CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER endorses the use of torture

[scooby]

Nothing surprising from a PNAC signatory who the Financial Times named the most influential commentator in America in 2006, saying:

"Krauthammer has influenced US foreign policy for more than two decades. He coined and developed 'The Reagan Doctrine' in 1985 and he defined the US role as sole superpower in his essay, 'The Unipolar Moment', published shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Krauthammer's 2004 speech 'Democratic Realism', which was delivered to the American Enterprise Institute when Krauthammer won the Irving Kristol Award, set out a framework for tackling the post 9/11 world, focusing on the promotion of democracy in the Middle East."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... inionsbox1

Torture? No. Except . . .
 
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 1, 2009

Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. (One of the "torture memos" noted that the CIA had warned that terrorist "chatter" had reached pre-9/11 levels.) We know we must act but have no idea where or how -- and we can't know that until we have information. Catch-22.

Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding. (To call some of the other "enhanced interrogation" techniques -- face slap, sleep interruption, a caterpillar in a small space -- torture is to empty the word of any meaning.)

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former attorney general Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 . . . fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.

Could we not, as the president repeatedly asserted in his Wednesday news conference, have obtained the information by less morally poisonous means? Perhaps if we'd spoken softly and sincerely to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, we could equally have obtained "high-value information."

There are two problems with the "good cop" technique. KSM, the mastermind of 9/11 who knew more about more plots than anyone else, did not seem very inclined to respond to polite inquiries about future plans. The man who boasted of personally beheading Daniel Pearl with a butcher knife answered questions about plots with "soon you will know" -- meaning, when you count the bodies in the morgue and find horribly disfigured burn victims in hospitals, you will know then what we are planning now.

The other problem is one of timing. The good cop routine can take weeks or months or years. We didn't have that luxury in the aftermath of 9/11 when waterboarding, for example, was in use. We'd been caught totally blind. We knew there were more plots out there, and we knew almost nothing about them. We needed to find out fast. We found out a lot.

"We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened," asserts Blair's predecessor, Mike McConnell. Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy's plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture.

Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a report in The Post that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."

Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying "Don't do it."

On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."

More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009" (the words are Blair's) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.  :roll:

[MikeWB]

What does Talmud say about torture?

[scooby]

More about Krauthammer's pioneering role in neo-conservatism:

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/prof ... er_Charles

Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist-turned-award-winning-pundit who writes for the Washington Post op-ed pages, has been an influential supporter and shaper of the neoconservative foreign policy agenda. In 1990, with the Cold War winding down and the neoconservative movement in disarray as a result of the loss of its core enemy (the Soviet Union), against which it had mobilized its rhetorical skills for nearly three decades, Krauthammer penned a broadside in Foreign Affairs about the direction of U.S. foreign policy. The article came to serve as the basis for a new neocon agenda in the 1990s, one that ultimately culminated in the Iraq War and the George W. Bush administration's "war on terror."

Entitled "The Unipolar Moment," the article argued that the United States should seize its position as the top-dog in the international order to impose its priorities on the world. Krauthammer wrote that if "America wants stability, it will have to create it." The alternative to "such a robust and difficult interventionism," he argued, is chaos. The main new U.S. opponents, opined Krauthammer, included "small aggressive states armed with weapons of mass destruction and possessing the means to deliver them." Such states "will constitute the greatest single threat to world security for the rest of our lives" (Foreign Affairs, Winter 1990/91). Earlier, in a 1989 article for the Irving Kristol-founded National Interest titled "Universal Dominion: Toward a Unipolar World," Krauthammer had spelled out his vision of the larger, overarching aim of a post-Cold War agenda: To aggressively advance democracy across the globe as the "touchtone of a new ideological American foreign policy" (National Interest, Winter 1989/90).

After the onset of the "war on terror" following 9/11, both these agenda items were heavily promoted by a formidable group of neoconservative ideologues organized around the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Although terrorism and "Islamo-fascism" were not core elements of neoconservative rhetoric pre-9/11, the political faction quickly adapted these issues to fit Krauthammer's larger agenda: imposing democracy globally.

This agenda was clearly spelled out in a series of open letters published by PNAC, including its September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush that Krauthammer signed, along with the likes of Eliot Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and a host of neoconservative, social conservative, and Religious Right figures. The letter endorsed what PNAC called Bush's "admirable commitment to 'lead the world to victory' in the war against terrorism." Calling for the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden, the isolation of the Palestinian Authority, and the targeting of Hezbollah and its supporters in Syria, the PNAC letter also argued that "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."It also emphasized the need to support democracies in the region as part of the war on terror, highlighting Israel as friend to be protected: "Israel has been and remains America's staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East. The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism."

Since the onset of the war on terror, Krauthammer's war of words in major media outlets (including Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, where he appears regularly) has continued apace, despite the gradual souring of the agenda he vigorously promoted. In particular, Krauthammer, along with many of his ideological comrades based at places like the American Enterprise Institute and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (where Krauthammer serves on the board of advisers), has vociferously argued for widening the war on terror to target places like Iran. In a September 2006 Washington Post op-ed, Krauthammer argued that it was necessary "to begin looking now with unflinching honesty at the military option" vis-à-vis Iran. He wrote: "In the region, Persian Iran will immediately become the hegemonic power in the Arab Middle East. Today it is deterred from overt aggression against its neighbors by the threat of conventional retaliation. Against a nuclear Iran, such deterrence becomes far less credible. As its weak, non-nuclear Persian Gulf neighbors accommodate to it, jihadist Iran will gain control of the most strategic region on the globe. Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days. The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age. Every city in the civilized world will live under the specter of instant annihilation delivered either by missile or by terrorist" (Washington Post, September 15, 2006).

Earlier, during the summer 2006 military confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah, Krauthammer argued that Hezbollah was the "leading edge of an aggressive, nuclear-hungry Iran." He concluded: "America finds itself at war with radical Islam, a two-churched monster: Sunni al-Qaida is now being challenged by Shiite Iran for primacy in its epic confrontation with the infidel West. With al-Qaida in decline, Iran is on the march. It is intervening through proxies throughout the Arab world—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in Iraq—to subvert modernizing, Western-oriented Arab governments and bring these territories under Iranian hegemony. Its nuclear ambitions would secure these advances, give it an overwhelming preponderance of power over the Arabs and an absolute deterrent against serious counteractions by the United States, Israel, or any other rival." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 5, 2006).

Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist, has won numerous awards for his writing, including a National Magazine Award and the 1987 Pulitzer for distinguished commentary. Krauthammer's op-eds regularly berate liberals and Democrats, champion intervention in the Middle East, and defend the neoconservative agenda.

Krauthammer also has used his columns to support beleaguered neoconservative comrades. In an August 2003 Washington Post column, for example, Krauthammer defended the controversial presidential nomination of Daniel Pipes to the U.S. Institute for Peace, which was heavily criticized by members of Congress and many observers because of Pipes' hardline stance on the Middle East and controversial take on Islam. For Krauthammer, however, the "attack on Pipes" was nothing but "another symptom of the absurd political correctness surrounding Islamic radicalism." He continued: "We are all supposed to pretend that we have equal suspicions of terrorist intent and thus must give equal scrutiny to a 70-year-old Irish nun, a 50-year-old Jewish seminarian, and a 30-year-old man from Saudi Arabia. Your daughter is on that plane: To whom do you want the security guards to give their attention? President Bush is considering bypassing the Senate and giving Pipes a recess appointment while Congress is out of town. For Bush, this would be an act of characteristic principle and courage. The problem, however, is that such an act makes the appointment look furtive. Worse, it lets the McCarthyites off too easy" (Washington Post, August 15, 2003).

After I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, an influential neoconservative and former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted in early March 2007 on perjury and other charges related to PlameGate, Krauthammer expressed disbelief in the jury's judgment. Libby had been deeply involved in the effort to criticize CIA agent Valerie Plame's husband Joe Wilson, who was critical of the Bush administration's push toward invading Iraq. Krauthammer wrote: "Scooter Libby has just been convicted of four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for ... what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife. Think about that. Can you remember when you first heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? Okay, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had. Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can't possibly be expected to remember not only every piece but precisely when they received every piece. Should Scooter Libby?" (Washington Post, March 9, 2007).

Krauthammer's continued support for an aggressive, unilateral U.S. foreign policy despite the disastrous outcome of the invasion of Iraq helped spur a growing divide within neocon circles. Former neocon supporter Francis Fukuyama targeted Krauthammer for particular derision, arguing that the columnist had become "strangely disconnected from reality." In a much quoted essay called "The Neoconservative Moment"—with the title's not-so-subtle jab at Krauthammer's defining work—Fukuyama argued that neoconservatives like Krauthammer had lost touch with new "empirical facts" that had emerged in Iraq that demanded a dramatic change of course in U.S. foreign policy. These new facts, according to Fukuyama, included: "the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the virulent and steadily mounting anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, the growing insurgency in Iraq, the fact that no strong democratic leadership had emerged there, the enormous financial and growing human cost of the war, the failure to leverage the war to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front, and the fact that America's fellow democratic allies had by and large failed to fall in line and legitimate American actions ex post" (National Interest, January 2004).

He added: "The failure to step up to these facts is dangerous precisely to the neo-neoconservative position that Krauthammer has been seeking to define and justify. As the war in Iraq turns from triumphant liberation to grinding insurgency, other voices—either traditional realists like Brent Scowcroft, nationalist-isolationists like Patrick Buchanan, or liberal internationalists like John Kerry—will step forward as authoritative voices and will have far more influence in defining American post-Iraq War foreign policy. The poorly executed nation-building strategy in Iraq will poison the well for future such exercises, undercutting domestic political support for a generous and visionary internationalism, just as Vietnam did."

Like many writers associated with neoconservatism, Krauthammer's politics originally tended toward liberalism and the Democratic Party. A biography on the website of the Harry Walker Agency, with which Krauthammer is affiliated, describes several aspects of Krauthammer's early profession and politics. "In 1978, he quit psychiatry and came to Washington to serve as a science adviser in the Carter administration and, later, speechwriter to Vice President Walter Mondale. In 1981, he joined the staff of the New Republic where he was an essayist and editor from 1981-1988. In the mid-eighties he began writing a weekly syndicated column for the Washington Post, which now appears in more than 100 newspapers, and a monthly essay for Time magazine. In his first full year as a syndicated columnist, he won the Pulitzer Prize (Distinguished Commentary, 1987). His New Republic essays won the highest award in magazine writing, the National Magazine Award for Essays and Criticism (1984). His essays have appeared in dozens of anthologies on subjects ranging from nuclear deterrence to gay marriage. A collection of his essays and columns, Cutting Edges, was published in 1985 (Random House)."

[scooby]

What does Talmud say about torture?

For starters, here's what Israel Shahak wrote in his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years:

http://www.geocities.com/israel_shahak/book1.htm

"In addition to laws such as those mentioned so far, which are directed at all Gentiles in the Land of Israel, an even greater evil influence arises from special laws against the ancient Canaanites and other nations who lived in Palestine before its conquest by Joshua, as well as against the Amalekites. All those nations must be utterly exterminated, and the Talmud and talmudic literature reiterate the genocidal biblical exhortations with even greater vehemence. Influential rabbis, who have a considerable following among Israeli army officers, identify the Palestinians (or even all Arabs) with those ancient nations, so that commands like 'thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth' acquire a topical meaning. In fact, it is not uncommon for reserve soldiers called up to do a tour of duty in the Gaza Strip to be given an 'educational lecture' in which they are told that the Palestinians of Gaza are 'like the Amalekites'. Biblical verses exhorting to genocide of the Midianite were solemnly quoted by an important Israeli rabbi in justification of the Qibbiya massacre, and this pronouncement has gained wide circulation in the Israeli army. There are many similar examples of bloodthirsty rabbinical pronouncements against the Palestinians, based on these laws."--I. Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, Pluto Press, London, (1994/2002), pp. 91-92.

It seems Christopher Jon Bjerknes does not report any mention of torture in the Talmud, but he's written extensively about Talmudic exterminationism:

http://www.jewishracism.blogspot.com/

It could not be more clear that the Jewish State follows a foreign policy which obeys Jewish Law as iterated in the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, Maimonedes, the Cabalah, and the many commentaries and refinements of same. The Jews are genociding the native inhabitants of Palestine, just as their religion advises, and because their religion teaches them to do so. They treat non-Jews as if non-humans, just as their religion requires them to do. They make perpetual war on every nation on Earth, just as their genocidal Jewish God has instructed.

The "Torah" is as genocidal as the Talmud, in places, more so, and Judaism is Talmud as much, or more so than Judaism is the Pentateuch. The perverse mentality of the average Jew is a product of Judaism, which perversely demands the enslavement and murder of the human race at the hands of Jewry.

The Jews have, for thousands of years, taught their own to mass murder the best non-Jews. The Jewish book of Obadiah in the Old Testament instructs the Jews to slaughter the wise men of the Gentiles, of "Esau", and to exterminate all non-Jews. Obadiah states, at verses 8-11:

"8 Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau? 9 And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be dismayed, to the end that every one of the mount of Esau may be cut off by slaughter. 10 For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever."

The much celebrated ancient genocidal racist Jew Simon ben Yohai is quoted in Soferim, Chapter 15, Rule 10:

"The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed."--Cf. "Gentile", The Jewish Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York, (1903), pp. 615-626, at 617. See also: A. Cohen, "Soferim 41a", The Minor Tractates of the Talmud Massektoth Ketannoth in Two Volumes, Volume 1, The Socino Press, London, (1965), pp. 287-288, especially note 50

The Jewish Talmud in tractate Sanhedrin 57a states the Jewish law that a Jew may murder a non-Jew with impunity:

"'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'"

The Jewish Talmud in tractate Abodah Zarah 57a also states the Jewish law that a Jew may murder a non-Jew with impunity:

"[. . .] but minim,[Footnote in the Soncino edition: Those who act as priests to idols whether they be Israelites or heathen (Rashi).] informers, and apostates may be cast in, and need not be brought up.' "

The genocidal Jewish God blessed the Jewish desire to murder their fellow human beings and steal their land and possessions. The Jewish Torah in the Old Testament in Exodus 34:11-17 states:

"11 Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

12 Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:

13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:

14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

15 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice;

16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods."

The genocidal Jewish God serves as a mythological justification to the Jews to exterminate their neighbors, the native inhabitants of the land of Palestine. The Jewish Torah in the Old Testament book Numbers 33:51-56 states:

"51 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan;

52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:

53 And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.

54 And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit.

55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

56 Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them."

The Jewish Torah in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy 7:1-6 commands the Jews to genocide the native inhabitants of Palestine:

"1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."

The Jewish Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 20b instructs the Jews to genocide the native inhabitants of Palestine, who are there called "Amalekites". The mythological genocidal Jewish God commands the Jews to exterminate the "Amalekites" and became furious when the Jews left one Amalekite alive to offer as a human sacrifice to the bloodthirsty Jewish God. This genocidal doctrine and conspiracy to exterminate an entire race of People is found throughout the Torah and the remainder of the Jewish Old Testament (Genesis 14:7; 36:12, 16. Exodus 17:8-11, 13-14, 16. Numbers 13:29; 14:25, 43, 45; 24:20. Deuteronomy 25:17-19. See also: Judges 3:13; 5:14; 6:3, 33; 7:12; 10:12; 12:15. I Samuel 14:48;15:2-8, 15, 18, 20, 32; 27:8; 28:18; 30:1, 13, 18. II Samuel 1:1, 8, 13; 8:12. I Chronicles 1:36; 4:43; 18:11. Psalm 83:7). The Jewish Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 20b states:

"It has been taught: R. Jose said: Three commandments were given to Israel when they entered the land; to appoint a king; [ii] to cut off the seed of Amalek; [iii] and to build themselves the chosen house [i.e. the Temple] and I do not know which of them has priority. But, when it is said: The hand upon the throne of the Lord, the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation, we must infer that they had first to set up a king, for 'throne' implies a king, as it is written, Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king. Yet I still do not know which [of the other two] comes first, the building of the chosen Temple or the cutting off of the seed of Amalek. Hence, when it is written, And when He giveth you rest from all your enemies round about etc., and then [Scripture proceeds], Then it shall come to pass that the place which the Lord your God shall choose, it is to be inferred that the extermination of Amalek is first. And so it is written of David, And it came to pass when the king dwelt in his house, and the Lord had given him rest from his enemies round about, and the passage continues; that the king said unto Nathan the Prophet: See now, I dwell in a house of cedars etc."--I. Epstein, Editor, "Sanhedrin 20b", The Babylonian Talmud, Volume 27, The Soncino Press, London, (1935), pp. 107-111, at 109.

The Jewish Cabalistic book the Zohar, Volume I, 25a-25b, states that peoples other than the Jews will be exterminated when the Jews form a state in Palestine,

"But as 'tohu and bohu' gave place to light, so when God reveals Himself they will be wiped off the earth. But withal redemption will not be complete until Amalek will be exterminated, for against Amalek the oath was taken that 'the Lord will have war against Amalek from generation to generation' (Ex. xvii, 16)."--H. Sperling and M. Simon, The Zohar, Volume 1, The Soncino Press, New York, (1933), p. 100.

The Jewish Zohar, Volume I, 28b-29a, states:

"At that time the mixed multitude shall pass away from the world [***] The mixed multitude are the impurity which the serpent injected into Eve. From this impurity came forth Cain, who killed Abel. [***] for they are the seed of Amalek, of whom it is said, 'thou shalt blot out the memory of Amalek' [***] Various impurities are mingled in the composition of Israel, like animals among men. One kind is from the side of the serpent; another from the side of the Gentiles, who are compared to the beasts of the field; another from the mazikin (goblins), for the souls [29a] of the wicked are literally the mazikin (goblins) of the world; and there is an impurity from the side of the demons and evil spirits; and there is none so cursed among them as Amalek, who is the evil serpent, the 'strange god'. He is the cause of all unchastity and murder, and his twin-soul is the poison of idolatry, the two together being called Samael (lit. poison-god). There is more than one Samael, and they are not all equal, but this side of the serpent is accursed above all of them."--H. Sperling and M. Simon, The Zohar, Volume 1, The Soncino Press, New York, (1933), pp. 108-110.