m the G e r m a n people. S i m i l a r l y , i n this l igh t the N u r e m b e r g t r ia l loses part of its just i f ication.

A n inextr icable vote. A n incredible hornet 's nest. There is a t h i r d point on w h i c h it is to be hoped that the C h u r c h

w i l l c la r i fy her posi t ion f o l l o w i n g the C o u n c i l vote, for i t is susceptible of very different interpretations and has formidable consequences; the problem of anti-Semitism and persecution. It is a prob-


lem w h i c h has arisen i n every country i n the past three thousand years in w h i c h an appreciable number of Jews have resided.

T h i s is w h a t the schema adopted by the C o u n c i l says :

" T h e C h u r c h condemns a l l persecutions of any men; she remembers her common heritage w i t h the Jews and, act ing not f r o m a n y pol i t ica l motives, but rather f r o m a spir i tual and evangelical love, deplores al l hatred, persecutions and other manifestations of anti-Semit ism, whatever the period and whoever was responsible."

(De Ecdesiae, ib id . , p . 7)

It is a text w h i c h looks short, simple and irrefutable, one on w h i c h agreement ought to be unanimous ; the C h u r c h has always reproved persecution, and here the whole w o r l d w i l l agree w i t h her.

It is however br i s t l ing w i t h difficulties and complex problems, and it is very m u c h to be hoped that the C h u r c h w i l l expla in what w i l l be her posit ion henceforth.

A n t i - S e m i t i s m and persecution are words liable to provoke emotional outbursts.

Let us begin w i t h anti -Semit ism. W h a t exact ly are manifestations of anti -Semitism? T h e ideas of anti-Semitism vary entirely accordi n g as to whether one examines them f r o m the Jewish point of v iew or f r o m the point of v iew of the non-Jews.

In Jewish eyes, every measure of defence and protect ion against the penetration of Jewish ideas and conceptions, against anti-C h r i s t i a n Jewish heresies, against Jewish contro l of the nat ional economy, and i n general every measure i n defence of nat ional C h r i s t i a n tradit ions, is a manifestation of ant i -Semit ism. Furthermore, m a n y Jews consider that the very fact of the recognit ion of the existence of a Jewish question constitutes a declaration of anti -Semit ism. " T h e i r idea l " , says W i c k h a m Steed, i n his remarkable w o r k , The H a p s b u r g Monarchy, "seems to be the maintenance of Jewish internat ional influence as a veritable imperium in imperiis. D i s s i m u l a t i o n of their real objects has become to them a second nature, and they deplore and tenaciously combat every effort to place the Jewish question f r a n k l y on its merits before the w o r l d . " (p. 179)

Let us take the concrete example concerning the C h u r c h . Jules Isaac, as we have abundant ly shown at the beginning of this w o r k , Jules Isaac accuses al l the Fathers of the C h u r c h of anti-Semitism, St. John C h r y s o s t o m , St. A u g u s t i n , St. A g o b a r d , the celebrated Pope St. Gregory the Great, etc. H e treats them as perverters of the t r u t h and torturers for their att i tude towards Judaism. H e accuses them of h a v i n g unleashed the savagery of the beast and of being the real people responsible for German anti-Semitism and the gas chambers


at A u s c h w i t z . H e finds them even worse than H i t l e r and Streicher and others, for their system resulted i n the Jews being tortured s lowly and being left to l ive and suffer in terminably .

" H e n c e f o r w a r d we perceive the radical difference w h i c h separates the C h r i s t i a n system of v i l i f i ca t ion f r o m its modern N a z i i m i t a t o r - - b l i n d and ignorant are they w h o ignore their thousand profound connect ions : the latter was o n l y a stage, a brief stage preceding the massive exterminat ion; the former on the contrary involved su rv i va l , but a shameful surviva l i n contempt and disgrace; thus it was created to endure and to in jure and s lowly torture mi l l ions of innocent v i c t i m s . "

(J. Isaac; Genèse de I 'Antisémitisme, pp. 168-72)

W h a t w i l l the attitude of the post-conciliar C h u r c h be on this point? W h a t is the meaning of the phrase : "deplores all manifestations of anti -Semitism, whatever the period and whoever may have been responsible"?

Does the C h u r c h admit Jules Isaac's thesis and plead g u i l t y ? M u s t Masses be said for the repose of the soul and pardon of the

sins of St. John Chrysos tom, St. A u g u s t i n , St. Gregory the Great and other great saints in the C h r i s t i a n l i t u r g y , g u i l t y of the crime of anti-Semitism?

M u s t their teaching be rectified and puri f ied, according to the i n junctions of Jules Isaac?

M u s t the Gospels be purged of m a n y a passage w h i c h bears the taint of anti-Semitism?

" C a n one , " writes M g r . C a r l i , " C a n one legit imately make the C a t h o l i c C h u r c h , as such, assume such an enormous responsibi l i ty w h i c h w o u l d make of her the cruellest and vastest association of evil-doers that has ever existed on the face of the earth? T h e Jews today no longer want to be considered responsible for everything w h i c h was done to Jesus Chr i s t by their ancestors, to w h o m even n o w they grant the benefit of good fai th ; but they demand that the Cathol ic C h u r c h of today should feel responsible and g u i l t y for everyth ing w h i c h , according to them, the Jews have suffered for the past two thousand years ."

" I do not th ink that the C h u r c h , even out of char i ty or h u m i l i t y alone, can officially adopt such an interpretat ion of h is tory . A t least she ought not to accuse herself of such a transgression, w h i c h soils her image before her sons and the whole w o r l d , u n t i l after a m i n u t e and impart ia l investigation for w h i c h the few lines of the conci l iar schema natura l ly cannot suffice (quite apart f rom their conclusive value).

T H E V A T I C A N V O T E

" N o b o d y means to deny by this, and a l l the w o r l d is, ready to regret, that there have arisen, to a greater or lesser degree, through ignorance and sometimes through bad f a i t h , prejudiced anti-Jewish Chris t ians ; i n the same w a y that certain Jewish rabbinical literature insulted Jesus and the H o l y V i r g i n M a r y , and inspired hatred and curs ing against the Chr is t ians .

" B u t , rather than engaging i n historical proceedings and demanding each other to admit to g u i l t , i t w o u l d be m u c h more useful for each to formulate exact doctr inal principles and to practise esteem and char i ty , and so to br ing d o w n m u t u a l prejudices. I n this sense one can subscribe to the words of the Chief Rabbi of D e n m a r k : ' W e w i l l probably cont inue to remain a sign of m u t u a l contradict ion, but we w i l l no longer devour each other. '

(cf. Oikoumenikon, 1st A u g u s t , 1963, p . 270)

" B u t on condi t ion that 'we deny none of our principles . For us Cathol ics , w i t h o u t d e n y i n g or passing i n silence over a n y of the points contained i n H o l y Scripture or i n the d iv ine , apostolic t radi t ion . '

"Let us then w o r k out a text w h i c h w i l l be acceptable 'to a l l our Jewish friends' , but w h i c h w i l l above a l l be acceptable to al l w h o love objective t r u t h . . . .

" W e r e two thousand years of h is tory so filled, as the Jewish thesis has i t , w i t h the mora l faults of the C h u r c h towards the people of Israel, i t cannot and ought not to change the terms of the question, as expressed on the lips of Jesus, St. Peter, St. P a u l , etc. . . .

" T h e decision carried i n the 1964 schema coincided w i t h what the Jews propose and hope for. M a y I be permitted to doubt that it is acceptable according to objective t r u t h . "

( M g r . C a r l i : Palestro del Clero, 1st M a y 1965)

W h a t is the att i tude of the C h u r c h towards p e r s e c u t i o n ? - - a term w h i c h the Jews always associate w i t h the w o r d anti-Semitism.

The C h u r c h reproves a l l forms of persecution f rom whatever side they come. O n c e again everybody w i l l be i n agreement, provided that the phrase " w h a t e v e r the period and whoever m a y have been responsible" is clarif ied.

T o hear and read Jewish authors, one w o u l d believe that o n l y they are the vict ims of persecution i n the w o r l d . In the modern w o r l d o n l y anti-Jewish persecution arouses the democratic conscience. There are m a n y vict ims of persecution i n the h is tory of the w o r l d , and they are not o n l y Jewish.


In the review Palestra del Clero, 15th February 1965, M g r . C a r l i wrote very j u s t l y :

" C e r t a i n l y , no one ought to condemn hatred and persecution more than a Catho l i c , especially w h e n their pretext is religious or racial motives. But it does seem peculiar , to some, to say the least, that i n a conci l iar document o n l y those wrongs suffered b y the Jews 'either i n previous times or i n our o w n days' are expressly condemned, as if others had not existed and do not, unfortunate ly , s t i l l exist today no less w o r t h y of explici t condemnat ion. W e refer to the massacre of the A r m e n i a n s , and to the genocides and innumerable k i l l ings perpetrated under the banner of M a r x i s t C o m m u n i s m " , and M g r . C a r l i added:

" W i t h regard to the persecution of the Jews, certainly neither the R o m a n emperor C l a u d i u s , nor the G e r m a n leader H i t l e r , to take o n l y the first and the last of anti-Semitic persecutors i n the Chr i s t ian era, took their inspiration from religious pr inciples . "

F i n a l l y , since we are concerned w i t h persecution, we must also ment ion those for w h i c h Jewish people are responsible, for they, who always set themselves up as innocent , crucified vict ims, are terrible persecutors w h e n they have the upper h a n d . T h i s subject is dealt w i t h in chapter ten of this work , and we w i l l not repeat again what we have said there.

In a work w r i t t e n in 1921 called Le Problème Juif, George Batault sa id :

" T h e att i tude adopted by many Jews in a t t r ibut ing the secular phenomenon of anti-Semitism uniquely to the basest sentiments and to the crassest ignorance is absolutely untenable. It is perfectly infant i le perpetually to seek to contrast the good Jewish sheep, steeped in pious meekness, w i t h the bad non-Jewish wolf , thirs t ing for blood and h o w l i n g w i t h ferocious jealousy. T h e p h i l osophy of his tory w h i c h consists i n describing as a pogromist anyone w h o attempts to tackle the Jewish problem i n a spirit w h i c h is not del ir iously apologetic, this phi losophy must be abandoned." (G. B a t a u l t : Le Problème Juif, Paris 1921)

The f o l l o w i n g experience is a recent example of this state of m i n d . In October 1965 I went to Rome and delivered to more than two thousand C o u n c i l Fathers, as w e l l as a certain number of eminent personalities, a pamphlet entitled Le P r o b l è m e Juif face au Concile, two-thirds of w h i c h were printed i n Ital ian and the remainder i n French. It contained a brief h is tory of the role of Jules Isaac in the preparation of the concil iar schema on the Jewish question and


a s u m m a r y of the theses of his and other masters of contemporary Jewish thought on the question of the relations between Judaism and C h r i s t i a n i t y . It was neither abusive nor i n s u l t i n g , being s imply an expose of texts w h i c h I confined myself to presenting i n a clear and coherent fashion. For I considered that it was essential for the C o u n c i l Fathers to have a knowledge of these texts, since they formed the very basis on w h i c h the Fathers h a d been called to vote. A p r e l i m i n a r y enqui ry had rapidly convinced me that practical ly al l the C o u n c i l Fathers were completely unaware both of the existence of the texts and of the importance of the role of Jules Isaac.

In contrast w i t h Jules Isaac, H . Fesquet of Le Monde and other laymen w h o exerted great influence at the C o u n c i l , I d i d not issue a n y advice or directives, but s i m p l y put f o r w a r d some in format ion , a d d i n g : " T h e decision n o w rests w i t h the C o u n c i l Fathers and it is they w h o w i l l carry the responsibil ity for i t . "

Several big papers i n France, led by Le M o n d e , drew attention to m y intervent ion and to the dis t r ibut ion of m y pamphlets . A l l accused me, i n rather disagreeable phraseology, of " a n t i - S e m i t i s m " . In their issue of 17th October, speaking of " t h e incredible number of advances, visits, letters, tracts, pamphlets and pressures w i t h w h i c h the secretariat for u n i t y had been assailed (on the declaration on the Jews)", Le M o n d e said, "people w i l l be amazed at so m u c h passion, aberration, hatred and i n a w o r d , ignorance and s t u p i d i t y " .

Since m y name was clearly mentioned a l i t t le fur ther on i n the article, this cr i t ic ism was obviously directed at me, a cr i t ic ism i n w h i c h , n a t u r a l l y , passion, hatred, ignorance and s tupidi ty played no part.

O n e of m y relations sent m y pamphlet to a priest w h o m I did not k n o w , w h o is headmaster of a Catho l i c school and a renowned preacher, and received this letter i n r e p l y :

" I enclose the distressing pamphlet b y M r . de Poncins , w h i c h shows so l i t t le p i t y towards Israel, so l i t t le c h a r i t y and such a narrow interpretat ion of h is tory . These eternal snippets f rom Joshua Jehouda are very i r r i ta t ing . Does M r . de Poncins imagine that M g r . de Provenchères and the C o u n c i l Fathers are unaware that the Jews and the Moslems fiercely reject the Incarnat ion? Is that what it is a l l about?

" W h e n the C o u n c i l ' s text appears i n the Press, y o u w i l l see. It is i n a w o r d the w o r k of C a r d i n a l Bea, a Jesuit and an exegete of eighty years w h o is greatly travelled and read and who undoubtedly has a great love of men and a great sense of justice. It is this motive, and not ignorance, w h i c h impelled h i m to sup-


port the schema, and u p o n w h i c h , under the guidance of the H o l y Spir i t , some t w o thousand Catho l i c bishops w i l l vote . "

T h u s i n the eyes of this w o r t h y priest it is not Jules Isaac and the others w h o are provoking by attacking the great doctrines of C h r i s t i a n i t y ; no, it is I w h o am p r o v o k i n g since I have actual ly quoted them and made them k n o w n . But there is n o doubt that the disclosure of these deadly texts was exceedingly embarrassing to the success of the Jewish progressive manoeuvre, and if they could have been published earlier they w o u l d have been even more effective.

T h e conclusion is very o b v i o u s : these "ant i -Semites" , w h o use a formidable weapon, the texts of Jewish authors themselves, must at al l costs be silenced. Th is is what A b b e L a u r e n t i n said i n scarcely veiled terms, w h e n he wrote i n Le Figaro on 15th October 1965:

"Is the 1965 text sufficient to tear out the roots of Christian anti-Semitism, w h i c h has expressed itself so vigorously these last m o n t h s ? "

In other words, one of the aims of the 1964 text was to impose silence on the "anti -Semites" . H o w e v e r , t h o u g h admirab ly prepared, the manoeuvre did not succeed, or o n l y very p a r t i a l l y , for the 1965 text leaves the w a y open for restricted possibilities i n this field.

O n the other h a n d , no restriction whatever impedes Jewish writers or their allies.

W i t h i m p u n i t y Jules Isaac can wri te large w o r k s , recently republ ished, i n w h i c h he describes the Evangelists as l iars, the Fathers and the great saints of the C h u r c h as scurri lous pamphleteers, per-verters of the t r u t h and torturers, and i n w h i c h he calls on the C h u r c h to recognise, abjure and make amends for her c r i m i n a l wrongs towards the Jews. Bishops such as M g r . de Provencheres publ i c ly express their esteem, respect and affection for h i m . M g r . Gerlier , the cardinal archbishop of L y o n , writes a laudatory preface i n a book by A b b e Toulat called Juifs mes Frères, i n w h i c h the role of Jules Isaac is exalted and glorif ied. M g r . Liénart, the cardinal archbishop of L i l l e , patronises Jules Isaac's o w n A m i t i é judéo-chrétiennes. But because I s imply quote Jules Isaac, Joshua Jehouda and others, I am described as a despicable ant i -Semite - -a typical example of passion, aberration, hatred, ignorance and stupidi ty , if one is to believe Le M o n d e .

F i n a l l y , the progressive clergy reserves its favours for the enemies of rel igion and pours sarcasm, scorn and hos t i l i ty o n those w h o defend their o w n tradit ion.

A s far as common biblical relationship w i t h the Jewish people is


concerned, this indeed is indisputable, but we must beware of pushing the argument too far .

T h e N e w Testament marks a great turning-point i n the his tory of religious thought and a profound break w i t h the O l d Testament. T h e split has o n l y increased over the centuries.

T h e 1965 text says :

" T h i s sacred counci l remembers the bond b y w h i c h the people of the N e w Testament is spir i tual ly l inked to the l ine of A b r a h a m . T h e C h u r c h of C h r i s t recognises that i n God's p lan of salvat ion, the beginnings of her o w n election and fa i th are to be f o u n d i n the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets. . . . T h e C h u r c h cannot, therefore, forget that it was through that people, w i t h w h o m G o d i n his ineffable mercy saw fit to establish the O l d Covenant , that she herself has received the revelation of the O l d Testament. She takes her nour ishment f r o m the root of the cul t i vated olive-tree on to w h i c h the wi ld-o l ive branches of the Gentiles have been grafted (cf. Romans x i . 17-24). T h e C h u r c h believes that C h r i s t , w h o is our Peace, has reconciled Jews and Gentiles t h r o u g h the cross and has made us both one i n himself (cf. Ephesians i i . 14-16). . . .

" H o l y Scripture is witness that Jerusalem has not k n o w n the time of her vis i tat ion (cf. L u k e x i x . 44). T h e Jews have not, for the most part, accepted the Gospel; some indeed have opposed its diffusion (cf. Romans x i . 28). Even so, according to the A p o s t l e P a u l , the Jews st i l l remain very dear to G o d , for the sake of their fathers, since he does not repent of the gifts he makes or the calls he issues (cf. Romans x i . 28-29). I n company w i t h the Prophets and the same A p o s t l e , the C h u r c h looks forward to that day, k n o w n to God alone, w h e n al l peoples w i l l call on the Lord w i t h one voice and 'serve h i m w i t h one shoulder*.

(Soph. i i i . 9; cf. Isaiah l x v i . 23; Psalms l x v . 4; Romans x i . 11-32)

" G i v e n this great spir i tual heritage common to Chr is t ians and Jews, it is the w i s h of this sacred C o u n c i l to foster and recommend a m u t u a l knowledge and esteem, w h i c h w i l l come f rom biblical and theological studies, and brother ly discussions."

(De Ecdesiae, ib id . , pp. 5-6)

In his article i n Palestra del Clero , M g r . C a r l i clearly explains Catho l i c doctrine on this p o i n t :

" A t a certain moment i n history Israel broke the Covenant w i t h G o d , not so m u c h because it had transgressed the commandments of G o d , or i n other words, because it had not ful f i l led the con-


ditions of the Covenant (it had committed this sin so often and God had always forgiven i t ! ) as because it had refused the f u l filment of the Covenant itself by refusing Jesus: 'for C h r i s t is the fu l f i lment of the l a w ' (Romans x , 4 ) . H e n c e f o r t h it was no longer a question of accidental terms of the Covenant , but of its actual substance. A u t o m a t i c a l l y , Israel's 'election' was completely frustrated, it lost its purpose, and the privileges w h i c h were attached to i t lost their sufficient reason. . . . Israel ended u p by becoming inst i tut ional ised after a fashion in to global , official and adamant opposit ion to C h r i s t and his doctrine, despite the great ' s ign ' of the Resurrection of the M e s s i a h .

" T h e mosaic rel igion w h i c h , by a disposition made k n o w n by G o d , was to issue into C h r i s t i a n i t y to find i n it its o w n end and perfection, on the contrary constant ly refused to adhere to C h r i s t , thus 'rejecting' the cornerstone la id by G o d . It is not a question of the renunciat ion pure and simple of God's plan ( w h i c h is already a very grave error), but of positive opposit ion; i n this respect, the relationship between C h r i s t i a n i t y and Judaism is m u c h worse than the relat ionship between C h r i s t i a n i t y and the other religions. For Israel alone had been chosen for and received a vocation, gifts and h is tory , etc., very different f r o m a l l other people o n e a r t h : i n God's p l a n , Israel was entirely and completely 'relative' to Chr i s t and C h r i s t i a n i t y . H a v i n g failed to achieve, through its o w n fault , such an important ' re la t iv i ty ' , it had of itself put itself i n a state of objective 'rejection'. Th is state w i l l last as long as the Judaic re l igion throughout the w o r l d refuses to recognise and officially accept Jesus C h r i s t .

" I n m y o p i n i o n , H o l y Scripture justifies this interpretation and patristic t radi t ion confirms i t . "

The rupture between the O l d and the N e w Testament has cont i n u a l l y increased as the T o r a h , or L a w of Moses , made w a y for the g r o w i n g influence of the T a l m u d as the source of inspirat ion of the H e b r e w rel ig ion. The modern Jew studies not the Mosaic law but the T a l m u d ; and between the Gospel and the T a l m u d there is an irreducible antagonism. W e w o u l d but r e m i n d the reader that we have dealt w i t h this question i n chapter five of this work .

W i l l this antagonism endure u n t i l the end of t ime? N o , answers Catho l i c doctrine as formulated by St. Paul , for at

(he end of t ime, the whole Jewish people w i l l be conver ted :

" A t the end of time the mass of the Jews w i l l save themselves; this assertion of St. Paul's is an essential part of C h r i s t i a n hope. . . . God's gifts are g iven absolutely, that is to say, once given they are never taken away; but for those w h o refuse them


or do not use them at the appropriate time, they turn into articles of condemnation. . . .

" T h i s posit ion was freely accepted by Israel, and as long as it persists the 'objective' state of accursedness remains w i t h a l l its consequences. B u t one must categorically deny that any h u m a n author i ty whatever , whether private or publ ic , may, under no matter w h a t r ight or pretext, execute the punishment attached to the d iv ine j u d g m e n t : G o d alone m a y do it, i n the manner and at the time he chooses."

( M g r . C a r l i : Palestra del Clero, 15th February 196s)

But the masters of contemporary Judaism oppose this belief w i t h h a u g h t y contempt and scorn. W e have quoted par t i cu lar ly s tr ik ing passages f rom Jehouda to i l lustrate this point . It is not the Jews w h o w i l l convert to C h r i s t i a n i t y , w h i c h i n their eyes is a bastard re l ig ion, a corrupted branch of J u d a i s m - - i t is the Chris t ians who must re turn to Israel. The f o l l o w i n g recent passage serves to confirm and strengthen this o p i n i o n :

"Let us be under no i l l u s i o n s : if they th ink they are going to exculpate us i n order to w i n us more easily, they deceive themselves. W e w i l l not be changed. W e must be accepted as w e are --with our absolute and indivis ible monotheism, w i t h our fierce desire to survive as a distinct c o m m u n i t y , w i t h our categoric refusal of every other ' t r u t h ' . W e do not w a n t to convert, we consider that we are adult men capable of choosing our o w n path ourselves. W e want to be treated accordingly. But if y o u r rel igion obliges y o u to proselytise, w e do not object. O n l y , w e w a r n y o u : y o u w i l l be wast ing y o u r time. W e w i l l remain as w e are. and no force o n earth or i n heaven w i l l change us. For we are made from a substance as hard as the rock; we resisted G o d i n our y o u t h and men i n our m a t u r i t y . T h u s we can wait . For this reason, the o n l y att i tude w o r t h y of a Jew towards the ecumenical C o u n c i l is one of polite impassiveness. Let us keep quiet and pursue our o w n w o r k , w a i t i n g w i t h serenity. For whatever the results may be, we must continue alone along our inconceivable route . "

( A l e x a n d e r Reiter, i n an article on Les Juifs et le Concile, published by the weekly Terre retrouvée 15th June, 1964)

T h e conclusion may be d r a w n i n a few words; it stems clearly f rom the numerous texts we have quoted f r o m Jewish authors.

A religious agreement between W e s t e r n Chr is t ians and Jews of T a l m u d i c disc ipl ine w i l l be very diff icult to achieve, for , as M g r . C a r l i says, speaking about the Jewish r e l i g i o n :

158 [ J U D A I S M A N D T H E V A T I C A N

" I t is not a question of the renunciat ion pure and simple of God's p lan . . . but of positive opposit ion; i n this respect the relationship between C h r i s t i a n i t y and Judaism is m u c h worse than the relat ionship between C h r i s t i a n i t y and the other re l ig ions . "

The generous i n t e n t i o n s - - o r i l l u s i o n s - - o f the C o u n c i l w i l l a lways come up against a major obstacle, Jewish intransigence. T h e Jews demand everyth ing but concede n o t h i n g ; they refuse to assimilate, they refuse to convert; far f r o m assimilat ing, they judaise, far f rom convert ing, they seek to impose their convict ions on others.

" T h e Jewish problem presents an insoluble enigma more than two thousand years o l d , and today i t is s t i l l one of the most formidable questions fac ing our t imes" , wrote George Batault i n Le Problème jui f .

These prophet ic words date f r o m 1921. N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g so m a n y dramatic events, so m a n y disasters and w o r l d upheavals, they are st i l l relevant today i n 1967. Proof of i t is the importance of the discussions on the Jewish question at the Second V a t i c a n C o u n c i l .

T R A C T S A G A I N S T T H E C O U N C I L

T H I S is the title of an article on page 154 of the special issue of 6th M a r c h 1966 of the Osservatore Della Domenica on " V a t i c a n C o u n c i l I I " . The book as a w h o l e gives a very complete his tory of the C o u n c i l , and this part icular article, w h i c h we reproduce below, was w r i t t e n b y U g o A p o l l o n i o , and is devoted to pamphlets on the Jewish question w h i c h had been w i d e l y distributed among the C o u n c i l Fathers d u r i n g the C o u n c i l ; i n the course of the article m y name is c learly singled out, and I am vio lent ly taken to task. This is what the article says :

V a t i c a n C o u n c i l I I has been the object, as indeed m i g h t be expected, of the greatest praise and of the severest cr i t ic ism. O n e cannot be surprised then, at the anti-concil iar l i terature w h i c h burst out , and it is perhaps w o r t h w h i l e ca l l ing it to m i n d again brief ly , if o n l y out of cur ios i ty . U n f o r t u n a t e l y there is not enough space to examine C o m m u n i s t dailies and periodicals w h i c h f requent ly twisted the intent ions and discussions of the C o u n c i l Fathers i n every c o u n t r y , nor can we deal w i t h the secular Press, w h i c h i n I ta ly and elsewhere often presented the works of the C o u n c i l f r o m a onesided point of v iew.

T h u s we w i l l l i m i t our study to a certain section of books and pamphlets, of l imi ted quant i ty and qua l i ty , whose c o m m o n characteristics suggest a common source, at least i n their i n s p i r a t i o n ;

1. T h e y al l come f r o m la t in countries ( in part icular , f r o m France, Spain, Lat in -Amer ica ) ;

2. T h e y reflect the ideas of certain ultraconservative Catho l i c circles;

3. T h e y are a l l either anonymous or pseudonymous; i n certain instances they are concealed behind signatures subsequently discovered to be either imaginary or false;

4. T h e y have been translated in to several languages (the I ta l ian translat ion is usual ly rather poor);

5. M o s t were distributed through the post and sent direct to the C o u n c i l Fathers.

159


A s far as their contents are concerned, i t must be added that m a n y of these publications are entrenched behind a suspect preoccupat ion w i t h or thodoxy , w h i c h they use as a pretext for i l l -considered attacks o n cardinals and bishops, w h o m they accuse of in t roduc ing heresies, seeking to subvert the C h u r c h , sel l ing the C h u r c h for earthly rewards, and so on; o n the other h a n d , others are d is t inc t ly anti-Semitic i n tone and u n j u s t l y attack m a n y representatives of the C h u r c h .

T h e first and most massive d o c u m e n t - - a r o u n d w h i c h al l the other lesser pamphlets w h i c h fo l lowed may be said to g r a v i t a t e - - w a s published i n A u g u s t 1962 under the pseudonym of M a u r i c e P i n a y . A c c o r d i n g to the in t roduct ion , this w o r k should have contained " terr ib le revelations" , whereas it contains, on the contrary , a jumble of gratuitous and i l logical accusations against the C o u n c i l Fathers, w h o m - - a s it says i n the A p p e a l to the R e a d e r - - " a r e conspir ing i n order to destroy the most sacred traditions b y c a r r y i n g out audacious and noxious reforms o n the lines of C a l v i n , Z w i n g l i and other great heretics, b y pretending to modernise the C h u r c h and br ing i t u p to date, but w i t h the secret in tent ion of opening the doors to C o m m u n i s m , accelerating the r u i n of the free w o r l d , and preparing for the f u t u r e destruction of C h r i s t i a n i t y . "

In a number of ronetyped leaflets, w h i c h arrived f rom A m e r i c a i n 1964, one H u g h M a r y Ke l lner attacks " t h e devastating results of secular ism" and accuses the leaders of the C h u r c h of f a i l i n g to "check the catastrophic decadence of C a t h o l i c i s m w h i c h has become apparent i n recent decades". A c c o r d i n g to this m a n , m a n y C o u n c i l Fathers were " v i c t i m s of a satanic seduction suggestive of the use of the apparently laudable w o r d of C h r i s t to weaken and destroy the C h u r c h " .

H o w e v e r , the most important and bitter attacks were directed against " fa lse ly converted Jews" and the " i n t e r n a t i o n a l Judaeo-M a s o n i c B ' n a i B ' r i t h organisat ion" . A number of pamphlets and circular letters were sent to the C o u n c i l Fathers at their private addresses, asserting that " t h e Jewish people alone is the deicide people" and that as a result, it must be " f o u g h t and exterminated" , since " t h r o u g h M a s o n r y , C o m m u n i s m a n d a l l the subversive organisations w h i c h i t has created and directs, Judaism arrogant ly and implacably continues to combat C h r i s t " .

Racism, fanat ic ism and the most obstinate opposition were displayed by certain anti-Jewish groups i n numerous small publicat ions u r g i n g ferocious persecution against the Jews, "fathers of deceit and c a l u m n y " , q u o t i n g C h u r c h dogma or teaching i n support or approval . A s an example we quote f rom some w h i c h we have before u s : The Jews and the C o u n c i l i n the light of the Holy Scriptures and tradi-

T R A C T S A G A I N S T T H E C O U N C I L

turn, a n o n y m o u s - - a c c o r d i n g to the pamphlet , the author is "Ber-nardus" ; The Jewish people is the deicide people by M a u c l a i r ; The Council and the attack of the central-European bloc b y Cathol i cus ; Judaeo-Masonic action in the Council b y an anonymous author w h o claims to be " a group of priests, some of w h o m belong to religious orders, and others to the secular c l e rgy" ; The declaration in favour of the Jews favours a racism w h i c h infringes the legitimate right of defence of other peoples, b y one E. di Z a g a ; The problem of the Jews at the Council by L . de Poncins, etc. In a l l these pamphlets, just as i n Common Sense, pr inted i n N e w Jersey, and i n yet others, the accusations are the same, and they spr ing f r o m the same roots of misunderstanding, intolerance, scorn and hatred of the Jewish people.

T h e campaign, as we have remarked above, was not confined to I taly, but spread over the w h o l e of the l a t i n w o r l d . T h e pr inc ipa l people accused were clearly indicated. These are the " h e r e t i c s " : the German theologians, Oesterreicher and B a u m , both of the Jewish race, whose task was to " judaise the C h r i s t i a n s " ; Fr . K l y b e r , w h o "bra inwashed Cathol ics i n favour of the Jews"; and C a r d i n a l Bea. w h o " i n presenting his proposed decree i n favour of the Jews and i n opposit ion to the Evangelists, concealed f r o m the C o u n c i l Fathers that he was repeating the theses w h i c h had been suggested to h i m by the M a s o n i c order of the B ' n a i B ' r i t h " .

C a r d i n a l Bea, w h o as we k n o w created a study group i n the heart of the Secretariat for C h r i s t i a n U n i t y , i n obedience to the express wishes of Pope John, i n order to examine f r o m the solely theological and religious point of v iew the relations between the C h u r c h and the Jewish people, and w h o drafted the declaration on the Jewish p r o b l e m - - C a r d i n a l Bea was attacked b y a l l the a n o n y m o u s authors of the various pamphlets w i t h incredible vehemence and hos t i l i ty . It is enough to remark that they attempted to prove his Jewish o r i g i n by m a i n t a i n i n g that " i n the past centuries the name of 'Beha' is f o u n d i n several families i n G e r m a n y and i n A u s t r i a , a name w h i c h is the phonetic equivalent of the sephardic 'Beja' , f r o m the lat inisat ion of w h i c h one arrives at the Jewish or crypto-Jewish C a r d i n a l B e a " . . . .

I n conclus ion, i t is sad to relate that even H i s Hol iness P a u l V I was not spared f r o m the avalanche of venomous attacks unleashed against the H i e r a r c h y . A l i t t le leaflet pr inted i n N o v e m b e r 1965 i n C a l i f o r n i a , U . S . A . , and signed by the " M i l i t a n t Servants of our L a d y of F a t i m a " , states among other things that the Pope committed a "detestable error, comparable to an apostasy, by p r o n o u n c i n g a speech before the atheist representatives of the U n i t e d N a t i o n s " , and


that 4 t h O c t o b e r - - t h e date the Pope visited U . N . O . - - i s to be regarded as a black day i n the calendar w h i c h has o n l y been eclipsed b y the cruc i f ix ion of Jesus, since on that day the Pontiff handed over the M y s t i c a l Body of C h r i s t to the U n i t e d N a t i o n s , an organisation controlled b y Jews, Freemasons and C o m m u n i s t s . W h a t then was to be done? W e are t o l d : each C o u n c i l Father was to submit to the rite of exorcism to drive out the devi l w h i c h became incarnate i n their persons i n the C o u n c i l ; a l l the C o u n c i l decisions were to be regarded as annul led ; and they were to renew a l l their priest ly offices and pray G o d to enable them to resist every other assault of Luci fer and his agents. O n l y thus could the Pope and the C o u n c i l Fathers p u r i f y themselves of the odious cr ime of apostasy.

A n y comment w o u l d be superfluous.

U g o A p o l l o n i o .

Let us note that there are two Osservatores at Rome, both of w h i c h are produced i n the V a t i c a n C i t y i n the same office.

The Osservatore Romano da i ly is the official V a t i c a n newspaper. T h e posi t ion of the Osservatore della D o m e n i c a , on the other

h a n d , is m u c h less clear. A s its name indicates, it is a weekly , and its editors are dis t inc t ly progressive w h i c h perhaps i n part explains the tone of the article i n w h i c h I a m impl icated.

Nevertheless, and this is very impor tant , i t is a special number w h i c h makes a b ig book of 225 pages. It contains a complete his tory and resume of the C o u n c i l , and there is a preface by H i s Eminence, C a r d i n a l C i c o g n a n i , Secretary of State for the V a t i c a n , and b y M o n s i g n o r Fel ic i , Secretary General of the C o u n c i l . It has a l l the characteristics of an official V a t i c a n document .

T h u s the accusations against the authors of pamphlets on the Jewish problem, and against me i n par t i cular , are of exceptional g r a v i t y .

A l t h o u g h as a general rule I avoid a l l personal polemics, I find I am obliged to p u t this matter straight, since I carry the entire respons ib i l i ty for the material I p u b l i s h . Otherwise Cathol ics throughout the w o r l d w h o read this article w i l l receive the impression that I am a fanatical anti-Semite, boi l ing over w i t h f u r y and hatred, p l o t t i n g massacres and persecution, and shower ing the C o u n c i l Fathers w i t h a jumble of gratuitous, i l logical and ca lumnious accusations.

Let us then examine the accusations brought against me one by one.

The first accusation is that " t h e y (the authors of these pamphlets) are a l l either anonymous or pseudonymous; i n certain instances they are concealed behind signatures subsequently discovered to be either imaginary or false".

T R A C T S A G A I N S T T H E C O U N C I L 163

A s far as I am concerned, this accusation is completely false, for m y pamphlet was signed b y m y name.

The second accusation is that " m a n y of these pamphlets are entrenched behind a suspect preoccupation w i t h or thodoxy , w h i c h they use as a pretext for ill-considered attacks on Cardinals and Bishops, w h o m they accuse of i n t r o d u c i n g heresies, seeking to subvert the C h u r c h , sel l ing the C h u r c h f o r ear th ly rewards, and so o n ; o n the other hand, others are d is t inc t ly anti-Semitic i n tone and u n j u s t l y attack m a n y representatives of the C h u r c h " .

H o w e v e r , I did not make an ill-considered attack on Cardina ls and Bishops. I did not accuse them u n j u s t l y of seeking to subvert the C h u r c h .

R e l y i n g on Jewish sources, I demonstrated that t h r o u g h ignorance of the Jewish question they had fa l len into a trap most s k i l f u l l y prepared by the leaders of great Jewish organisations i n con junct ion w i t h a smal l m i n o r i t y of progressives.

Doubtless the C o u n c i l Fathers are w e l l acquainted w i t h the b ib l i cal Judaism of the O l d Testament, but what do they k n o w of contemporary ta lmudic Judaism?

T h e third accusation is the common o r i g i n of these pamphlets . " T h e first and most massive d o c u m e n t - - a r o u n d w h i c h al l the other lesser pamphlets w h i c h fo l lowed m a y be said to g r a v i t a t e - - w a s published i n A u g u s t 1962 under the pseudonym of M a u r i c e P i n a y . A c c o r d i n g to the i n t r o d u c t i o n , this work should have contained 'terrible revelations' , whereas it contains, o n the contrary, a jumble of gratuitous and i l logical accusations against the C o u n c i l Fathers . "

T h e pamphlet w h i c h I circulated at the C o u n c i l has n o t h i n g i n c o m m o n w i t h M a u r i c e P inay ' s book, n o r for that matter , w i t h a n y of the other pamphlets publ ished at Rome. A s far as I am aware, I am the o n l y person to have made k n o w n the role of Jules Isaac, spokesman of the great Jewish organisations, i n the V a t i c a n C o u n c i l , and the o n l y person to have circulated to the C o u n c i l texts f r o m the w o r k s of Jules Isaac, Joshua Jehouda and other doctors of Israel, texts w h i c h were fundamenta l to a comprehension of the issue on w h i c h the C o u n c i l Fathers voted.

The f o u r t h accusation is that of i n c i t i n g to massacre and persecut ion against the deicide people. " H o w e v e r , the most important and bitter attacks were directed against 'falsely converted Jews' and the ' internat ional judaeo-masonic B 'na i B ' r i t h organisat ion ' . A number of pamphlets and c ircular letters were sent to the C o u n c i l Fathers at their private addresses, asserting that 'the Jewish people alone is


the deicide people', and that as a result, i t must be ' fought and exterminated ' , since ' t h r o u g h M a s o n r y , C o m m u n i s m and a l l the subversive organisations w h i c h it has created and directs, Judaism arrog a n t l y and implacably continues to combat C h r i s t ' . "

N o w h e r e have I ever w r i t t e n that the Jewish deicide people had to be fought and exterminated.

T h e article cont inues : " R a c i s m , fanat ic ism and the most obstinate opposit ion were displayed by certain anti-Jewish groups i n numerous small publ icat ions u r g i n g ferocious persecution against the Jews, 'fathers of deceit and c a l u m n y ' , q u o t i n g C h u r c h dogma or teaching i n support or approval . A s an example we quote f r o m some of these vio lent publicat ions w h i c h we have before u s : The Problem of the Jews at the Council b y L. de Poncins , etc. I n al l these pamphlets, just as in C o m m o n Sense, pr inted i n N e w Jersey and i n yet others, the accusations are the same and they spr ing f rom the same roots of misunderstanding, intolerance, scorn and hatred of the Jewish people."

Rac ism, fanat ic ism, ferocious persecution, intolerance, incomprehension, scorn and hatred towards the Jewish people ! I have never w r i t t e n one single l ine w h i c h could be construed as a foundat ion for

CD

a n y of these accusations, but since I am v i r t u a l l y described as a " p o g r o m i s t " , I w o u l d ask the fa ir -minded reader to consider the degree of violence impl i c i t i n the methods and proposals for a solut ion to the Jewish problem w h i c h I drew u p short ly before the outbreak of the last war , i n a document w h i c h was sent to Heads of State and Jewish leaders a l l over the w o r l d , and w h i c h is reproduced here i n f u l l i n A p p e n d i x I.

T h e fifth accusation is that " t h e campaign, as we have remarked above, was not confined to I ta ly , but spread over the w h o l e of the la t in w o r l d . . . . C a r d i n a l Bea, i n presenting his proposed decree i n favour of the Jews and i n opposit ion to the Evangelists, concealed f rom the C o u n c i l Fathers that he was repeating the theses w h i c h had been suggested to h i m by the M a s o n i c order of the B ' n a i B ' r i t h . C a r d i n a l Bea, w h o as we k n o w created a s tudy group i n the heart of the Secretariat for C h r i s t i a n U n i t y , i n obedience to the express wishes of Pope John, i n order to examine f r o m the solely theological and rel igious point of v iew the relations between the C h u r c h and the Jewish people, and w h o drafted the declaration on the Jewish p r o b l e m - - C a r d i n a l Bea was attacked by a l l the anonymous authors of the various pamphlets w i t h incredible vehemence and hos t i l i ty . It is enough to remark that they attempted to prove his Jewish or ig in by m a i n t a i n i n g that ' i n the past centuries the name of " B e h a " is f o u n d i n several families i n G e r m a n y and A u s t r i a , a name w h i c h

T R A C T S A G A I N S T T H E C O U N C I L 165

is the phonetic equivalent of the sephardic " B e j a " , f r o m the latinisa-t ion of w h i c h one arrives at the Jewish or crypto-Jewish C a r d i n a l Bea' . . . "

I did not attack C a r d i n a l Bea w i t h " incredib le vehemence and h o s t i l i t y " ; I o n l y wrote the f o l l o w i n g few lines about h i m . Some t ime after (his vis i t to the Pope), Isaac " learned w i t h joy that his suggestions had been considered by the Pope and handed on to Cardinal Bea for examinat ion . T h e latter set u p a special w o r k i n g party i n the bosom of the Secretariat for C h r i s t i a n U n i t y , to s tudy relations between the C h u r c h and Israel, w h i c h f i n a l l y resulted i n the C o u n c i l V o t e on 20th November 1964."

T h e s i x t h and final accusation is that " i t is sad to relate that even H i s Hol iness P a u l V I was not spared f r o m the avalanche of venomous attacks unleashed against the H i e r a r c h y " .

B u t the o n l y ment ion that I made of Pope Paul V I was i n the f o l l o w i n g l i n e s : " ( A f t e r the vote i n N o v e m b e r 1964) the Sovereign Pontiff , considering that a vote w i t h such considerable bearings on politics and doctrine needed ripe reflection, refused to rat i fy it , and postponed the decision to the next and final session of the C o u n c i l , w h i c h is to open on 14th September 1965. T h e final vote on the Jewish question took place o n 14th October 1965 and was promul gated by the Pope on 28th October . "

I n a w o r d , then, the accusations against me i n the Osservatore della Domenica are completely false, and can o n l y be accounted for by the ignorance or bad fa i th of the author of this article. A l l w h o struggle against the forces of subversion i n the modern w o r l d encounter this procedure. Nesta Webster , w h o specialised i n the study of revolut ionary movements, relates her o w n experiences in her Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (preface, v ) :

" W h e n I first began to wri te on revolut ion a w e l l - k n o w n London publ isher said to me, 'Remember that if y o u take an anti-revolut ionary l ine y o u w i l l have the w h o l e l i terary w o r l d against y o u . ' T h i s appears to me extraordinary . . . . If I was w r o n g either i n m y conclusions or facts I was prepared to be challenged. Should not years of laborious historical research meet either w i t h recognit ion or w i t h reasoned and scholarly refutat ion? But a l though m y book received a great m a n y generous and appreciative reviews i n the Press, criticisms w h i c h were hosti le took a f o r m w h i c h I had never antic ipated. N o t a single honest attempt was made to refute either m y French Revolut ion or W o r l d Revolution by the usual methods of controversy; statements founded on documentary evidence were met w i t h flat contradict ion unsupported by a shred


of counter-evidence. I n general the p lan adopted was not to dis-

method of attack is unparal leled i n a n y other spheres of l i terary

"I t is interest ing to note that precisely the same l ine was adopted a h u n d r e d years ago w i t h regard to Professor Robison and the A b b e Barruel , whose works o n the secret causes of the French R e v o l u t i o n created an immense sensation i n their d a y . "

There is n o t h i n g n e w i n these methods, but it is perhaps surpris ing to find a publ ica t ion , w h i c h b y a l l appearances is the spokesman of the V a t i c a n , us ing similar methods w h e n i t is a question as serious as a conci l iar vote w h i c h m a y alter the age-old doctrine of the C h u r c h , and the behaviour of m i l l i o n s of Cathol ics throughout the w o r l d .

H o w e v e r , n o w that the reader has been informed of al l the necessary documents i n the case, he m a y judge for himself .

controversy.

15 HOW THE JEWS C H A N G E D C A T H O L I C

T H I N K I N G

T H E article i n the Osservatore della Domenica takes me to task for h a v i n g brought ca lumnious and total ly unjust i f ied accusations against C a r d i n a l Bea.

But a bomb exploded on 25th January 1966, for o n that date an A m e r i c a n review publ ished documents of the highest interest o n the role of C a r d i n a l Bea and the w o r l d Jewish organisations i n V a t i c a n C o u n c i l II .

In their issue of that date the magazine Look, w h i c h numbers 7,500,000 readers, publ ished a leading article entit led " H o w the Jews changed C a t h o l i c T h i n k i n g " - - w r i t t e n by their senior editor, Joseph R o d d y - - w h i c h gave m a n y details of the secret negotiations held i n N e w Y o r k and Rome by C a r d i n a l Bea w i t h the leaders of the great w o r l d Jewish organisations, such as the B ' n a i B ' r i t h , the A m e r i c a n Jewish Commit tee , and others.

T h e author begins the article by recal l ing the responsibi l i ty of the Cathol ic C h u r c h , for, as he says, her doctr inal teaching is the p r i n cipal cause of anti-Semitism i n the modern w o r l d , and i t is w o r t h n o t i n g that on this point he f a i t h f u l l y fo l lows Jules Isaac's thesis.

Space prevents us f r o m reproducing more than the f o l l o w i n g i m portant passages, w h i c h we have selected f r o m the a r t i c l e :

" T h e best hope that the C h u r c h of R o m e w i l l not again seem an accomplice to genocide is the f o u r t h chapter of its Declaration on the Relat ion of the Church to Non-Christian Rel igious, w h i c h Pope P a u l V I declared C h u r c h l a w near the end of V a t i c a n C o u n c i l II. A t no place i n his address f r o m the C h a i r of Peter did the Pope talk of Jules Isaac. But perhaps the A r c h b i s h o p of A i x , Charles de Provenchères, had made Isaac's role perfectly clear some few years earlier. 'It is a sign of the times', the A r c h b i s h o p said, ' that a l a y m a n , and a Jewish l a y m a n at that, has become the originator of a C o u n c i l decree.' "

167


R o d d y then mentions the work of Jules Isaac and the book w h i c h he published on the question of the relations between Jews and Chr is t ians . T o return to the a r t i c l e :

"Isaac's book was noticed. I n 1949, Pope Pius X I I received its author brief ly . But eleven years w e n t by before Isaac saw real hope. In Rome, i n mid-June 1960, the French Embassy pressed Isaac on to the H o l y See. Isaac wanted to see John X X I I I . Isaac went to A u g u s t i n Bea, the one G e r m a n Jesuit i n the College of Cardinals . 'In h i m I f o u n d p o w e r f u l support ' , Isaac said. T h e next day the support was even stronger. John X X I I I . . . reached for Jules Isaac's h a n d , then sat beside h i m . 'I asked if I might take a w a y some sparks of hope' , Isaac recalled. John said he had a r ight to more than hope. A f t e r Isaac left , John made i t clear to the administrators i n the V a t i c a n ' s C u r i a that a firm condemnat ion of C a t h o l i c anti-Semitism was to come f r o m the C o u n c i l he had called. T o John, the G e r m a n C a r d i n a l seemed the r ight legislative w h i p for the job.

" B y then, there was a fa ir a m o u n t of talk passing between the V a t i c a n C o u n c i l offices and Jewish groups, and both the A m e r i c a n Jewish Commit tee and the A n t i - D e f a m a t i o n League of B ' n a i B ' r i t h were heard l o u d and clear i n Rome. Rabbi A b r a h a m J. Heschel of N e w Y o r k ' s Jewish Theological Seminary , w h o first k n e w of Bea i n B e r l i n t h i r t y years ago, met w i t h the C a r d i n a l i n Rome. Bea had already read the A m e r i c a n Jewish Committee 's The Image of the Jews in Catholic Teaching. It was fo l lowed by another A . J . C . paper, the twenty-three page s tudy, A n t i - J e w i s h Elements i n Catho l i c Liturgy. Speaking for the A . J . C . Heschel said he hoped the V a t i c a n C o u n c i l w o u l d purge C a t h o l i c teaching of a l l suggestions that the Jews were a cursed race. A n d i n doing that, Heschel felt, the C o u n c i l should i n no w a y exhort Jews to become Chr is t ians . A b o u t the same time, Israel's D r . N a h u m G o l d m a n n , head of the W o r l d Conference of Jewish Organisat ions, whose members ranged i n creed f r o m the most orthodox to l ibera l , pressed its aspirations on the Pope. B 'na i B ' r i t h wanted the Cathol ics to delete al l language f rom the C h u r c h services that could even seem anti-Semitic. N o t then, nor i n any time to come, w o u l d that be a simple t h i n g to do.

" T h e C a t h o l i c l i t u r g y , where it was d r a w n f rom wr i t ings of the early C h u r c h Fathers, could easily be edited. But not the Gospels. Even if M a t t h e w , M a r k , L u k e and John were better at evangelism than his tory , their w r i t i n g s were d i v i n e l y inspired, according to Catho l i c dogma, and about as easy to alter as the centre of the s u n . T h a t d i f f i cul ty p u t both Cathol ics w i t h the very

HOW T H E J E W S C H A N G E D C A T H O L I C T H I N K I N G 1 6 9

best intentions and Jews w i t h the deepest understanding of C a t h ol ic ism i n a theological f ix . It also brought out the conservative opposit ion i n the C h u r c h and, to some extent, A r a b anxieties i n the M i d d l e East. T h e conservative charge against the Jews was that they were deicides, g u i l t y of k i l l i n g G o d i n the human-div ine person of C h r i s t . . . . C l e a r l y , then, Catho l i c Scripture w o u l d be at issue i f the C o u n c i l spoke about deicides and Jews. W i s e and long-mitred heads around the C u r i a warned that the bishops i n C o u n c i l should not touch this issue w i t h ten-foot staffs. But st i l l there was John X X I I I , w h o said they must .

" I f the i n v i o l a b i l i t y of H o l y W r i t was most of the problem in Rome, the rest was the Arab-Israel i w a r . . . . I n Rome the w o r d f r o m the M i d d l e East and the conservatives was that a Jewish declaration w o u l d be inopportune . From the W e s t , where 225,500 more Jews l ive i n N e w Y o r k than i n Israel, the w o r d was that dropping the declaration w o u l d be a ca lamity . . . .

" S t i l l , for the bishops, there was quite a bit of supplementary reading o n Jews. Some agency close enough to the V a t i c a n to have the addresses i n R o m e of the Counc i l ' s 2,200 v i s i t i n g Cardinals and Bishops, suppl ied each w i t h a 900 page book, Il Complot to contro la Chiesa (The Plot Against the Church). I n i t , among reams of s c u r r i l i t y , was a k i n d of fe tching shred of t r u t h . Its c la im that the C h u r c h was being infi l trated by Jews w o u l d in t r igue anti-Semites. For, i n fact, ordained Jews around Rome w o r k i n g on the Jewish declaration included Father B a u m , as w e l l as M g r . John Oesterreicher, on Bea's staff at the Secretariat. Bea, himself , according to the C a i r o da i ly , A l Gomhuria, was a Jew named Behar.

" N e i t h e r B a u m nor Oesterreicher was w i t h Bea i n the late afternoon o n 31st M a r c h 1963, w h e n a l imousine was w a i t i n g for h i m outside the H o t e l P laza i n N e w Y o r k . T h e ride ended about six blocks away , outside the offices of the A m e r i c a n Jewish C o m mittee. There a latter-day Sanhedrin was w a i t i n g to greet the head of the Secretariat for C h r i s t i a n U n i t y . T h e gathering was kept secret f r o m the Press. Bea wanted neither the H o l y See nor the A r a b League to k n o w he was there to take questions the Jews wanted to hear answered. 'I am not authorised to speak off ic ial ly , ' he told them. 'I can, therefore, speak o n l y of what , i n m y o p i n i o n , could be effected, indeed, should be effected, by the C o u n c i l . ' T h e n he spelled out the problem. ' In r o u n d terms,' he said, 'the Jews are accused of being g u i l t y of deicide, and on them is supposed to lie a curse.' H e countered both charges. Because even i n the accounts of the Evangelists , o n l y the leaders of the Jews then i n Jerusalem and a very small group of followers shouted


for the death sentence o n Jesus, a l l those absent and the generations of Jews u n b o r n were not implicated i n deicide i n a n y w a y , Bea said. A s to the curse, i t could not condemn the crucifiers anyw a y , the C a r d i n a l reasoned, because Chr is t ' s d y i n g words were a prayer for their pardon.

' T h e rabbis i n the room wanted to k n o w then if the declaration w o u l d specify deicide, the curse and the rejection of the Jewish people by G o d as errors i n C h r i s t i a n teaching. Impl ic i t i n their question was the most touchy problem of the N e w Testament.

"Bea's answer was obl ique. ' A c t u a l l y , ' he went o n , ' i t is w r o n g to seek the chief cause of anti -Semitism i n pure ly religious sources --in the Gospel accounts, for example. These religious causes, i n so far as they are adduced (often they are not), are often merely an excuse and a vei l to cover over other more operative reasons for e n m i t y ' . . . .

" N o t long after that, the Rol f H o c h h u t h p lay The Deputy opened to depict Pius X I I as the V i c a r of C h r i s t w h o f e l l silent w h i l e H i t l e r went to the F i n a l So lu t ion . M o n t i n i , the A r c h b i s h o p of M i l a n , wrote a n attack o n the p l a y i n the Tablet of L o n d o n , and a defence of the Pope, whose secretary he had been. A f e w months later, Pope John X X I I I was dead, and M o n t i n i became Pope P a u l V I .

" A t the second session of the C o u n c i l , i n a u t u m n 1963, the Jewish declaration came to the bishops as chapter f o u r of the larger declaration O n Ecumenism . . . but the session ended w i t h o u t the vote on the Jews or religious l iber ty , and o n a dist inc t ly sour note, despite the Pope's announced visit to the H o l y L a n d . 'Something had happened behind the scenes', the voice of the N a t i o n a l Catho l i c W e l f a r e Conference wrote . '(It is) one of the mysteries of the second session.'

" T w o very concerned Jewish gentlemen w h o had to reflect h a r d on such mysteries were 59-year-old Joseph L ichten of B ' n a i B ' r i th ' s A n t i - D e f a m a t i o n League i n N e w Y o r k , and Z a c h a r i a h Shuster, 63, of the A m e r i c a n Jewish Commit tee . T h e strongest possible Jewish declaration was their common cause."

T h e article i n Look then gives a detailed report of the frant ic efforts made i n Rome b y the representatives of the great Jewish organisations, and we learn that apparently the N e w Y o r k Times, whose owners and directors are Jewish, was the best informed paper on the progress of the negotiations. " T o find out h o w the C o u n c i l was going , m a n y U . S . bishops in Rome depended on what they read i n the N e w Y o r k Times. A n d so did the A . J . C . and the B 'nai B ' r i t h . T h a t paper was the place to make points . "

HOW T H E J E W S C H A N G E D C A T H O L I C T H I N K I N G 171

T h e n , " M g r . George H i g g i n s , of the N a t i o n a l Catho l i c Wel fare Conference i n W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , helped arrange a papal audience for U . N . Ambassador , A r t h u r J. Goldberg , w h o was a Supreme C o u r t Justice at the t ime. R a b b i Heschel briefed Goldberg before the Justice and the Pope discussed the declaration . . . and C a r d i n a l C u s h i n g arranged an audience w i t h the Pope for Heschel . W i t h the A . J . C ' s Shuster beside h i m , Heschel talked hard about deicide and g u i l t , and asked the Pontiff to press for a declaration i n w h i c h Cathol ics w o u l d be forbidden to proselytise Jews. P a u l , somewhat affronted, w o u l d i n no w a y agree . . . and the audience did not end as cordia l ly as it began. . . .

" T h e Rabbi 's audience w i t h Paul i n the V a t i c a n , l ike Bea's meeting w i t h the A . J . C . i n N e w Y o r k , was granted o n the cond i t i o n that i t w o u l d be kept secret. It was undercover summit conferences of that sort that led conservatives to c l a i m that A m e r i can Jews were the new powers behind the C h u r c h .

" B u t on the floor of the C o u n c i l , things looked even worse to the conservatives. There, it seemed to them as if Catho l i c bishops were w o r k i n g for the Jews. A t issue was the weakened text. . . . The A r a b bishops argued that a declaration f a v o u r i n g Jews w o u l d expose Cathol ics to persecution as long as A r a b s fought Israelis. T h e i r allies i n this h o l y w a r were conservative Italians, Spaniards and South A m e r i c a n s . T h e y saw the structure of the f a i t h being shaken b y theological liberals w h o thought C h u r c h teaching could change.

" W h e n the declaration reappeared at the t h i r d session's end, it was i n a w h o l l y n e w document called The Declaration of the Relat ion of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. I n that sett i n g , the bishops approved it w i t h a 1,770 to 185 vote. There was considerable joy among Jews i n the U n i t e d States because their declaration had finally come out .

" I n fact it had not . " T h e r e were troubles to face. In Segni, near Rome, Bishop L u i g i

C a r l i wrote i n the February 1965 issue of his diocesan magazine that the Jews of Chris t ' s t ime and their descendants d o w n to the present were collectively g u i l t y of Chr i s t ' s death. A f e w weeks later, on Passion Sunday, at an outdoor Mass i n Rome, Pope Paul talked of the C r u c i f i x i o n and the Jews' heavy part i n it . Rome's chief rabbi , E l io Toaff , said i n saddened reply that i n 'even the most qualif ied C a t h o l i c personalities, the imminence of Easter causes prejudices to re-emerge*.

" O n 25th A p r i l 1965, the N e w Y o r k Times correspondent i n Rome. Robert C . D o t y . . . said the Jewish declaration was in


trouble . . . and that the Pope had turned it over to four consultants to clear it of its contradictions to Scr ip ture and make it less objectionable to A r a b s . It was about as refuted as a Times story ever gets. W h e n C a r d i n a l Bea arrived i n N e w Y o r k three days later, he had his priest-secretary deny D o t y ' s story b y sayi n g that his Secretariat for C h r i s t i a n U n i t y s t i l l had f u l l control of the Jewish declaration. T h e n came an apologia for Paul 's serm o n . 'Keep i n m i n d that the Pope was speaking to ordinary and simple f a i t h f u l p e o p l e - - n o t before a learned body' , the priest said. A s to the anti-Semitic Bishop of Segni, the Cardinal ' s m a n said that Car l i ' s views were definitely not those of the Secretariat. Mor i ss B . A b r a m of the A . J . C . was at the airport to greet Bea and f o u n d his secretary's views on that reassuring.

" I n Rome a few days later, some fract ion of the Secretariat met to vote o n the bishop's suggested modi. O n 15th M a y , the Secretariat closed its meeting, and the bishops went their separate ways . . . a l l w i t h l ips sealed.

" I n fact, the s tudy was finished, the damage was done, and there existed w h a t m a n y regard as a substant ial ly n e w declaration on the Jews.

" A t V a t i c a n II's f o u r t h and last session, there was no help i n sight. A n d things were happening very fast. T h e text came out weakened, as the Times said i t w o u l d . T h e n the Pope took off for the U . N . , where his jamais plus la guerre speech was a t r i u m p h . A f t e r that, he greeted the president of the A . J . C . i n an East Side C h u r c h . T h a t looked good for the cause. . . . B u t the opposi t ion , not content w i t h a weakened declaration, wanted the total v ic tory of no declaration at a l l . For that, the A r a b ' s last words were 'respectfully submitted ' i n a twenty-eight-page m e m o r a n d u m c a l l i n g on the bishops to save the f a i t h f r o m ' C o m m u n i s m and atheism and the Jewish-Communist al l iance' .

" I n Rome, the bishops' vote was set for 14th October and to Lichten and Shuster, the prospects of a n y t h i n g better looked almost hopeless. There were telephone calls to be made to the A . J . C . and the B ' n a i B ' r i t h i n N e w Y o r k , but these were not m u c h help at either end. . . . L i c h t e n sent telegrams to about twenty-f ive bishops he thought could s t i l l he lp retrieve the strong text, but H i g g i n s q u i e t l y told h i m to give u p . A b b e Rene L a u r e n t i n , a C o u n c i l staff m a n (and correspondent of Le Figaro) wrote to a l l the bishops w i t h a last-minute appeal to conscience.

" F i n a l l y , the vote took place, and exactly 250 bishops voted against the declaration, w h i l e 1,763 supported i t . T h r o u g h m u c h of the U . S . and Europe, the Press minutes later made the complex s imple w i t h headlines reading V A T I C A N P A R D O N S J E W S , J E W S

HOW T H E J E W S C H A N G E D C A T H O L I C T H I N K I N G 173

N O T G U I L T Y or J E W S E X O N E R A T E D I N R O M E . G l o w i n g statements came f r o m spokesmen of the A . J . C . a n d B ' n a i B ' r i t h , but each had a note of disappointment that the strong declaration had been di luted. Bea's f r i end Heschel was the harshest and called the Counc i l ' s fa i lure to deal w i t h deicide 'an act of p a y i n g homage to Satan' .

" A v i e w popular i n the U . S . was that some k i n d of forgiveness had been granted the Jews. T h e not ion was both started and sustained b y the Press, but there was n o basis for i t i n the declarat ion . . . . A n d one of the hypotheses that B ' n a i B ' r i t h and the A . J . C . must ponder is that m u c h A r a b resistance and some theological intransigence were creatures of Jewish l o b b y i n g . . . . There are Cathol ics close to w h a t went on i n Rome w h o t h i n k that Jewish energy d id h a r m . . . . There were m a n y bishops at the C o u n c i l w h o felt Jewish pressure i n Rome and resented i t . T h e y thought Bea's enemies were proved r ight w h e n the C o u n c i l secrets turned u p i n A m e r i c a n papers. ' H e wants to t u r n the C h u r c h over to the Jews,' the hatemongers said of the old cardinal , and some dogmatics i n the C o u n c i l thought the charge about r ight .

"Father Fel ix M o r l i o n at the Pro D e o U n i v e r s i t y , w h o heads the study group w o r k i n g closely w i t h the A . J . C . thought the p r o m u l gated text the best. . . . M o r l i o n k n e w just w h a t the Jews d id to get the declaration and w h y the Cathol ics had settled for its compromise. ' W e could have beaten the dogmatics', he insisted. They could indeed, but the cost w o u l d have been a split in the Church."

(Look, 25th January 1966, p p . 19-23)

T h i s article is of the utmost interest for it gives us numerous details of C a r d i n a l Bea's secret negotiations w i t h the leaders of the great A m e r i c a n Jewish organisations, and i n part icular w i t h the B ' n a i B ' r i t h .

The author of the article is obviously in close contact w i t h these leaders and it must almost certa inly have been they w h o supplied h i m w i t h his documentat ion. C a r d i n a l Bea has al l his s y m p a t h y and is depicted as m a k i n g incessant efforts for the t r i u m p h of the Jewish cause at Rome.

Far f r o m being the product of "ant i -Semi t i c " opponents, it is wr i t ten and produced by parties eminent ly favourable to the Jewish cause, and thus cannot be dismissed as a w o r k motivated b y hatred or bad fa i th .

It was read by 7,500.000 people at least, and yet , as far as 1 k n o w , the publ icat ion of this extraordinary document produced no reaction at Rome or anywhere else. In the w h o l e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h no one has risen to express astonishment or ask for an explanat ion.


In these circumstances we w o u l d be glad to read at least a reasoned reply f r o m the V a t i c a n , f a i l i n g w h i c h we are obliged to conclude that C a r d i n a l Bea came to a secret understanding w i t h the leaders of the great A m e r i c a n Jewish organisations, and i n part icular w i t h the B ' n a i B ' r i t h , to work for the t r i u m p h of the Jewish cause, despite the opposit ion of the conservatives i n the C u r i a and elsewhere.

H o w e v e r that m a y be, the spectacle of a cardinal i n one of the highest posts of the C a t h o l i c H i e r a r c h y offer ing excuses to A m e r i c a n Jews because the Pope had read f r o m and commented on the Gospel account of the Passion i n H o l y W e e k , is something w h i c h had never yet been seen i n the whole two thousand years of the his tory of C h r i s t i a n i t y .

T h i s c l a i m of the Jews to have the Gospels censored has spread since the new attitude adopted b y the C o u n c i l . O n 1st January 1966, la Terre Retrouvée, a Z ion is t publ i ca t ion f r o m Paris, published an article about a six vo lume Sacred H i s t o r y b y Hachette . T h e fo l lowi n g is a typ ica l passage f r o m the article i n q u e s t i o n :

" W h a t we take exception to i n these very beaut i ful colour printed volumes, is their c o n f o r m i t y . . . .

" T h e i r pictures are a servile and pious amplif icat ion of the text. A n d the text, as far as the O l d Testament is concerned, is resumed in conformity w i t h the official doctrine of the C h u r c h on the role of C h r i s t , as is s h o w n , for example, by the title of the f o u r t h vo lume i n the ser ies - -From D a v i d to the Mess iah . It is taken for granted that the M e s s i a h has come, that D a v i d ' s l ine leads to h i m , and that the Mess iah is Jesus. Doubtless one can argue this problem of the Messiah w i t h Israel i n theology, or i n al l sorts of other fields. But boys and girls should not be served w i t h a t ruth w h i c h is only a Gospel truth and w h i c h the whole teaching of Israel denies.

" O f course, we do not c l a i m that o n l y ecumenical Sacred H i s t o r y m a y be taught. T h a t w o u l d be impossible. N o r do we c la im that C h r i s t i a n teaching should censor itself, e x c e p t - - a n d we believe that i n this matter, since the C o u n c i l , i t has a positive obl igat ion --when it is a question of replacing the doctrine of contempt of the Jews w i t h the doctrine of esteem . . . the idea of one sewing hatred i n the souls of the boys and girls for w h o m these books were w r i t t e n is a f r i g h t f u l th ing to contemplate . "

(Paul G i n i e w s k i : La Terre Retrouvée)

T h u s , according to la Terre Retrouvée. spreading the knowledge of the Gospels is to propagate throughout the w o r l d a f r i g h t f u l seed of h a t r e d !

A P P E N D I X I

APPEAL TO HEADS OF S T A T E

W E give below the text of an appeal personal ly addressed by the author almost exact ly one year before the Second W o r l d W a r broke out to the heads of State a l l over the w o r l d , suggesting the creation of an internat ional commission as the first step to be taken towards a peaceful solut ion of the Jewish p r o b l e m :

The experience of forty centuries of history bears witness over a longer period than any other known example to the fact that there is such a thing as the Jewish problem.

For for ty centuries the essential features of the problem have scarcely changed, whether i n the po l i t i ca l , religious or economic fields.

A t first sight, i t w o u l d appear that i t is insoluble and that a l l that one can do is to let events take their course, accepting crisis after crisis, persecution after persecution and a permanent element of disorder as an inherent part of the v e r y const i tut ion of the w h i t e races. I n this case there w o u l d be n o problem to solve. It w o u l d s imply be a quest ion of recording Jews and non-Jews p u r s u i n g w i t h a l l their power and w i t h the aid of as m a n y allies as possible the enslavement and destruction of their adversary.

Today events seem to be m o v i n g towards this dangerous state of affairs.

T h e stakes are as h i g h as the danger is immense. Conquered , the W e s t w o u l d lose its historic personali ty and be obliged to renounce its miss ion.

Conquered, the Jews w o u l d emerge f r o m the struggle crushed as they had never been before. But what a price the W e s t w o u l d have to pay for its v ic tory .

W e w r i t e this w i t h the f u l l courage of our convic t ions - -as we always h a v e - - b u t we do not th ink that a catastrophe is inevitable, nor that the problem can o n l y be solved b y an A p o c a l y p t i c conflagrat ion i n w h i c h atrocious violence and persecution is unleashed. If the problem w i t h w h i c h we are concerned has t i l l n o w appeared insoluble, it seems to us that this is largely due to the fact that it has never been studied i n a spirit of rigorous and scientific im-

175


part ia l i ty . A n d doubtless this is because, bl inded by passion, neither side have really wanted to study i t , because, for various reasons, neither side have really wanted to solve it .

V io lence , curses and complaints are none of them val id arguments br inging a solut ion to the problem.

W e must approach the problem as scholars us ing scholarly arguments i n order to attempt to elucidate a diff icult question to some purpose.

W e consider that Jews and non-Jews, anti-Semites and philo-Semites i n good fa i th al ike, w h o are convinced that they have somet h i n g essential to defend and m a i n t a i n , both have something essential to gain f r o m an attentive and comprehensive s tudy of the question that divides them.

W i t h o u t being under a n y i l lus ion as to the magni tude and difficu l ty of the task before us, but i n an endeavour to achieve at least some useful results, we have taken the in i t ia t ive i n suggesting the foundat ion of an I N T E R N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E T O S T U D Y T H E J E W I S H

Q U E S T I O N .

The Institute w o u l d be strongly organised and established i n some neutral and symbol ica l t o w n such as Geneva or the H a g u e . C o m petent and representative personalities, Jewish and non-Jewish, hostile and favourable to Judaism, but a l l of indisputably h i g h moral and intel lectual s tanding, w o u l d collaborate i n i t .

A certain number of precise and well-defined questions, d r a w n u p by the Institute's C o u n c i l of D i r e c t i o n , composed of Jews and non-Jews, w o u l d be set before the Institute's two departments for the cr i t ic ism and defence of Judaism and its influence, w h o w o u l d share them out among the competent sections. The results obtained on either side w o u l d be brought together and discussed i n interdepartmental sessions. T h e conclusions adopted i n common agreement w o u l d be communicated to the governments of the W e s t e r n nations and brought to the knowledge of publ i c o p i n i o n i n a l l countries. In case of disagreement, a str ic t ly objective summary of the arguments produced by both sides w o u l d be published i n order to pave the w a y for future studies.

The very fact that common agreement could be reached on studyi n g the Jewish problem, w h i c h is so delicate and so complex, i n a spir i t of rigorous scientific i m p a r t i a l i t y , w o u l d constitute a great step forward i n itself l ike ly to d i m i n i s h passions w h i c h today have become so dangerously exasperated.

W e have no doubt that a l l the States, all the Governments and all the great Jewish organisations of the w h o l e w o r l d , whatever att i tude they m a y adopt w i t h regard to the Jewish quest ion, w i l l give our idea consideration and support its immediate realisation.

A P P E N D I X I A P P E A L T O H E A D S O F S T A T E 177

W e appeal Co a l l people of good w i l l to seek out the t r u t h , remembering Dostoievsky's words that "whoever sincerely seeks the t r u t h is already, by that fact, armed w i t h a terrible force" and that f ina l ly , if men "enter into the path of t r u t h , they w i l l find i t " .

It is i n this firm convic t ion that we l a u n c h our appeal w i t h indestructible confidence.

Something must be done! A p a r t f r o m h i g h A u t h o r i t i e s to w h o m it is destined, the present

A p p e a l w i l l be sent to a great number of personalities i n al l countries of every shade of o p i n i o n . W e w o u l d be obliged if those w h o are interested w o u l d w r i t e and offer us their reflexions, suggestions and cr i t i c i sm. A n d we w i l l be especially grateful to those w h o make a material contr ibut ion towards a special f u n d w h i c h w i l l be set up to help us diffuse our idea and achieve our object.

L E O N D E P O N C I N S

G E O R G E B A T A U L T

The W o r l d W a r , w h i c h broke out short ly afterwards, put an end to our endeavours.

A P P E N D I X II

S I X M I L L I O N I N N O C E N T V I C T I M S

S i x m i l l i o n dead, such is the fear ful figure w i t h w h i c h the organisations of Jewry ceaselessly confront the w o r l d ; it is the unanswered argument of w h i c h they availed themselves at the C o u n c i l i n order to obtain a revision of the C a t h o l i c L i t u r g y .

T h i s figure of s ix m i l l i o n , to w h i c h the Jewish organisations testified, was neither verified nor checked in a n y w a y whatsoever, and it served as the foundat ion for the prosecution at the time of the N u r e m b e r g T r i a l , and was wide ly disseminated b y the Press of the w h o l e w o r l d .

T o d a y m a n y facts and documents have come to l i g h t w h i c h were not k n o w n at that t ime and it is n o longer possible to give credence to this figure.

A French Socialist of the left, w h o was himself deported to Buch-e n w a l d , M r . P a u l Rassinier, has made a prolonged and extremely detailed s tudy of this question, w h i c h he published in four large volumes, summarised i n this chapter.

Rassinier reached the conclusion that the number of Jews w h o died after deportation is approximate ly 1,200,000, and this figure, he tells us, has finally been accepted as va l id b y the Centre M o n d i a l de D o c u m e n t a t i o n Juive Contemporaine . L ikewise he notes that Paul H i l b e r g , i n his s tudy of the same problem, reached a total of 896,292 v ic t ims .

So m a n y exaggerations and impostures have completely distorted the facts that we deem i t o n l y fair to make k n o w n to the reader, w h o is concerned for his tor ical t r u t h , w h a t were the real ingredients of a n incontes t ib ly tragic drama, but one w h i c h , reduced to its proper proportions must be seen in the entire context of the Second W o r l d W a r , w h i c h indeed numbered m a n y mi l l ions of innocent vict ims on a l l sides.

T h e notes w h i c h f o l l o w are taken f rom the two most recent works of Rass in ier : Le Véritable Procès Eichmann on les Vainqueurs In-corrigibles and Le Drame des Juifs européens. T h e author must bear the responsibi l i ty for what he has w r i t t e n . For our part it w o u l d seem that these books represent a testimony of great value, for they

178

A P P E N D I X I I S I X M I L L I O N I N N O C E N T V I C T I M S 179

br ing to l ight important facts and documents w h i c h lay open to question everyth ing that has been w r i t t e n on this aspect of the war .

T h e f o l l o w i n g is a resume of Rassinier's thesis :

It was d u r i n g the course of the tr ial of major G e r m a n war cr iminals at N u r e m b e r g , 1945-46, that the number of Jews alleged to have been the vict ims of German concentrat ion camps and gas chambers was first put f o r w a r d .

In his speech of indictment on 21st N o v e m b e r 1945, M r . Justice Jackson declared that of 9,500,000 Jews w h o had been l i v i n g i n Germany-occupied Europe, 4,500,000 had disappeared.

T h i s figure was not retained by the court , but was nevertheless soon transformed by the Press to ten mi l l ions , and then reduced to an average of six m i l l i o n , where it scored a resounding success, and was definitely accepted b y the w h o l e w o r l d .

It h a d been approximate ly established by specialists i n Jewish demography b y two methods :

Ei ther , as was done b y the W o r l d Jewish Congress, by compari n g the data of, respectively, the pre-war and post-war figures of the Jewish populat ion of the various European occupied countries, result ing i n a loss of six m i l l i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y these statistics do not take in to account important emmigrat ion movements by the Jewish popula t ion of Europe between 1933-45, par t icular ly towards Palestine and the U n i t e d States, w h i c h meant that they were established o n completely false foundations;

O r by means of the oral or w r i t t e n declarations of "witnesses" w h i c h for the most part have proved, after serious invest igat ion, to be f u l l of contradict ions, exaggerations and falsehoods, and w h i c h cannot therefore any longer be taken into consideration.

Indeed, some of these "witnesses" , such as Pastor M a r t i n Niemöller, w h o had been a fervent adherent of N a t i o n a l Social ism, have felt a need to clear themselves and outbid everyone else, so as to appear more sincere.

"Pastor Niemöller claimed in a lecture w h i c h he delivered on the 3rd Ju ly 1946, and w h i c h was published under the tit le of D e r W e g ins Freie by Franz M . H e l b a c h at Stuttgart that '238,756 persons were incinerated at D a c h a u ' . "

H o w e v e r . " O n 16th M a r c h 1962, M g r . Neuhäussler, the auxi l iary Bishop of M u n i c h , made a speech at D a c h a u itself before the representatives of fifteen nations w h o had come there to celebrate the l iberat ion of the camp, w h i c h was reported next day i n Le Figaro in these words:

" T h i s afternoon, in intense cold and despite the aggravation of snow, the pi lgrims have gathered together i n the camp at Dachau


where 30,000 men were exterminated of the 200,000 persons f r o m thirty-eight nations w h o were interned there f r o m 1939-45.' "

(Paul Rass in ier : Le Drame des Juifs européens, p . 12)

T h e test imony of men such as R u d o l p h Hess, the SS officers Hoelbr ige l , H o e t t l , Wisce l i ceny , and others . . . w h o were amongst the accused at N u r e m b e r g , and w h o were faced w i t h the prospect either of being condemned to death or w i t h the hope of obta ining a reprieve, is h i g h l y suspect. H a v i n g been frequent ly subjected to i l l -treatment or threats d u r i n g their detention, they seem to have said or w r i t t e n w h a t was desired of them.

Others , w h o had survived the G e r m a n concentrat ion camps, perhaps felt g u i l t y for reprehensible acts w h i c h they had committed and for w h i c h they m i g h t n o w be required to answer before a court; such was the case of the C z e c h C o m m u n i s t doctor, B laha , w h o h a d belonged to the self-direction committee of the camp at D a c h a u , or Professor Ba lachowsky of the Inst i tut Pasteur of Paris, w h o was deported to B u c h e n w a l d , and w h o had a predilect ion for dabbl ing i n cr ime. Those most direct ly affected f e l l back, to exculpate themselves, on the necessity of obeying orders under p a i n of disappearing. It is not surpr is ing that under these condit ions there should be something a l i t t le " f o r c e d " about their declarations. O t h e r survivors o n l y witnessed w h a t happened at second-hand, such as D r . K a u t s k y ; they based their declarations not u p o n w h a t they themselves " s a w " but u p o n w h a t they " h e a r d " , a lways f r o m " re l iab le " sources, w h o b y some chance are almost always dead and thus not i n a posit ion to conf i rm or inval idate their statements.

Scant test imony indeed u p o n w h i c h to establish w i t h absolute certainty the number of vict ims i n the camps. A n d yet this figure of six m i l l i o n dead has been g iven wor ld-wide p u b l i c i t y and accepted as an article of f a i th w i t h o u t being checked or verified i n a n y w a y whatsoever. It owes its success to the abundant g r o w t h of concentration-camp literature, w h i c h is cosmopolitan and m a i n l y Jewish, f u l l of both imposture and falsehood.

W e give below a list of some of the most typical titles of works of this k i n d , headed b y A x i s Rule i n Occupied Europe, by Professor Rafael L e m k i n , a Polish Jew, w h o fled to England and was the first to accuse N a t i o n a l Socialist G e r m a n y of the crime of genocide.

N u m e r o u s writers subsequently took u p this thesis :

Chaines et Lumières by A b b é Jean-Paul Renard. The Destruct ion of the European Jews b y P a u l H i l b e r g . Le Bréviaire de la Maine b y Léon Pol iakov. Le 3ème Reich et les Juifs by L . Pol iakov and W u l f . D o c u m e n t a t i o n sur les gaz by H . K r a u s n i k .


Mémoires de Rudolf Hess, publ ished i n part under the title of Le Commandant d'Auschwitz parle. . . .

Le Vicaire by R u d o l f H o c h h u t h .

But the p a l m , Rassinier tells us, is undoubtedly awarded to the unbelievable w o r k of the Jewish H u n g a r i a n D o c t o r , M i k l o s N y i z l i : Médecin à A u s c h w i t z .

B y its falsif ication of facts, the evident contradictions and shameless lies, this book seems to show that D r . N y i z l i is speaking of places w h i c h i t is transparent he has never vis i ted, not to ment ion that it is a document of extremely doubt fu l authent ic i ty , as Rassinier has s h o w n . (Le Drame des Juifs européens, p . 52).

If one is to believe the dist inguished " D o c t o r of A u s c h w i t z " , 25,000 v ic t ims were exterminated each day for f o u r and a ha l f years. Th is amounts to 1,642 days w h i c h , at 25,000 a day, produces a total of forty-one m i l l i o n vic t ims, i n other words, two and a ha l f times the total pre-war Jewish populat ion of the w o r l d .

W h e n Rassinier attempted to discover the ident i ty of this strange " w i t n e s s " , he was told that " h e had died some time before the publ icat ion of the book" .

Today , w h e n numerous documents s t i l l u n k n o w n at the time of the N u r e m b e r g T r i a l have been e x h u m e d and made p u b l i c , i t w o u l d seem to be diff icult to cont inue to main ta in the figure of six m i l l i o n Jewish v ic t ims , as do both Jules Isaac, i n his two books Jésus et Israel and Genèse de l 'Ant isémit isme and V l a d i m i r Jankélévitch, Professor of the School of A r t s and H u m a n e Sciences, at Paris, i n the article in Le M o n d e f r o m w h i c h we have quoted an extract above, and it is becoming increasingly recognised that this figure has been considerably exaggerated, and that it does not i n any w a y correspond to rea l i ty . 1

D u r i n g the tr ial of E i c h m a n n at Jerusalem the figure of six m i l l i o n was not mentioned i n c o u r t :

" T h e prosecution at the Jerusalem tr ia l was considerably weake n e d by its central moti f , the s i x m i l l i o n European Jews 2 exterminated i n the great mass of t h e gas-chambers.

" I t was an argument that easily w o n convic t ion the day after the w a r ended, amidst the general state of spir i tual and material chaos. T o d a y m a n y documents have been publ ished w h i c h were

1 H o w e v e r , the w o r l d Press c o n t i n u e s to p u b l i s h these figures. T h e w e e k l y P a r i s - M a t c h , i n its special issue of 20th M a r c h 1965, o n the capture of B e r l i n , w r o t e that " i n the death camps fifteen m i l l i o n deportees were assassinated" .

2 T h i s figure was o n l y m e n t i o n e d by the Press a n d b y witnesses; the charge d r a w n u p b y M r . G i d e o n H a u s s n e r s i m p l y said " s o m e " m i l l i o n s .

lS2 J U D A I S M A N D T H E V A T I C A N

not available at the time of the N u r e m b e r g trials, and w h i c h tend to prove that if the Jewish nationals were odiously wronged and persecuted by the H i t l e r regime, there could not possibly have been six m i l l i o n v i c t i m s . " (P. Rassinier, i b i d . , p . 125)

Indeed, contrary to the estimates p u t f o r w a r d at N u r e m b e r g by M r . Justice Jackson and at Jerusalem d u r i n g the E i c h m a n n tr ia l by Professor Shalom Baron, the total Jewish populat ion of Europe was far f r o m being as h i g h as 9,600,000, as the former c laimed, or 9,800,000, as maintained by the latter.

Between 1933 and 1945 large numbers of Jews f r o m C e n t r a l Europe emigrated to other countries i n order to avoid first the interference and later the persecution of the Germans. Recent statistics conf i rm this . In his book Le Drame des Juifs européens, Rassinier deals w i t h this point i n the l ight of extremely precise in format ion . W e recommend the reader w h o is interested to consult the work himself .

T h i s is the gist of w h a t he says : T a k i n g in to account the constant f low of emigrat ion, M r . A r t h u r

R u p p i n , the most authori tat ive of the Jewish statisticians, estimates the populat ion at that t ime at 5,710,000; the Centre de Documenta t ion Juive of Paris and Doctor K o r h e r r put i t as respectively 5,294,000 and 5,500,000, and the latter w o u l d appear to be the closest to real i ty . T h u s , o m i t t i n g this ca lculat ion , the statistics of survivors established i n 1945 are f o u n d to be completely false and the m a r g i n of error i n relat ion to them represents about 40 per cent of the real f igure. T h e number of survivors , therefore, was not 1,651,000 as was claimed at that t ime, but something i n the order of 4,200,000 or more, w h i c h reduces the figure of the miss ing to between one and one and a half m i l l i o n , and represents a large percentage of the vic t ims.

A n o t h e r source of error i n the calculat ion of the number of vict ims stems f r o m the fact that as the Russian troops advanced, deportees were brought back f r o m Poland to the western camps of B u c h e n w a l d , D o r a , D a c h a u , and others (J. Rass in ier : Le Véritable Procès Eichmann, pp. 94-95). These men, w h o had been registered u p o n their arr iva l at A u s c h w i t z or elsewhere, were not to be found w h e n these camps were liberated, and were put d o w n as missing or exterminated in the gas-chambers if they were Jews. In real i ty they were alive and k i c k i n g in the G e r m a n camps further west, but the t i m i n g of their arr ival had rendered their subsequent registration impossible and no real record of it had been kept .

There is a further point to consider. T h e toll of mor ta l i ty i n camps reserved for Jews was undoubtedly higher than in the others. But


after m i n u t e investigation one must perforce admit that, i n general, if the responsibi l i ty for the h i g h m o r t a l i t y of the camps rested w i t h the SS men w h o were i n charge of them, i t rested even more w i t h the detainees w h o were i n charge of the adminis t ra t ion of these camps.

A c c o r d i n g to Rassinier, the number of miss ing evaluated above is corroborated today b y the statistical studies of the Centre M o n d i a l de D o c u m e n t a t i o n Juive Contemporaine , w h i c h gives a figure of 1,485,292 Jewish vic t ims. A s we have noted, P a u l H i l b e r g accounts for 896,292 v ic t ims.

B u t of one fact, he tells us, and it is the most explosive to emerge f r o m his books, there is n o w no doubt at a l l . V e r y serious investigations carried out o n the sites themselves have revealed w i t h irrefutable proof that contrary to the declarations of the above-named "witnesses" , whether it is a question of B u c h e n w a l d , D o r a , M a t h a u -sen, Bergen-Belsen or D a c h a u , not one of the camps throughout the w h o l e of G e r m a n terr i tory was fitted w i t h gas-chambers. T h i s fact has been recognised and attested b y the Inst i tute of C o n t e m p o r a r y H i s t o r y at M u n i c h , a model of hos t i l i ty to N a t i o n a l Socialist G e r m a n y .

A t D a c h a u the construct ion of a gas-chamber h a d i n fact been begun but i t was o n l y completed at the end of the w a r by SS men w h o had taken the place of the deportees.

Nevertheless D o c t o r Blaha has g iven u p copious details of the exterminations w h i c h apparently took place i n this camp, Fr . Jean-P a u l Renard wrote i n his book Chaines et Lumières that he " h a d seen thousands u p o n thousands of people" i n the gas-chambers at B u c h e n w a l d . . . w h i c h were non-existent, and numerous "witnesses" again declared at the E i c h m a n n tr ial at Jerusalem that they had seen deportees at Bergen-Belsen setting out for the gas-chambers.

A s far as the Pol i sh camps occupied b y the Germans are concerned, the sole document attesting the existence and ut i l i sa t ion of gas-chambers at C h e m n o , Belzec, M a i d a n e k , Sobidor and T r e b l i n k a comes f r o m a m a n named K u r t Gerstein. D r a w n u p i n French b y this ex-Waffen SS m a n - - w e w i l l never k n o w w h y since the m a n i n question " c o m m i t t e d suic ide" i n his cel l after composing this peculiar confess ion- - the document was considered of such doubt fu l authent ic i ty f r o m the moment it appeared that, produced at N u r e m berg on the 30th January 1946, i t was not admitted b y the C o u r t , and not inc luded i n the charge against the accused. T h i s d id not prevent the Press f rom u p h o l d i n g it as authentic , and i t continues to circulate i n three different v e r s i o n s - - t w o i n French and one i n G e r m a n - - w h i c h moreover do not agree w i t h each other. T h e latter version featured i n the E i c h m a n n tr ial at Jerusalem i n 1961. Bad fa i th , as we see, dies hard .


It is probable (bat there was a gas-chamber i n existence at Belzec. A t A u s c h w i t z , on the other h a n d , it seems to have been established that there was one i n existence and f u n c t i o n i n g ; a great deal of evidence exists, but it is so often divergent and contradictory that it is difficult to disentangle the t r u t h . If any such chambers were i n operation at A u s c h w i t z , it can o n l y have been f rom the 20th February 1943, w h e n they were completed, u n t i l the 17th N o v e m b e r 1 9 4 4 - - in other words, for seventeen to eighteen months, f rom w h i c h a certain number of months must be deducted since, according to the report of D r . Rezso Kasztner , president of the Commit tee for the Salvation of the Jews of Budapest f rom 1942 to 1945, these chambers were out of operation from the a u t u m n of 1943 to M a y 1944.

It w o u l d be difficult to form any idea of the number of vict ims w h o are said to have passed through these chambers, since no exact and credible assessments appear to have been made, and the accounts given by the various witnesses are more ak in to the realm of extravagance than real i ty . So m a n y "witnesses" have "commit ted suic ide" --or been forced to do s o - - a n d so m a n y others have died w h o perhaps never even existed, that it is impossible to lend fa i th to their statements; for w h a t strikes one more forc ibly than a n y t h i n g else u p o n at tempting to discover precise evidence and the or ig ina l documents is the w a y i n w h i c h both of these sources, whose sole factor in common is their "good f a i t h " , have "disappeared" .

Rassinier's study clearly shows that if Hi t ler ' s G e r m a n y was racialist and did not, as such , consider the Jews as nationals, that she did not, i n the beginning at least, w i s h to exterminate the Jews, but to place them outside the nat ional c o m m u n i t y - - w h i c h is precisely what the State of Israel did w h e n she drove back into Jordan 900,000 Arabs w h o had been l i v i n g i n Palestine.

" G e r m a n y under H i t l e r was a racialist State. N o w , as we k n o w , (the theory of) the racialist State postulates the expulsion of m i n or i ty races outside the frontiers of the nat ional c o m m u n i t v . T h e State of Israel is another example of this assumption.

" A c c o r d i n g to A r t i c l e 4 of the twenty-five point programme of the N a t i o n a l Socialist Party published in M u n i c h on the 24th February 1920, ' O n l y a patriot can be a c i t izen . O n l y a person w h o h a s German blood i n h i s veins, irrespective of h i s rel igion, c a n be a patriot . A lew cannot be a patriot. . . .'

" A r t i c l e 5 conc luded: 'A person w h o is n o t a c i t izen can o n l y l ive in Germany as a guest and is subject to the legislation f o r aliens. '

" W h e n N a t i o n a l Socialism came to power o n the 30th February

A P P E N D I X II S I X M I L L I O N I N N O C E N T V I C T I M S 185

1933, the G e r m a n Jews automat ica l ly became subject to the Statute of A l i e n s , w h i c h i n every country of the w o r l d excludes foreigners f r o m positions of influence i n the State or the Economy. S u c h is the jur id ica l foundat ion of the racia l laws i n H i t l e r ' s Germ a n y . . . .

' T h e o n l y difference between G e r m a n y under H i t l e r and other States, is that i n the latter one is a foreigner by v ir tue of one's na t iona l i ty , whereas under N a t i o n a l Socialism a foreigner was classified by v i r tue of his race. But i n Israel A r a b s no longer teach, or w o r k i n the Treasury , or administer a k i b b u t z , or become Minis ters of State. W h a t is happening i n Israel does not just i fy what has happened i n G e r m a n y , I agree--doubtless because one w r o n g does not r ight a n o t h e r - - b u t I am not a t tempting to jus t i fy , I a m offering a n explanat ion, and to do so I am tak ing a mechanism to pieces: if I quote Israel, i t is o n l y to show at the same t ime that the evi l of racialism i n the sense i n w h i c h N a t i o n a l Social ism understood the w o r d is m u c h greater than is generally believed, since the champions of anti-racial ism have today become its protagonists a n d , contrary to popular o p i n i o n , H i t l e r ' s G e r m a n y is not, so to speak, its only example . "

(P. Rassinier, Le Véritable Procès E i c h m a n n , p p . 100-101)

T h e p r o m u l g a t i o n of the racial laws after the Congress of N u r e m berg i n September 1935 led the G e r m a n Government into negotiations seeking to transfer the Jews to Palestine o n the basis of the Bal four D e c l a r a t i o n . W h e n this fai led, the government asked other countries to take charge of them. T h e y refused.

"S ince there was no Jewish State w i t h w h i c h to draw u p a bilateral agreement or internat ional treaty on the model of Geneva or the H a g u e , and since, despite reiterated offers f r o m the N a t i o n a l Socialist Government , not a single c o u n t r y h a d agreed either to permit them to immigrate or to take them under their w i n g , they l ived i n G e r m a n y u n t i l the declaration of w a r en joying the status of stateless foreigners, w h i c h was no guarantee to the safety of their persons, since, as such people a l l over the w o r l d are, they were at the mercy of those i n p o w e r . " (P. Rassinier, i b i d . , p . 20)

It was o n l y i n N o v e m b e r 1938, after the assassination of von R a t h , the C o u n c i l l o r of the German Embassy i n Paris, by G r y n s p a n , w h o was J e w i s h - - a cr ime w h i c h provoked violent anti-Jewish reaction i n G e r m a n y - - t h a t the leaders of the T h i r d Reich proposed the in t roduct ion of an over-all solut ion to the Jewish problem and re-launched the idea of transferring them to Palestine. The project,


w h i c h h a d d r a g g e d o n s i n c e 1933. b r o k e d o w n b e c a u s e G e r m a n y c o u l d n o t n e g o t i a t e t h e i r d e p a r t u r e o n t h e basis o f 3,000,000 m a r k s , as d e m a n d e d b y B r i t a i n , w i t h o u t s o m e a g r e e m e n t f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n . M o r e o v e r G e r m a n y w a s u n a b l e to n e g o t i a t e t h e e m i g r a t i o n of t h e J e w s o n a m a s s i v e sca le w i t h o t h e r c o u n t r i e s , s i n c e t h e y r e f u s e d to e s t a b l i s h i m p o r t - e x p o r t a g r e e m e n t s i n c o m p e n s a t i o n w h i c h w o u l d h a v e m a d e e m i g r a t i o n p o s s i b l e . F r a n c e l i k e w i s e , a t the e n d of 1940,

d i d n o t agree to t h e i r t r a n s f e r to M a d a g a s c a r :

" A f t e r t h e defeat of F r a n c e a n d t h e f a i l u r e to c o n c l u d e peace w i t h E n g l a n d , t h e G e r m a n leaders c o n c e i v e d t h e idea t h a t t h e J e w s c o u l d be g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r a n d t h e n t r a n s f e r r e d to a F r e n c h c o l o n i a l t e r r i t o r y , f o r e x a m p l e , M a d a g a s c a r . I n a r e p o r t o n t h e 21st A u g u s t 1942, t h e S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e f o r t h e M i n i s t r y o f F o r e i g n A f f a i r s o f t h e T h i r d R e i c h , L u t h e r , d e c i d e d t h a t it w o u l d be p o s s i b l e to n e g o t i a t e w i t h F r a n c e i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n a n d d e s c r i b e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s w h i c h h a d t a k e n p l a c e b e t w e e n J u l y a n d D e c e m b e r 1940. a n d w h i c h w e r e b r o u g h t to a h a l t f o l l o w i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w w i t h M o n t o i r e o n 13th D e c e m b e r 1940 b y P i e r r e - E t i e n n e F l a n d i n , L a v a l ' s s u c c e s s o r . D u r i n g t h e w h o l e o f 1941 t h e G e r m a n s h o p e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d be a b l e to r e o p e n these n e g o t i a t i o n s a n d b r i n g t h e m to a h a p p y c o n c l u s i o n . " (P. R a s s i n i e r , i b i d . , p . 108)

It w a s o n l y a f t e r s u c c e s s i v e r e b u f f s , a n d f o r s e v e r a l o t h e r r e a s o n s , as w e s h a l l see, t h a t G e r m a n y ' s a t t i t u d e i n r e l a t i o n to the J e w s h a r d e n e d .

F i r s t o f a l l , t h e r e w a s t h e l e t t e r s e n t b y C h a i m W e i z m a n n , P r e s i d e n t of t h e J e w i s h A g e n c y , to C h a m b e r l a i n , P r i m e M i n i s t e r of G r e a t B r i t a i n , i n w h i c h h e i n f o r m e d h i m t h a t " w e J e w s are o n t h e s i d e o f G r e a t B r i t a i n a n d w i l l f i g h t f o r d e m o c r a c y " . It w a s p u b l i s h e d i n t h e J e w i s h C h r o n i c l e o f t h e 8th S e p t e m b e r 1939 a n d c o n s t i t u t e d a v e r i t a b l e d e c l a r a t i o n of w a r b y W o r l d J e w r y a g a i n s t G e r m a n y .

E a r l i e r L e o n B l u m h a d u r g e d t h e d e m o c r a c i e s to d e s t r o y t h e r a c i s t i d e o l o g y i n a n a r t i c l e w h i c h w a s p u b l i s h e d i n P a r i s - S o i r o n the 23rd M a r c h 1939:

" T h e r e - o r g a n i s a t i o n , t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n a n d the c o - o p e r a t i o n o f a l l t h e S ta tes i n t h e w o r l d t h a t a re a t t a c h e d to l i b e r t y a n d peace , a n d the s t i m u l a t i o n a n d e x a l t a t i o n o f the d e m o c r a t i c s y s t e m , a n d at the s a m e t i m e the s y s t e m a t i c d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e rac is t i d e o l o g y , t h a t is t h e e s s e n t i a l task i n c u m b e n t o n the g r e a t m o v e m e n t s of p u b l i c o p i n i o n , w i t h o u t w h i c h the g o v e r n m e n t s w o u l d be i m p o t e n t . "

T h e J e w i s h w r i t e r E m i l L u d w i g , a n a t u r a l i s e d S w i s s o f G e r m a n o r i g i n , w h o was d e c o r a t e d w i t h t h e L e g i o n d ' H o n n e u r b y the F r e n c h

A P P E N D I X II SIX M I L L I O N I N N O C E N T V I C T I M S 187

Government i n A p r i l 1939, launched an appeal w i t h a great deal of to-do about the same time " f o r a n e w H o l y A l l i a n c e to be concluded between the three great democracies of the w o r l d " , and scarcely disguised the i n v i t a t i o n to w a r :

". . . the influence of the U n i t e d States i n this al l iance w i l l be the decisive factor. Because this new all iance is first and foremost designed as a threat and a deterrent, the chief role falls to A m e r i c a . . . . (E. L u d w i g : A N e w H o l y A l l i a n c e , p . 94)

" A l l countries may join the n e w H o l y A l l i a n c e . . . among the Great Powers the Soviet U n i o n w i l l be the first. . . . (p. 101). T h e nat ional ph i losophy w i l l decide whether or not a state is to be admitted i n t o the all iance . . . the all iance is directed against G e r m a n y , I ta ly and s imi lar states w h i c h m i g h t adopt such p r i n ciples at a n y moment . . . i t issues its challenge i n even more forceful language than that of the dictators, (p. 104)

for " . . . the pol i t i ca l aims of this century a r e : socialism as the

nat ional expedient, and the U n i t e d States of Europe as the internat ional p o l i c y . Is i t possible to reach both goals w i t h o u t w a r ? . . . " (p. 120)

It seems h a r d l y l i k e l y , and L u d w i g makes n o attempt to disguise the fact, since he concludes his appeal w i t h the w o r d s :

"Re l ig ions , philosophies, ideals have a lways been formulated and guarded by soli tary thinkers . B u t they have a lways been defended b y armed men , at the per i l of their l ives . "

(E. L u d w i g , i b i d . , p . 123)

T o re turn to the posi t ion of the Jews i n G e r m a n y .

" I n September 1939, f r o m the very moment hostil it ies began, the authorities representing the W o r l d Jewish Congress, as if to reproach England and France w i t h h a v i n g delayed so l o n g , recalled that ' the Jews of the entire w o r l d had declared economic and financial w a r on G e r m a n y as early as 1933' and that they had 'resolved to carry this war of destruction t h r o u g h to the end' , and at the same time they authorised H i t l e r to place a l l those to hand in concentrat ion camps, w h i c h is the w a y countries a l l over the wor ld treat enemy aliens i n time of w a r . A s events developed the European Jews f o u n d themselves i n the same boat as their brethren i n G e r m a n y , and w h e n there was no longer a n y hope of their emigrat ing outside E u r o p e - - a n d the last chance vanished w i t h the fa i lure of the Madagascar p lan at the end of 1940--it was


d e c i d e d to r e g r o u p t h e m a n d to p u t t h e m to w o r k i n o n e i m m e n s e g h e t t o w h i c h , a f t e r t h e s u c c e s s f u l i n v a s i o n of R u s s i a , w a s s i t u a t e d t o w a r d s t h e e n d of 1941 i n t h e s o - c a l l e d E a s t e r n t e r r i t o r i e s n e a r t h e f o r m e r f r o n t i e r b e t w e e n R u s s i a a n d P o l a n d : a t A u s c h w i t z . C h e l m n o , B e l z e c , M a u l a n e c k , T r e b l i n k a , e tc . . . . T h e r e t h e y w e r e to w a i t u n t i l t h e e n d o f t h e w a r f o r t h e r e - o p e n i n g o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n s w h i c h w o u l d d e c i d e t h e i r fa te . T h i s d e c i s i o n w a s f i n a l l y r e a c h e d a t t h e f a m o u s i n t e r m i n i s t e r i a l B e r l i n - W a n n s e e c o n f e r e n c e w h i c h w a s h e l d o n t h e 20th J a n u a r y 1942, a n d t h e t r a n s f e r h a d c o m m e n c e d i n M a r c h . "

( P . R a s s i n i e r , Le V é r i t a b l e P r o c è s Eichmann, p . 20)

T h e n c a m e t h e d e c l a r a t i o n of w a r a g a i n s t R u s s i a , the m a s s i v e b o m b a r d m e n t o f D r e s d e n , L e i p z i g a n d H a m b u r g , a n d l a s t l y t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f a b o o k b y a n A m e r i c a n J e w , T h e o d o r N . K a u f m a n , c a l l e d G e r m a n y M u s t P e r i s h :

" I n h i s b o o k , K a u f m a n f l a t l y s tates t h a t G e r m a n s , s o l e l y bec a u s e t h e y a r e G e r m a n s , d o n o t d e s e r v e to l i v e . . . a n d t h a t a f t e r t h e w a r 25,000 d o c t o r s w i l l be m o b i l i s e d a n d e a c h w i l l be g i v e n 25 G e r m a n m e n o r w o m e n to s t e r i l i s e e v e r y d a y , so t h a t i n t h r e e m o n t h s t h e r e w o u l d n o t be a s i n g l e G e r m a n a l i v e i n E u r o p e c a p a b l e o f r e p r o d u c t i o n a n d i n s i x t y y e a r s t h e G e r m a n r a c e w o u l d be t o t a l l y e l i m i n a t e d f r o m t h e c o n t i n e n t . H e s a i d , m o r e o v e r , t h a t t h e G e r m a n Jews s h a r e d h i s v i e w .

" H i t l e r o r d e r e d t h i s b o o k to be b r o a d c a s t o v e r a l l G e r m a n r a d i o s t a t i o n s , a n d o n e c a n i m a g i n e t h e ef fect i t p r o d u c e d o n t h e G e r m a n

public." (P . R a s s i n i e r . p p . 108-109)

F i n a l l y let u s d e a l w i t h t h e M o r g e n t h a u p l a n . T h i s s c h e m e , w h i c h h a d b e e n d r a w n u p i n t h e U n i t e d S ta tes b y

H e n r y M o r g e n t h a u , o n e of R o o s e v e l t ' s a d v i s e r s , a n d H a r r y D e x t e r W h i t e ( b o t h m e n w e r e J e w i s h , t h e l a t t e r o f E a s t e r n E u r o p e a n o r i g i n ) , p r o v i d e d f o r t h e c o m p l e t e d e s t r u c t i o n o f G e r m a n i n d u s t r y a n d t h e d e f i n i t e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f G e r m a n y i n t o a n a g r i c u l t u r a l c o u n t r y .

It w a s a p p r o v e d at t h e Q u e b e c C o n f e r e n c e of 1 9 4 3 , a n d as s o o n as t h e w a r w a s e n d e d the A l l i e s p u t i t i n t o o p e r a t i o n a n d b e g a n d i s m a n t l i n g t h e f a c t o r i e s i n t h e R u h r . It w a s q u i c k l y rea l i sed t h a t i t w a s c o m p l e t e l y senseless a n d a b a n d o n e d . M e a n w h i l e H a r r y D e x t e r W h i t e h a d been d i s c o v e r e d to be a S o v i e t a g e n t . H e d i e d o f a h e a r t a t t a c k t h e d a y b e f o r e h e w a s d u e to be a r r e s t e d .

B u t w i t h r e f e r e n c e to G e r m a n y ; i n t h e face o f the M o r g e n t h a u p l a n , t h e K a u f m a n p l a n , t h e d e c l a r a t i o n b y C h a i m W e i z m a n n a n d the W o r l d J e w i s h C o n g r e s s of w a r to the b i t t e r e n d , t h e d e c l a r a t i o n


of Casablanca conf i rming the decision to accept o n l y a n uncondi t ional surrender, the campaign of terror-bombing of the c i v i l i a n popula t ion of G e r m a n towns (135,000 died at Dresden), the Germans were n o w convinced that the A l l i e s had decided on their ex terminat ion , and i n these conditions one is not surprised to find that the Jews collected i n the camps served as hostages and that terrible reprisals fe l l u p o n them.

It was i n these circumstances that there commenced the massive and bruta l deportat ion of Jews towards the Pol ish camps, par t i cu lar ly A u s c h w i t z .

T o b r i n g this chapter to a conclusion, we w i s h to quote the evidence of a Jewish witness, the importance of w h i c h w i l l not escape the reader. In the issue of 15th December 1960 of L a Terre Re-trouvée, D o c t o r K u b o v y , director of the Centre M o n d i a l de D o c u menta t ion Juive Contemporaine at T e l - A v i v , recognised that no order for ex terminat ion exists f r o m H i t l e r , H i m m l e r , H e y d r i c h or Goer ing (Rassinier : Le Drame des ]uifs Européens, p p . 31, 39). It w o u l d seem then that the exterminat ions b y gas were the w o r k of regional authorit ies and a few sadistic Germans .

A c c o r d i n g to Rassinier, the exaggeration i n the calculat ion of the number of vict ims is inspired by a pure ly material p r o b l e m :

". . . It is s i m p l y a question of j u s t i f y i n g b y a proportionate n u m b e r of corpses the enormous subsidies w h i c h G e r m a n y has been p a y i n g a n n u a l l y since the end of the w a r to the State of Israel b y w a y of reparation for injuries w h i c h moreover she cannot be he ld to have caused her either m o r a l l y or legal ly , since there was no State of Israel at the t ime the i n c r i m i n a t i n g deeds took place; thus it is a pure ly and contempt ib ly material problem.

"Perhaps I m a y be a l lowed to recall here that the State of Israel was o n l y founded i n M a y 1948 and that the Jewish vict ims i n G e r m a n y were nationals of m a n y States w i t h the exception of Israel, i n order to under l ine the dimensions of a f raud w h i c h defies description i n a n y language; o n the one h a n d G e r m a n y pays to Israel sums w h i c h are calculated o n r o u g h l y six m i l l i o n dead, and on the other, as at least four-f i f ths of these six m i l l i o n were decidedly al ive at the end of the w a r , she is p a y i n g substantial sums by w a y of reparation to the vict ims of Hi t l e r ' s G e r m a n y to those w h o are st i l l alive i n countries a l l over the w o r l d other than Israel and to the r i g h t f u l c laimants of those w h o have since deceased, w h i c h means that for the former (the six m i l l i o n , i.e.), or in other words, for the vast major i ty , she is p a y i n g t w i c e . "

(P. Rass inier : Le Drame des Juifs Européens, pp. 31 and 39)


W i t h this we conclude our examinat ion of Rassinier's arguments. N o t h a v i n g made a personal s tudy of this quest ion, we are l imi ted to a n examinat ion of this author 's conclusions, for w h i c h he must bear the f u l l responsibi l i ty , but it w o u l d seem that the facts and documents w h i c h he adds to the dossier of w a r crimes mer i t f u l l and impart ia l invest igat ion. T h e question of six m i l l i o n Jewish vict ims w h o died i n H i t l e r ' s camps can no longer be considered an article of f a i t h .

B I B L I O G R A P H Y of works quoted

* indicates foreign works available in the British Museum.

B A T A U L T , G . Le Problème Juif, 1921. Israel contre les Nations, 1939*. B E N A M O Z E G H , E. Israel et I'Humanité, 1961*. B O N S I R V E N , Rev., S.J. Le Judaisme Palestinien au temps de Jésus-Christ,

1934. C O H E N , K . Nomades, 1928. D E E C C L E S I A E . Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christ

ian Religions, Trans, by T . A t t h i l l , C.T.S., 1966. D H O R M E , E. Revue de l'Histoire des Religions. D I M O N T , M A X I. Jews, God and History, 1964. D I S R A E L I , B. Coningsby, 1849. D O E N I T Z , A d m i r a l . Ten Years and Twenty Days, 1959. F A U R E , E. L'âme juive, i n La Question Juive vue par vingt-six éminentes

personalités, 1934. FEJTÖ, F. Dieu et son Juif, 1960*. Les Juifs et l' Antisémitisme dans les

Pays communistes, 1960. F L E G , E. Israel et M o i , 1936*. G R A E T Z , History of the Jews. I S A A C , J. Jésus et Israel, original edition 1946; 1959. Genèse de I 'Ant i -

sémitisme, original edition 1948; 1956*. J E H O U D A , J . L 'Antisémitisme, Miroir du Monde, 1958*. L A N E , A . B L I S S . I Saw Poland Betrayed, 1948. L A P O U G E , V A C H E R D E . Les Selections sociales, cours professé a l'Universite

de Montpellier, 1888-9. L A Z A R E , B E R N A R D . Anti-Semitism, 1003, N e w York. L E N I N . The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky the Renegade, 1920. L E W I S O H N , L. Israel, 1926.

L O E B , I. La Littérature des Pauvres dans La Bible. L o v s k y , F. Antisémitisme et Mystère d'Israel, 1955. L U D W I G , E. A New Holy All iance, 1938. M A D A U L E , J. Les Juifs et le Monde Actuel, 1963*. M A S S O U T I é , L. Judaisme et Hitlerisme, 1935*. Judaisme et Marxisme,

1939*. M E M M I , A . Portrait of a Jew, 1963.

N E U M A N N , alias Neuberg. l'lnsurrection armée. NOSSIG, A . Integrales Judentum, 1922. P A S M A N I K , D r . D . Qu'est-ce que le Judaisme? 1930. Péguy, C . Notre Jeunesse dans Oeuvres en Prose, 1909-14.

191


P O N C I N S , L É O N D E . Le Plan Communiste de l'Insurrection Armée, 1939*. L'Enigme Communiste, 1942.

R A B I . Anatomie du Judaisme français, 1962*. R A S S I N I E R , P. Le Mensonge d'Ulysse, 1955*. U l y s s e trahi par les Siens,

1961*. LE Véritable Procès Eichmann, 1962*. Le Drame des Juifs Européens, 1964*.

R E N A N , J . E. The Antichrist, 1899 ( tr . b y W . G . H u t c h i n s o n ) . R O S E N B E R G . A . A History of Bolshevism, 1934. R O U D I N E S C O , D r . A . Le Malheur d'Israel, 1956. S A L L U S T E (pseud.) Les Origines Secrètes du Bolchevisme, 1930. S A R O L E A , C . Impressions of Soviet Russia, 1924. S A R T R E , J. P. Portrait of the A n t i - S e m i t e , 1948. S E R A N T . P. Les Vaincus de la Liberation, 1964. S O M B A R T , W . The Jews and M o d e r n Capitalism, 1913. S P I R E , A . Quelques Juifs et demi-juifs, 1928*. S T E E D , H . W . The Hapsburg Monarchy, 1913. T H O R W A L D , J. Wlassow contre Staline, 1953. T R O T S K Y , L E V . The Defence of Terrorism, 1921. V A L L A T , X . A r t i c l e i n Aspects de la France, 21st J a n u a r y 1065. W E B S T E R , N . H . Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, 1964. W E B S T E R , N . H . World Revolution, 1921. W E B S T E R , N . H . French Revolution, 1919.

I N D E X

Aaron, 145 A b e l , 57 Abraham, 55, 155 Abram, M . B., 172 Abranavel, J., 118 A d a m , 57 Adler, 109

Albigensians, the, 90 A l g a z i , L. , 12 A I Gomhuria, 169 Alliance Israelite Universelle, 140 A m a n , 74 America, 141 American Jewish Committee, 135,

140, 141, 167-73 American Reform Judaism, 34 Amitiés judéo-chrétiennes, 12, 29,

30, 71, 154 Amos, 56 Antichrist , 27 Anti-Defamation League of the

B'nai B 'r i th, 168, 170 Anti-Semitism, 11, 20-22, 34-37,

60, 62, 67, 71, 82-88, 110, 119, 120, 130, 134, 136, 137, 140, 141, 148-50, 153, 154, 160, 162, 168, 170, 173

Apollonio, U . , 159 Appio, 86 Apro, A . , 108 Artaxerxes, 74 Aspects de la France, 49 Assuerus, 74

Atheism, 36, 49, 119, 125, 172 Auschwitz , 11, 18, 22, 28, 32, 150,

181, 182, 184, 188, 189 Azef, 109

Balachowsky, Prof., 180 Balfour Declaration, 70, 185 Barabbas, 17, 146, 147

1

Baron, Prof. S., 182 Barruel, Abbé, 166 Bartolocci, 117

Batault, G . , 48, 78-80, 88, 90, 112,

152, 158 Baum, Father, 161, 169 Bea, Cardinal , meets Jules Isaac,

12; commissioned by Pope to study his suggestions, 13; i n favour of the schema on the Jews, 133; attacks upon by anti-Semitic tracts, 137-41, 161, 164, 165; an exegete, his love of men and justice, 153; his relations wi th B'nai B 'r i th, A J C , and other world Jewish organisations, from the article i n Look magazine, 167-74

Belzec, 183, 184, 188 Benamozegh, E., 32, 37, 38, 88,

121, 122, 130 Benda, J., 98 Bergen-Belsen, 183 Beria, 98 Berman, J., 108 Bernadotte, Count, 110 "Bernardus", 161 Berzine, 107 Birobidjan, 75 Blaha, D r . , 180, 183 Bloch, M . , 62 Blum, L. , 95, 129, 186 B'nai B ' r i th , 10, 31, 34, 35, 130,

140, 160, 161, 164, 167, 168, 170, 172-4

Boerne, L. , 62, 117 Bolshevism, 104, 106, 107 Bonsirven, Rev. S. J., 47 Borodin, 106 Boudnitchenko, Colonel, 98

194

Buber-Neuman, M . , 100 Buchenwald, 97, 180, 182, 183 Buddhism, 138 Buxtorf, 117 Bykadorov, Captain, 99

Cabbalism, the Cabbala, 36, 77, 115, 118, 121

Caiaphas, 17, 39 Cain, 21, 57 Calv in , 36, 118, 160 Car l i , M g r . , 133-5, 142, 144, 145,

147, 150-2, 155, 157, 171, 172 Casablanca, the declaration of,

189 Catholicus, 161 Catholicism, the attack on the

traditional form of, 11, 33, 35, 37, 49, 50, 69, 76, 150

Celsus, 116 Centre Mondia l de Documenta

tion Juive Contemporaine, 178, 183, 189

Centre de Documentation Juive de Paris, 182

Chamberlain, 186 Chapl in , C , 80 Chemno, 183 Chiang Kai-shek, 106 Chizuk Emuna, 117 Churchi l l , 144 Cicero, 86 Cicognani, Cardinal, 162 Claudius, Emperor, 152 Clement III, 92 Clement VII I , 92 Coetus internationalis patrum,

134 Cohen, Kadmi-, 92-95, 129 Collective responsibility, the prin

ciple of, 97, 144-6, 148, 167 Committee for the Salvation of

the Jews of Budapest, 184 Commission Théologique de

L'Oeuvre Evangelique Suisse, 73 Common Sense, 161, 164 Communism, 36, 68, 119. 124,

128, 152, 159, 160, 162, 164, 172

I N D E X

Conference of European Rabbis i n Great Britain, 1960, 50

Congar, Father, 9 Contempt, "the teaching of con

tempt", 12, 14, 21, 24, 27, 150, 174

Conversion, to Christ ianity, 31,

37. 39, 54, 55, 58, 59-62- 73, 76, 90, 114, 115, 157, 171; to monotheism, Judaism, 35, 38, 78, 79, 114, 115, 120-2

Corriere della Sera, 139 Constantine, Emperor, 113, 114 Counci l of Trent, 25 Cushing, Cardinal, 171

Dachau, 179, 180, 182, 183 Daniel , 56 Daniel , Father, 49 Daniélou, Father, 12 Darmesteter, 80, 111, 116, 120, 129 Declaration of Moscow, 1943, 51 De Ecclesiae, The Declaration on

the Relation of the Church to non-Christian Religions, 9, 10, 13, 33, 130, 133-7; the text of the final form of, 140, 143, 144, 149, 155, 165, 167, 171

Deicide, the deicide charge, 15, 21, 23, 134, 135, 139, 142-5, 163, 164, 169, 170

Delo, 100

Demann, Father, 12 Deutero-Isaiah, 56, 79 Deuteronomy, 91 Deutsch, H . , 40-42 Dhorme, E., 92 Dimont, M . I., 10, 53, 73, 77, 90,

91, 130 Disraeli, B., 93, 117 Djerdjinsky, 106 Doenitz, Grand A d m i r a l , 51, 106 Dora, 182, 183 Dostoievsky, 177 Dresden, the destruction of, 188,

189 Dreyfus affair, 70, 88

Ecumenism, 31, 33, 157, 170 Edict of Nantes, 62

INDEX 195

Ehrenburg, I., 106 Eichmann, A . , 51, 181-3 Einstein, 77, 80 Eisendrath, Rabbi M . , 34 Eisenmenger, J. A . , 86 Eisner, K . , 104 Eitani, R., 49 Elias, 78 Engels, 103-105 Esraism, 54 Esther, 74 Exodus, 56

Ezekiel, 54, 56, 78, 145

Farkas, M . , 109 Farkas, W . , 109 Faure, E., 68, 69, 76-78, 81, 83-85,

130 Fejtö, F., 56, 57, 67, 68, 75, 108,

114, 115 Felici, Mgr . , 162 Feltin, Cardinal , 34 Fenyes, 109 Fesquet, H . , 9, 133, 136, 153 Le Figaro, 51, 133, 134, 137, 141,

147, 154, 172, 179 Fineberg, 109 Flandin, P. E., 186 Fleg, E., 12, 130 France-Soir, 134 Frederick, Emperor, 116 Freemasonry, 160, 162, 164 French Revolution, 35, 36, 65, 71,

116, 117, 119, 166 Freud, 77, 80 Freudenberg, Pastor, 12 Friends, The, of Jules Isaac, 29

Galen, alias General Blücher, 106 Gaulle, General de, 126 Gemara, 55, 59 Geouffre de la Pradelle, Maitre

Raymond de, 51 Gerlier, Cardinal , 34, 154 Gero, 108 Gerstein, K . , 183 Gnostics, 86 Goering, Field-Marshal, 101, 189 Goldberg, A . J., 171

Goldmann, N . , 10, 47, 71, 72, 168 Graetz, 61, 62, 119 Grebnjakov, V . , alias Dora, 101 Grynspan, 110, 185 Guershouni, 109

Hagada, 55 Halaka, 55 Hamburg, the destruction of, 188 Hanan, 17 Hatvany, Baron, 41 Haussner, G., 181 Hegira, the, 38 Heine, H . , 62, 102, 117, 129 Heschel, Rabbi A . J., 168, 171, 173 Hess, R., 180, 181 Heydrich, 189 Higgins, M g r . G . , 171, 172 Hilberg, P., 178, 180, 183 Himmler , 189 Hitler , A . , 19, 32, 48, 70, 87, 88,

92, 95, 97, 100, 101, 144, 148, 150, 152, 170, 182, 184, 185, 187, 189, 190

Hochhuth, R., 170, 181 Hoelbrigel, 180 Hoettl, 180 Holmogor, 101 Holtzmann, 109 Homer, 77 Honorius III, 91 Hosea, 56

Impropria, suppression of the prayer of, 33

Inquisition, the, 62, 72, 90, 91 Institute of Contemporary His

tory, M u n i c h , 183 International Institute to Study

the Jewish Question, suggestion of the foundation of, 176

Isaac, Jules, 10; the gist of his thesis, 11, 12; organises Judaeo-Christ ian dialogues and had private audiences wi th Pius X I I and John X X I I I , 12; the result, 13; his revised version of the Gospels, 14-19, of the Church Fathers, 20-22, and of the Doctors of the Church , 22-

196 I N D E X

28: h is demands of the C o u n c i l , 29; suppor ted i n C a t h o l i c circles, 29, 30; h is v i s i t to R o m e , 31-33; H . D e u t s c h inter venes o n behal f of w i t h P a u l V I , 40, 41; 82. 86, 111, 112, 114, 116, 130, 140, 144, 148-50, 152-4, 163, 165, 167; the a u t h o r ' s thesis of i n f l u e n c e of o n d e c l a r a t i o n o n J u d a i s m i n V a t i c a n C o u n c i l II c o n f i r m e d i n look ar t ic le , 167, 168; 181

Isaiah, 54, 56, 78, 155 I s lam, 90, 138 Israel, the State of. 48-51, 148,

184, 185, 189

Jackson, Justice. 179, 182 Jacob, P. . 34 J a n k e l e v i t c h , V . , 96, 148, 181 Janson, 107 Jehouda, J. , 30-32, 34-38, 47, 71,

73, 82, 85, 115, 117-20, 129, 140, 154, 157, 163

Jehovah, Jahve, J a h w e h , 20, 56, 57- 89. 112

Jeremiah , 54, 56, 78 Jesus. 14-18, 21, 26, 39, 40, 55.

58. 77, 115, 117, 122, 125, 134, 143, 145-7, 150, 151, 156. 162. 170, 174

Jewish C h r o n i c l e . 186 J o h n X X I I I , 12, 30, 136. 161, 164,

168-70 Joshua, 56 Ju l l ie . C a r d i n a l , 12 J u v e n a l , 86

K a p l a n , G r a n d R a b b i J. , 12, 135, 142. 148

K a s z t n e r , D r . R . , 184 K a t y n Forest M u r d e r , 101 K a t z , L . 10, 34 K a u f m a n . D r . T . N . . 188 K a u t s k y , D r . . 180 K a u t s k y , K . , 102 K e l l n e r , H . M . , 160 K e n n e d y , President J . F . , 110 K e r i , 109

K i b b u t z m a p a m . 49 K i z i e w i c z , G e n e r a l . 108 K l a u z n e r , J., 39, 115 K l y b e r , Father , 161 Koest ler , 73 K o r h e r r , D r . . 182 K r a s n o v , G e n e r a l . 99 K r a s n o v , C o l o n e l S., 99 K r a u s n i k , H . , 180 K u b o v y , D r . , 189 K u h n , Be la , 104, 106, 107, 109

Lagrange , Father , 112 Lane , A . Bl iss , 108 L a p i n e , C a p t a i n , 99 L a p t c h i n s k i , L i e u t . , 99 Lassal le , F . , 102, 117 L a t e r a n C o u n c i l , the F o u r t h , 91 Lattés , S., 12

L a u r e n t i n , Abbé , R. . 134, 135, 147, 154, 172

L a v a l , 186 Lazare , B. . 54, 55, 57. 58, 80. 83,

84, 93, 102, 117, 129 Lazareff , P . , 134 Lefebvre. M g r . , 133 L e i p z i g , the d e s t r u c t i o n of, 188 L e m k i n , Prof . R. , 180 L e n i n , 75, 105 Leo X I I I , 97. 136 L e r o y - B e a u l i e u , A . , 63 L e w i s o h n , L., 65, 66, 129 L i c h t e n , J., 170, 172 Liebnecht . 102, 104 Liénart , C a r d i n a l , 12, 34, 154 L i e v e n , M . , 104

L i t v i n o f f , M . . al ias W a l l a c h . etc.. 109

Loeb, I., 79, 80 Look, ar t i c le " H o w the Jews

changed C a t h o l i c T h i n k i n g " . 167-73

L o p i n o t , Father C , 12 L o s o v s k y , 107 L o u i s X I V . 116

L o v s k y . Prof . F., 12. 50, 60, 74, 92, 121

L u d w i g . E. , 129, 186 L u k a c s . G., 108

I N D E X 197

Lunel, 29 Luther, 36, 76, 86, 118 Luther, Secretary of State for the

Third Reich, 186 Luxembourg, Rosa, 102, 104

Madaule, J., 12, 47-50, 71, 76 Madagascar, 186, 187 Maidanek, 183, 188 Maimonides, Moses, 80 Malachi , 38 Malychkine, General, 99 Mao Tse-tung, 106 Manicheans, 86 Marrou, H . , 12 M a r t i n , J., 12 M a r t i n V , 91 M a r x , K., 37, 68, 76, 77, 81, 102-

105, 117 Marxism, 67, 75, 87, 100, 102,

103, 116, 152 Massoutié, L. , 61-63, 86 Mathausen, 183 Mauclair , 161 Maxentius, 113 Maximos I V , Patriarch, 141 Meandrov, General, 99 Memmi, A . , 32, 37, 123-8, 130 Mendelssohn, M . , 69 II Messagero de Roma, 143 Messiah, messianism, 30, 31, 37,

39, 55, 58, 71, 102, 113, 115, 120-2, 143, 146, 156, 174

Micah , 56 Mihaj lov, 100, 101 Mil i tant Servants of Our Lady of

Fatima, 161 M i n c , 108 Mishna , 53-55, 59 Le Monde, 9, 34, 40, 51, 71, 72,

96, 100, 101, 133, 135, 137, 139, 143, 148, 153, 154, 181

Monotheism, 30-32, 34, 35, 37, 56, 77, 89, 119, 120, 157

Montaigne, 80 M o n t i n i , Archbishop of M i l a n ,

170 Montoire, 186 Morgenthau Plan, 188

Morl ion, Father, F., 173 Moses, Mosaic Law, 53-56, 77, 91,

92, 134, 145, 155, 156 Mouret, 29 Moyne, Lord, 110

Nantet, J., 12 National Catholic Welfare Con

ference, 170, 171 Nebuchadnezzar, 93 Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 103 Neuhäussler, Mgr . , 179 Neumann, alias Neuberg, 104,

105, 107 Nicholas, I, 136 Niemöller, Pastor, M . , 179 Nietzsche, 37 Nieuwenhuys, D . , 104 Nizzachon, 117 Nossig, Rabbi A . , 64, 65, 76, 129 Nuremberg trial , 139, 144, 148,

178-83 N y i z l i , D r . M . , 181

Oesterreicher, Father, 161, 169 Official Report of the Portuguese

Government to the Committee of Non-intervention, 107

Oikoumenikon, 151 Origen, 59, 116 Osservatore della Domenica, 162,

167 Osservatore Romano, 143, 159,

162, 165 Oswald, L., 110 Ottaviani, Cardinal , 12

Palanque, Father, 29, 30 Palestra del Clero, 134, 142, 144,

146, 151, 152, 155, 157 Pange, J. de, 102 Paris-Match, 181 Paris-Presse, 41, 137, 147 Paris-Soir, 95, 186 Parny, 117 Patriarch of Ant ioch , 136 Pasmanik, D . , 46, 47. 70, 77 Paul I V , 92 Paul V I , 40, 41, 133, 135, 137,

138, 161, 165, 167, 170-2, 174

198 I N D E X

Pauker , A . , 108 Péguy, C . , 93 P e n t a t e u c h , 53 Peter, G . , 109 P e t l i o u r a , H . , 110 P i e f f e r k o r n , J., 36, 118, 119 P h a r a o h s , T h e , 93 Pharisees, T h e , 53-55, 59. 113. 117 Phi lostrates , 89 Pico de M i r a n d o l a , 36, 118 Pi la te , P o n t i u s , 15-18, 84, 146 P i n a y , M . , 160, 163, 16S P i p e r n o , D r . S., 143 Pius X I I , 12, 168, 170 Plehve , 109 P o g a n y , 109 P o l i a k o v , L . , 180

P o n c i n s , Léon de, 104, 106, 134, 136, 153, 161, 164

Pravda, 104 P r i m a o , R. , (or P r i m a k o f f ) . 107 P r o t e s t a n t i s m , 62, 76, 86, 139 P r o u s t , M . , 80 Provenchères , M g r . de, 29, 30,

153, 154, 167 Psalms, 155

Q u e b e c C o n f e r e n c e , 188

R a b i , 32, 33, 37, 39, 47, 50, 71, 102, 115, 121, 130

R a d k i e w i c z , 108 R a k o s i , 108 Rass in ier , P. , 97, 100, 101, 178,

180-6, 188-90 R a t h , v o n , 110, 185 R a t h e n a u , W . , 129 R e f o r m a t i o n , T h e , 35, 36, 76, 80,

116-19 R e i n a c h , S., 80 Rei ter , A . , 157 Renaissance , T h e , 35, 36, 80, 116-19 R e n a n , E . , 85 R e n a r d . A b b é , J . P . . 180, 183 R e u c h l i n , J., 36, 118 R e v a i , 108 Revue des Dens M o n d e s , 101 R i c h a r d the L i o n - H e a r t e d , 80 R o b i s o n , Prof. , 166 R o d d y , J., 167

Roosevelt , 188 Rosenberg, A . , 102 Rosenbergs, T h e , 69 R o t h s c h i l d s , 41 Roudinesco , D r . A . , 46, 55, 56,

59, 60, 66, 69, 70, 83, 87, 88, 91, 122

R o u t e n b e r g , 109 R u b i n s t e i n , J. , 110 R u d e n k o , G e n e r a l , 101 R u p p i n , A . , 182

Sadducees, 53 St. A g o b a r d , 11, 25, 27, 28, 33, 149 St. A m b r o s e , 11, 22, 27, 33 St. T h o m a s A q u i n a s , 92 St A u g u s t i n e , 11, 21-25, 28, 33,

59, 130, 149, 150 St. A v i t , 60, 74 St. J o h n C h r y s o s t o m , 11, 22, 23,

25. 28, 33, 130, 149, 150 St. C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a , 59 St. C y r i l of Jerusalem, 22 St. E p h r e m , 22 St. E p i p h a n y , 22 St. F r a n c i s of A s s i s i , 80 Pope St. G r e g o r y the G r e a t , 11,

25, 28, 33, 130, 149, 150 St. G r e g o r y of N y s s a , 22 St. H i l a r y of Poi t iers , 22 ST., Joan of A r c , 128 St. Jerome, 22, 59 St. J o h n , 14, 16, 17, 33, 140, 143,

145, 168 St. L u k e , 14-16, 40, 155, 168 St. M a r k , 14, 16, 40, 168 St. M a t t h e w , 14-17, 19, 29, 33,

40, 113, 140, 145-7, 168 St. P a u l , 20, 25, 68, 77. 78, 81,

151, 155, 156 St. Peter, 139, 151 Pope St. P i u s V , 92 Sal lus te , 76 Sarolea, C . , 103, 104. 107 Sartre, J. P., 67 Satan , 23, 27, 28, 162, 173 S c a r i o l i , N . , 100 Scemama, A . , 71, 72 S c h o u r s k i , 29

Schuster, Z . , 14 1 , 171, 172 Schwartzbart, 110 Schweitzer, M . , 1 0 9 Secretariat for Christian Uni ty ,

1 6 1 , 1 6 4 , 1 6 9 . 1 7 2

Seelisberg, the Ten Points of, 12 Seneca, 8 6 Sepher Toledot Jeschu, 2 8 Serant, P., 9 7 , 9 8 Sergius, Grand Duke, 109 Sérot, Colonel, 1 1 0 Shapiro, M . , 4 9 Sigaud, Mgr . de Proenca, 133 Silberberg, 1 0 9 Simon the Magician, 1 3 9 Slansky, 6 9 , 183 Sobidor, 1 8 3 Socialism, 1 0 4 Soekarno, President, 138 Sombart, W . , 6 1 , 6 2 , 7 7 Spanish Revolution, 1 0 7 Specht, alias Olszewski, 108 Spinoza, 3 1 , 77, 80 Spire, A . , 7 1 , 111, 1 16 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 0 Spychalski, 108 Stalin, 6 8 , 1 0 3 Statute of London, 1 9 4 5 , 5 1 Steed, H . W . , 4 5 , 4 6 , 5 3 , 6 4 , 6 5 ,

73, 149

Steinberg, A., 5 0 Stolypine, 1 0 9 Streicher, 2 3 , 2 8 . 3 2 , 150 Stürgkh, Count, 1 0 9 Szamuelly, 1 0 4 Synagogue, the, 2 6 - 2 8 , 53, 66, 7 7 ,

8 6 , 9 1 , 114, 1 2 0

The Tablet, 10, 1 7 0 Tacitus, 86, 112 The Talmud, 36, 3 9 , 5 3 , 5 4 - 5 6 , 5 8 ,

5 9 , 9 0 , 102, 115, 1 1 7 - 2 0 , 1 5 6 ,

157, 1 6 3

Tappouni, Cardinal, 147 Tcherkassy, General Prince B., 99 Terre de Provence, 29 l a Terre retrouvée, 157, 174, 189 Times, the New York, 170-2 Tisserand, Cardinal . 12 Tiza , Count. 109

INDEX 199

Toaff. E. . Chief Rabbi of Rome. 1 4 3 , 17 1

Togliatti , 1 2 4 Toldoth Jesho, 1 1 7 Tolstoi, Count Ivan, 1 0 0 Tollier, V . , 2 5 Torah, 53, 54, 5 6 , 5 8 Torquemada, 6 3 Toulat, Abbé, 1 5 4 Toussenel, 8 7 Treblinka, 1 8 3 , 1 8 8 Trotsky, L . , 1 0 4 , 1 0 5 Troukhine, General, 9 9

Union of Jewish Congregations in America, 3 4

United States of Europe, 1 8 7 U . N . O . , 1 6 2 , 1 7 2 Uri tski , M . , 1 0 7

Vacher de Lapouge, 83 Vallat , X . 4 9 Vas. 108

V i c h y , the Government of, 4 8 , 4 9 Viei l lard , Abbé, 1 2 V i t a , 1 0 0

Voltaire, 8 7 , 1 1 6 , 1 1 7

Wagenseil, 1 1 7 Wallach, M . G . M., alias Buch-

mann, Finkelstein, Harrison and Litvinoff, 1 0 9

Webster, N . H . , 1 6 5 , 1 6 6 Weigel, Rev. S. J., 1 4 1 Weizmann, Chaim, 1 8 6 , 1 8 8 White . H . D . , 1 8 8 Wildenbruch, von Piefler, 4 1 Wilke , F., 4 1 Wisceliceny, 180 Wlassow, General, 98-100 Wol f , 1 1 7 World Jewish Congress, 1 0 , 3 1 , 3 4 ,

3 5 , 1 3 0 , 1 4 0 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 9 , 1 8 7 , 1 8 8

W o r l d Zionist Organisation, 4 7 . 7 1 , 7 2

Yourowski, J., 1 0 6

Zaga, E. d i , 1 3 4 , 1 3 6 , 161 Zionism, 6 7 , 6 9 - 7 2 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 2

Zoroaster, 8 6 Z w i n g l i , 1 1 8 , 1 6 0

le lion de poncins judaism and the vatican

Documents

r t i t h e t e

t h e c o

c o n t e n t s p

o f t h e

o t h y t i n d

t s p i r i t u

e o n d e p o n c i

c h i n g o f c o n