The Extermination Of The Semitic Race

By Theodore & Walid Shoebat

“All joy turns to gloom.

The joy of the earth is banished.”

— Isaiah 24:12

THE WORLD IS TURNING AGAINST THE JEWS

The greatest massacre of the Jews since the Holocaust took place in Israel on October 7th of 2023, and the world saw the horrors of the militant unitarian religion of Muhammad. We saw the videos of corpses on puddles of blood; of an elderly man being executed; of cadavers blackened and charred by fire; of spinal chords surrounded by burnt human flesh and tied together by metal wire, because an adult and a child were tied together and immolated alive. And yet, even with this horror, the hatred towards Israel is dominating, and the voice that is sympathetic to Israel is eclipsed by those who cry “free Palestine, from the river to the sea.” What does this tell us? Another holocaust is coming, and it will take place in Israel. Remember what the prophet Zechariah wrote:

We remember the days when entire crowds would be on the streets exclaiming that they were on the side of Israel, while those holding Palestinian flags were a mere fringe on the side. We remember the days when American Christianity was ecstatic about Israel, full of enthusiasm and energy to express their zeal and loyalty to Israel. But today, the voices for Israel are a mere shadow of their former self, and the pro-Palestine crowd is a raging sea. Regardless of the harrowing murders done by Hamas terrorists, regardless of the grizzly butchery, regardless of the slaughter of Israelis who were doing nothing but living their lives before being slayed by the diabolical worshippers of the unitarian god of Arabia, the roaring seas of the masses are demanding that Israel do a “ceasefire.” You did not see massive protests against Hamas, but you did see enormous demonstrations against Israel. On November 11th of 2023, 300,000 people, holding the green, red, white and black flags of  Palestine, marched in London on Armistice Day. In Sydney Australia, on November 11th of 2023, 45,000 people gathered to protest for Palestine, while only a thousand people showed up to support Israel. 

Americans have always had strong support for Israel, but this recently has been waning. In 2023, a Gallup pole showed that sympathy toward the Palestinians among U.S. adults is at a new high of 31%. This is a huge difference to what was found a decade ago, when sympathy for the Palestinian cause was at just 12%. Support for the Israelis amongst American adults is still strong, being at 54%. The support amongst American adults is one point less than 2022’s 55%, the lowest it has been since 2005. The Gallup report described this as “the first time Israel has not enjoyed a better than 2-to-1 advantage over the Palestinians in Americans’ sympathies.”

The world is turning against the Jew, and eventually there will be another holocaust, but this time it will be centered in Israel, and this ties into what the prophet Balaam warned of:

“And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur,

and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish for ever.” (Numbers 24:24) 

Who is Eber but the father of both the Jews and the Arabs, and what is this verse other than a prophecy on the destruction of the Jew and the Arab (besides the remnant that God takes from Eber), and thus the destruction of the Semitic race? The following essay is a description of a potential scenario of how this destruction will take place. 

Eber had two sons, Peleg, from whom are the Hebrews, and Jokhtan, the head of many Arabian tribes. Jokhtan was the ancestor/progenitor for all the purest Arabian tribes of central and southern Arabia. From these descendants of Jokhtan eventually came the nomadic Arabs of later history. It is interesting to note that even Islamic historians acknowledge that the Arabs are Beni-Qahtan (Arabic for the sons of Jokhtan). Ishmael became the father of a line of desert people who joined with the already existing sons of Jokhtan to find the matrix later known as the Arabs. So this means that the two peoples, the Hebrew and the Arab, are destroyed together, after a remnant of both are made exempt by joining the Israel of God. 

The Middle East has its obvious fault lines: in Turkey there is an ever-growing intense animosity for Syrians; the Iranians hate both the Jew and the Arab; in Palestine the Arab hates the Jewish settler and vice versa; in Israel there is a growing fanaticism and nationalism. There is also an immense animosity for the Syrians within Lebanon, and if the Lebanese Civil War has a lesson (especially the massacres of Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in 1982) its that bloodthirsty Lebanese nationalists will not throw away an opportunity to butcher refugees who they see as a plague. Once these fault lines are shaken to the utmost, Shem will kill himself, and others will also take part in his slaughter. The Turks are not really a Semitic people, being mainly of Indo-European origin, and the Persians are not part of the fold of Shem, being a separate people who speak an Indo-European language. Both the Anatolian Turks and the Iranians hold a special hatred for the Arabs and the Jews. The Iranians have a heavy enmity for the Saudis and the Israelis, and are bent upon their destruction, while the Turks hate the Saudis and the Syrians (especially the millions of Syrians living within Turkey).

And what of the Jew and the Arab? Islamic terrorism has only fed the leviathan of Jewish fanaticism, and has convinced more Jews to join the ranks of racists and provocateurs. The rage of course has grown tenfold on account of the October 7th bloodbath, and such violent anger is not going anywhere but upwards. Rage, like a pot of water on the highest flame, doesn’t stay contained; it boils over. The anger against terrorism is clearly justified, but the fury of the masses can always be capitalized upon by ideologue who want to exterminate those who they see as worthy of destruction. The wrath of the Jew will eventually erupt to the point where the Arabs will be butchered by fanatics (certainly they will not just kill Muslims, but the Christians who they especially despise). And how shall the Islamic world respond? The most leading nations amongst the Muslims — Turkey and Iran, will respond, and their admiration for Hitler will be seen in their bloodbath. There is a reason why in the first two months of 2005, Hitler’s Mein Kampf was the #4 best seller in Turkey, leading political scientist Doğu Ergil to say that “Nazism, buried in Europe, is being resurrected in Turkey.”

 The Turk and the Iranian will commit a holocaust of the Jew. But who committed the greatest holocaust of the Jew in history? Was it not the Germans? In our analysis we will not ignore this history, but look at a possible future in light of this history. The Germans are growing their military might, and with Americans increasing their interest in isolationism, Germany is on its way to becoming the leading power in Europe. The Germans are allies with Turkey, were allies with the Ottomans during the First World War, collaborated with the Islamic world against the Jews in the Second World War, armed and trained Albanian Nazi Islamists in the 1990s during the conflict that broke apart Yugoslavia, and has kept some relations with Iran to the ire of the Americans. Would Germany side with Israel in the case of a humanitarian crisis involving Jewish fanatics slaughtering Palestinians? In the name of bringing stability and stopping atrocities, Germany could join Turkey and Iran against the Israelis.

This possibility will be discussed in this analysis. It is easy to see how people will turn to destroy both the Arab and the Jew. They will say, ‘The Arab brings terrorism, the Jew is behind every evil, let us do away with both of them and make the world a better place.’ The Persian says, ‘The Arabian kills our fellow Shiite and is in bed with the Jews, let us do away with both of them.’ The Turk will say, ‘The Syrian brings crime and reduces our wages, the Arab brings Arabization which is primitive, and the Jew rules the world, burns, destroys, starves, wages wars, organizes revolutions and coups, and establishes states within states.” (This last line on the Jews literally comes from an anti-Jewish AK Party documentary entitled “the Mastermind.”) The Westerner will say, “The Arabs bring violence and terrorism, and the Jew wants to drag the whole world into a war for Israel.” And so the Turk, the Persian, and Europeans will turn on the Jews, thinking that they are carrying out a solution for the world’s problems. 

There is not only hatred between the Jew and the Palestinian, but between the Jews themselves, between ultra-religious and secularist, between Orthodox and Reformed, between ultra-nationalist and moderate. Both of these camps have a vision for Israel that are radically far apart from each other, a vision they hold so dearly that they are willing to fight, and even kill, for it. Both camps cannot coexist harmoniously forever, and the murder of Yizzhak Rabin and the celebration of his murderer — Yigal Amir — by Jewish radicals, attests to how Eber can murder himself. Just as the Jews butchered one another during the Roman-Judean War, so the Jews will kill one another. 

We shall begin this essay on the fierce hatred between the Jews and how this likens the prospect for civil war between these children of Eber. 

“And the people will be oppressed,

Each one by another, and each one by his neighbor” — Isaiah 3:5

JEWISH FANATICISM IN ISRAEL

The only things stopping Israel from becoming the next Sanhedrin are the United States and Jewish moderates. One day, it will come to the point when America will wash its hands from the actions of Israel, and this will leave the moderates as the only bulwark against Israel becoming the courtroom that condemned Christ. These two camps — the secularists and the religious fanatics, have two radically opposing visions for Israel, and if the latter are going to ever form their Talmudist theocracy, they are going to have to purge out the secularists and their influence. This struggle has manifested in the judicial overhaul agenda of the Israeli right; for by diminishing the leverage of Israel’s supreme court, the theocrats can push for the rules of rabbis through the Knesset without hinderance.  

There is tremendous division within Israel, between the moderates and secularists on the one side, and the far-right and ultra-religious on the other. The former wants to keep Israel as a secular democracy. But if the latter gets what it wants, Israel will become a theocracy. But this is just putting things in formal terms. If the religious get what they really want, Israel will be transformed into the very type of Sanhedrin that crucified Christ. For decades, in the modern state of Israel, there has been a very active movement to undermine the supreme court in favor of religious law. One could have seen this in 1999, when Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (once the chief rabbi of Sephardic Jews) called the justices of Israel’s supreme court bo`alei nidot, meaning literally that “they are all [men who] have intercourse with menstruating women,” and therefore give birth to “sons born of uncleanness.”

The fanaticism is seen in the politicians for whom many Israelis have voted. One of the biggest have been Itamar ben-Gvir who the Jerusalem Post’s editor-in-chief, Yaakov Katz, described as  “a threat to the future of Israel’s fragile democratic character.” Ben-Gvir’s party is called Otzma Yehudit, which means “Jewish power” (the Jewish version of “white power”). In the 2022 election, Jewish Power joined forces with two other far-right Jewish parties, the Religious Zionist Party and Noam, and together they won 14 seats in the Knesset, making it the third largest political alliance in the parliament. One thing that truly shows how much might the far-right in Israel has, is the fact that they have dominated the coalition government with the Likud.  The Likud party is in an alliance with United Torah Judaism — an orthodox Jewish party —, Shas, a religious party representing Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews —,National Religious Party–Religious Zionism — a far-right religious party, Otzma Yehudit — a Kahanist, anti-Arab party —, and Noam — another far-right religious party. These parties are a leviathan, possessed by the spirit of that mob that called for the crucifixion of Christ. You can see this spirit, for example, in Otzma Yuhidit. A well known member of this party, Bentzi Gopstein, wants to burn down all Christian churches in Israel. During a panel discussion in 2015, a question was asked whether one of the speakers “is in favor of burning churches in the Land of Israel,” to which Gopstein said: “Did the Rambam rule to destroy [idol worship] or not? Idol worship must be destroyed. It’s simply yes – what’s the question?” When he was told that if the recording of the talk ever got to the police he would be arrested, Gopstein replied: “That’s the last thing that concerns me. If this is truth, I’m prepared to sit in jail 50 years for it.”

One can even find explicit nazism within the political circle of Gopstein and ben-Gvir. Chanamel Dorfman, the son-in-law of Gopstein and legal advisor for ben-Gvir, once said in a protest against African asylum seekers: “The only problem with the Nazis is that I was on the losing side”. In other words, the only problem that Dorfman has with the Nazis is that they killed Jews, but he doesn’t mind that they murdered other people. 

In the past when ben-Gvir would do interviews from his home, he would proudly display a portrait of the mass murderer Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Palestinians in a mosque in 1992. He stopped showing the portrait to better his image, but he still demands for the prohibition of Jewish-Arab intermarriage. There is another thing that he calls for that shows just how divided Israel is: ben-Gvir wants to expel Jews he considers enemies of Israel. For example, he called for the deportation of Israeli liberal politician Ofer Cassif who he accuses of actively working against the State of Israel. 

Avi Maoz, the leader and sole Knesset member of the far-right Jewish party, Noam, wants for non-Orthodox sects of Judaism to be banned from worshiping in Ezrat Israel, the area to the south of the Western Wall prayer space that was chosen for egalitarian prayer in 2013. The ideological head for the Noam party, Rabbi Zvi Thau, has been influential in the inter-Jewish struggle between Orthodox and Reformed Jews. In a 2016 conference, in which Thau’s followers had a strong presence, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner affirmed that the growing numbers of the Reformed Jewish movement in Israel was really a good sign, because, as he said: “It’s the last heartbeats, the final spasms of the evil. They are frightened. We are heading for victory. In the country, too, there is more and more Torah. We are not in a position of weakness, we are in a position of strength, and we need to fight. Certainly to fight.”  

The hatred between Reformed and Orthodox runs so deep that even an Orthodox rabbi having dialogue with the Reformed brings out the most vicious hatred. Thau’s gang boycotted rabbi like Eliezer Melamed, the religious-Zionist head of the Har Bracha Yeshiva in the West Bank, because he met with Reform Jews as part of an inter-religious dialogue. Rabbi Aviner stated, “Holding a panel discussion with the evil impulse so as to appear to be open? No. On the evil impulse, you open fire immediately. You don’t talk, you don’t discuss.” Just as, after the time of Christ, the Zealots butchered the Sadducees and Pharisees during the Roman-Jewish conflict, so the day will come when the Orthodox will shed the blood of the Reformed.

For the Orthodox, the war against the Reformed is the most important of all conflicts, because it is the war over the soul of Israel. For the Orthodox, a Jewish state means a country for the Jewish religion, governed by Jewish law, not a secular idea of a country for all Jews to live in. Thus, the winner of this war will determine which Israel will exist in the future. If the Orthodox win, then Israel will have its Jewish sharia, but if the Reformed, moderates and Leftists get what they want, then the Kosher state that the religious envision will not come to pass. As Avi Maoz put it: 

“Our banner is the most important one. The primary struggle in the forthcoming election is the one and only question: whether the State of Israel will continue to be a Jewish state or, heaven forbid, will become a state of all its citizens [meaning a state in which all religions will have equal rights]. The left-wing camp wants a state of all its citizens. The Jewish-national camp, to which we belong, wants it to continue to be a Jewish state. The struggle for the essence, the identity, the soul, is the struggle of struggles, the banner of banners, it is the main thing… The unequivocal war against what is progressive and the war for Jewish identity, that is the principal banner. That has to be in the forefront of the struggle.”

This struggle has been going on for decades in Israel. In 1999, in a rally for religious diversity in Israel, Jewish Agency Chairman Avraham Burg declared: “There is a war in Israel. There is a cultural war…that will determine the life or death of democracy in Israel.” And even in the late 1990s, this struggle between the Jews was centered around the Supreme Court. In 1999, the rage was against the Israeli supreme court justice, Aharon Barak, who the orthodox Jews called “an enemy of the Jews” because he allowed for non-orthodox conversions to be registered and for conservative and Reform Jews to be seated on religious councils. Professor Shlomo Ben-Ami warned (also in 1999):

“The ties that hold Israel together as a united society have long been in a tragic process of disintegration. What we have here is not a society but cells inimical to one another in a state of potential civil war. Israel will not be able to stand this way before an enemy or confront the difficult challenge of peace…Years after the assassination [of Yitzhak Rabin] we have learned nothing and forgiven nothing; we are in exactly the same place. This is a nation that is not even capable of mourning together.” 

In 1999, a Gallop Poll, done by the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv, posed the question of whether the country was close to civil war. 56% of the respondents responded ‘yes.’ In that same year, the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research asked Israelis to rate what would most likely cause an outbreak in violence. 79% cited the relations between the secular and religious factions. In 1993, Elyakim Ha’etzni, a settler activist in the West Bank and a Knesset member for the now nonexistent right-wing Tehiya Party, signed an open letter exhorting soldiers and police officers to defy any orders to force out settlers from the West Bank.

The same letter warned that any giving up of territory to Palestinians would spark a civil war.

When we say that there may be a civil war in Israel in the future, there are those who would argue, “A Jew would not want kill a fellow Jew.” But this logic goes against the reality that when a Jew hates another Jew over a religious or political difference, he does not consider him to be a real Jew. Jews will even call each other “antisemites” in a political spat. After Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords in 1994, the ultra-Orthodox magazine, Hashavna (“The Week”), called Rabin an “anti-semite” and in 1995 the same publication went so far as to say that Rabin and Peres “are leading the state and its citizens to annihilation and must be placed before a firing squad”.

His Jewishness became so irrelevant to his haters that he was eventually assassinated by a fellow Jew.  A day before his murder, Asher Zuckerman, Hashavna’s publisher, wrote that “The day will come when the Israeli public will bring Rabin and Peres into court with the alternative being the gallows or the insane asylum. This nefarious duo has either lost its mind or is flagrantly treasonous.” In fact, a group of fanatical rabbis gave their blessing to whoever would kill Rabin, making it open season on the prime minister. They made reference to two precepts, din rodef (the obligation to slay a Jew who endangers the life or property of another Jew) and din moser (the obligation to kill a Jew who wants to turn another Jew in to nonJewish authorities). By signing the Oslo Accords and thus giving up land to the Palestinian Authority, the rabbis argued that Rabin had fit these descriptions.  Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun, an Orthodox rabbi and West Bank settler, declared that, “Hundreds of people heard the word rodef in connection with the late prime minister months before and around the time of the murder. The fact that these discussions leaked out and inspired a heated public debate in the religious community turned the obsolete notions of rodef and moser into household words.” “If Rabin comes to visit Gush Etzion, I myself will climb on a roof and shoot him with a rifle,” boasted Rabbi Shmuel Dvir, a teacher in the Har Etzion Yeshiva in Gush Erzion. Even in the United States, hundreds of Orthodox rabbis signed a statement declaring that Rabin was indeed a moser and rodef. It is no wonder that when Yigal Amir assassinated Rabin, he was hailed as a hero.  A Jewish man in the ultra-Orthodox stronghold of Bnei Brak stood before TV cameras and declared: “There is no mourning here. Yitzhak Rabin was not one of us.”

Jews in the West Bank settlements of Tapuach and Yizhar hung pictures of Amir in celebration of him killing Rabin, a Jew; an assassination that they esteemed as a miracle. When the news of Rabin’s killing reached the large West Bank settlement of Ariel, people in a political rally stood up and clapped their hands in elation. Young men in the Yeshiva of the Jewish Idea in Jerusalem hugged one another upon hearing that Rabin had been killed. In the Jewish Orthodox study meeting at Bar-Ilan University, students called Amir “a saint.” The fanatics will praise the murder of a Jew who they despise, and the mass murderer of Arabs (Baruch Goldstein, who shot and killed 29 Arabs in a mosque), and what does this tell us? That the fanatical Jews will have no qualms killing both Arabs and Jews. As Rabbi Yehudah Amital once said:

“Political extremism has been dressed up as religion. Not only did the prime minister’s murderer come from among us, but Baruch Goldstein, the murderer in the Cave of the Patriarchs, did too. That the religious community brushed off that slaughter…shows that its moral sensibility is flawed…The decline began when the rabbis chose to turn a blind eye to the attacks on Arabs that eventually led to acts of murder…” 

This was warned about in 2015 by Yuval Diskin, the 12th director for Israel’s Shin Bet:

“As the threat of people having to leave their homes increases, we’ll see more and more people, and not on the outskirts, supporting or joining actions which ultimately might lead to use of force — including against the army, including against the police — and this could also lead to another political murder. … There are situations in a people’s life where the option is either to split up — establishing the Kingdom of Judea and the Kingdom of Israel —or to go for a situation where one side enforces its opinion and defeats the other side fully and absolutely.” (Moreh, The Gatekeepers, p. 361)

This was affirmed back in 1986 by professor Ian S. Lustick when he warned that if a governing coalition party could be in the position to appeal to Arab demands, there would be a very violent reaction, not just against Arabs but other Jews:

“Even if a governing coalition could be formed of parties willing to accept an agreement based on the principle of territory for peace, the implementation of that policy would trigger intense and widespread opposition and pose real challenges to the parliamentary regime’s ability to sustain itself. … In Israel such a crisis would almost certainly involve repeated demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of Jews, violence against both Jews and Arabs, challenges to the authority and legitimacy of the government, a host of rabbinical decrees opposing the government’s intentions, the creation of scores of new illegal settlements, threats of civil war, a sudden influx of militantly ultranationalist Diaspora Jews, and, as suggested above, attempts at spectacular actions such as the destruction of the Muslim shrines in Jerusalem.”

A potential cause for a civil war in Israel would be the utter diminishing of the supreme court. When, in March of 2023, Netanyahu pledged that he would be getting personally involved in the judicial overhaul, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called on the government to halt the judicial overhaul, warning that “the growing rift in our society is penetrating the IDF and security agencies,” which “poses a clear, immediate, and tangible threat to the security of the state.”

The country is not as united as some may think. In the months before the October 7th massacre, hundreds of thousands of Israelis were taking to the streets to call for Netanyahu and his Likud party to step down from government because of his judicial reform to make Israel’s supreme court less powerful than the Knesset (parliament). To give you more perspective on how huge these demonstrations were, 5% of Israel’s population took part in these mass protests. Ehud Barak, a former prime minister, encouraged Israelis to partake in civil disobedience if the judicial overhaul became law, while many military officers exclaimed that they would refuse to report for duty. The rage of the secularists remains in Israel even after the October 7th massacre. In December of 2023 reserve major general Yair Golan called for a revolution to overthrow Netanyahu and his government:

 “We must besiege the Knesset. A quarter of a million people, half a million people, a million people. We must paralyze this country. We must demand the sending home of this scoundrel who controls us as prime minister. …We must send all his dark ministers. These fools, these wretches, send them home immediately.”

The Israeli right has been growing tremendously in power, while the liberals have been weakening; and this can be seen in the fact that the left has not led the government since 2001. This can further be seen in the political climate: in the past Netanyahu was able to make alliances with the center, whereas in 2022 he was able to make a coalition only by allying with far-right and religious parties. The main target of Israel’s rightest radicals, institutionally speaking, is the supreme court. As in the US, Israel’s highest court has the final say so on laws, and can overturn the edicts of the Knesset. Thus, the supreme court is the biggest obstacle to the imposition of Jewish law, and to the transformation to the theocracy that many Jews envision. An example of this can be seen in the Israeli politician Bezalel Smotrich.

In 2016, the Knesset  passed a bill allowing religious authorities to ban the use of public mikvahs (religious baths for ritual immersion) for converts to Reformed Judaism. The Supreme Court ruled against this bill. Smotrich stated he was “not willing to recognize Reform conversions and their fake religion”. The story denotes a dark reality within Israel: the country is viciously divided on religious and political grounds, and the place of this war is the supreme court. Smotrich and those like him represent this enormous movement that wants to usher in Jewish sharia law. He said in 2019 that “We want the justice portfolio because we want to restore the Torah justice system”, and that Israel should desire to govern itself as “in the days of King David”. In the same year Smotrich said: “We [Orthodox Jews] all would want the State of Israel to be run according to the Torah and Jewish law, it’s just that we can’t because there are people who think differently from us, and we have to get along with them.”

The number of Jews who believe as Smotrich does are growing in huge numbers, while the moderates are declining in numbers because of their low birth-rates. What happens when there are enough radicals? The moderates will be put in an existential crisis in which the Israel that they want to keep will be on the verge of being seized and turned into a theocracy. What happens when you have opposing factions that hold onto different worldviews that are violently against each other, and all of the proper channels have been exhausted? What is the end result, but bloodshed? 

Patrick Kingsley, The Times’s Jerusalem bureau chief, stated: “Ultra-Orthodox Jews and settler activists are taking advantage of the fact that they wield unprecedented power in Israeli society and government to try to unravel the influence of the court.” Moderates see the supreme court as the rampart against Jewish theocracy and thus the protection of democracy, while the rightists see it as a hinderance to the desires of the religious or nationalist people. The rightists argue that the supreme court striking down certain laws that it deems as against human rights, is an affront to democracy. Justice minister Yariv Levin complained: “we go to the polls, we vote, we choose, but time and again, people we did not choose decide for us . . . this is not democracy!” Meanwhile, the moderates argue that if the supreme court is diminished, then tyrannical laws will be voted in by right-wing members of the Knesset. This was reflected by Israeli justice Esther Hayut when she quoted Ze’ev Jabotinsky in her response to Levin: “Democracy means freedom. A government supported by a majority can also negate freedom. And in a place in which guarantees for individual freedom do not exist — democracy does not exist.” 

Israel’s liberals and political moderates see this rising far-right and its advance in the government, and its attempts to weaken the supreme court, as an existential threat to the Israel that they want to keep and preserve. In the fight for existence, the potential for bloodshed is always there, which means that Israel is closer to the prospect of civil war than what others would like to think. To quote the words of Israeli president Isaac Herzog: “Those who think that a real civil war, with human lives, is a border we won’t cross, have no idea. … A civil war is a red line. At any price, and by any means, I won’t let it happen.” The division is not just over mere politics, but the soul of Israel. As Jesse Ferris wrote: “Previous divisions were, for the most part, over policy. The present rift is over who we are.” 

Within the year of 2023, in the months before the October 7th massacre, for the first time in the history of the modern state of Israel, talk of civil war between the Jews became mainstream. The bloodbath done by Hamas put an end to the talk on a possible bloodbath between the Jews themselves. But if one looks at the political discourse that was going on in Israel in the months prior to the Hamas slaughter, one will see much analysis on the potential for civil war amongst the Jews themselves. For example, in August of 2023, Lior Ackerman, a former brigadier-general for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), wrote an article expressing how it is not impossible for a civil war to break out in Israel. He points how much of the IDF consists of far-Right zionists: 

“The IDF is built on a very broad chain of command, which includes many commanders from religious Zionism. In the last elections, a large part of the soldiers voted for the extreme right party of Itamar Ben Gabir” 

The ultra-nationalists and Jewish orthodox population is out-populating the politically moderate Israelis through higher birth rates, which means it is the Right (and not the left nor the middle-ground) that is winning the demographic war. The youth in Israel have become more right-wing than the older generations; as Josh Hantman writes, far-right politicians like Itamar ben-Gvir have “successfully captured the imagination of a decent chunk of the youth – a group who are much further to the right than older demographics.” He further writes:

“With the incredible growth of Israel’s population, you have tens of thousands of new voters each cycle – even with elections this close together,” he explained. “These voters are by definition younger, and many are soldiers, who are more likely to lean to the right and be excited by the populist, ultra-nationalist rhetoric.”

Israel’s liberals are being outmatched, which has led them to see that they are in a crisis — or really, a fierce struggle — for the existence of the Israel that they cherish. On the other hand, the Right sees the opposing side as the biggest threat to the creation of the religious Israel that they envisage. Thus, both sides see each other as the threat against what they think Israel should be. In such a tense atmosphere, it is easy to see how so many soldiers being in the nationalist right can help lead to a conflagration of violence. They have guns, training, and they can lead their side in a conflict. “When taking all the existing data and analyzing the current situation,” writes Ackerman, “a very worrying picture emerges, which may lead the State of Israel to a violent civil struggle, which may deteriorate into a civil war in which elements serving in the army will voluntarily become involved. It is indeed an extreme scenario, but not one that is not impossible in the current situation.” 

“The struggle for the integrity of the land will also justify a civil war,” wrote Israeli Raphael Waldan in December of 2023, “not fundamentally different from the one that caused the destruction of the Second Temple.” The reference to the Second Temple is not about the Roman destruction of the Temple during the Jewish-Roman war, but to the civil war that took place during that conflict. When one reads Josephus history on that war, one will see throughout the war it was not a black-and-white situation where it was just Jews and Romans fighting each other; but rather it was dominated by an internal war between the Jews themselves. The conflict was between those Jews who wanted war with the Romans and those who did not. Today, it is between moderates and ultra-religious and nationalists. In May of 2022, Naftali Bennet did a speech in honor of Israel’s fallen soldiers in which he warned about a divided Jewish house. And what did he bring up? The Jewish civil war before the destruction of the Second Temple, and he warned that currently Israel is in its third chance, and there won’t be another:

“Unfortunately, our people are scarred by the gene of factionalism,” he said. “This is the third time that a sovereign Jewish state exists here in the Land of Israel. The previous two times we failed to make it past the eighth decade. . . . What a terrible price we paid: 2,000 years in miserable exile, under pogroms and humiliation and catastrophes — all because we succumbed . . . to fraternal hate. Now, praise God, we have been granted a third opportunity. . . . My brothers and sisters, there will not be another.”

In July of 2023, Israeli-Arab journalist Mirwan Bishara warned that the Jewish nationalist call to arms will not be just against Arabs, but other Jews as well: “When supporters of Minister of National Security Itmar Ben-Gvir follow through on his call to carry arms, those weapons will not only be used against Palestinians – but also against secular, liberal Israelis they abhor no less.” Bishara concluded by saying that “the genie is out of the bottle, and the fanatics, who have moved from the margins to the centre of power, and who feed on conflict and war, will not stop until their messianic redemption is complete, come what may. Preferably apocalyptical.” 

Ethnic, religious and political tensions in Israel are so great that it would not take much to trigger a wave of violence. The world got a taste of this on February 26th of 2023. On this day, a Palestinian gunman shot and killed two Jewish settlers in the Palestinian town of Huwara. On the night of February 26th, hundreds of settlers raided Huwara and three nearby villages, setting ablaze businesses, homes and vehicles. Israeli Major General Yehuda Fuchs called the rampage “a pogrom done by outlaws”. There was an Israeli crowdfunding campaign done to raise money for those whose property was devastated, and in one week 12,000 Israelis donated $465,000. Sadly, against those of civility, there are the fanatics amongst the Jews and they have advanced in influence.  Zvika Fogel, a member of the Knesset for the Otzma Yehudit party, supported the pogrom: ”Yesterday a terrorist came from Huwara – Huwara is closed and burnt. That is what I want to see.” 

The main fault line between the Arabs and Jews would have to be between the Jewish settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank. In the West Bank — not including East Jerusalem — there are over 450,000 settlers (and Bezazel Smotrich wants to double this number to a million people). But, if you include East Jerusalem, the number increases to about 700,000 settlers. The median age for males in the West Bank — and this includes the Jewish settlements — is 21.7 years old, which means that amongst both the Palestinians and the the Jewish settlers there is a very large, fighting age male population. A massive young male population, mixed in with guns and fanaticism is a dangerously effective combination for a bloodbath between the settlers and the Palestinians.

So what do all of these things — tensions between the Jews and between the Jews and the Arabs — tell us? Its quite obvious: the future bloodbath in Israel over political, religious and ethnic differences; a bloodbath between liberal and conservative Jews, Orthodox and Reformed Jews, Jews and Arabs — a bloodbath between Shem. Shem has been pushed out of his tent and now lives in a makeshift tent, and he will burn this to the ground. There will be civil war between Jews, and there will be violence against Arabs, and the latter bloodbath will spark an Islamic invasion against Israel. Who would lead such a jihad? The strongest of the Islamic countries — Iran and Turkey. 

“I believe that the Iranian supreme leader makes Hitler look good.” 

— Prince Muhammad bin Salman

The whole world knows that the Iranians want to wipe out the Jews. But there is another Semitic people — also the sons of Heber — that the Persians desire to wipe out: the Arabs. We see this prophesied in Isaiah 21:

“Go up, O Elam! Besiege, O Media!” (Isaiah 21:2)

“Babylon is fallen, is fallen” (Isaiah 21:9)

“The burden against Arabia” (Isaiah 21:13)

“All the glory of Kedar will fail” (Isaiah 21:16)

Yes, there have been sessions of diplomacy between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but these do not hide the explicit hatred that lies between them. There is a reason as to why Saudi Arabia normalized relations with the Israelis: to form an alliance against Iran. Because of its warming up to Israel, Iran sees the Arabs as being in bed with the zionist enemy, and thus as worthy of destruction. On October 3rd of 2023 (days before Hamas butchered the Jews), Ali Khamenei made a warning to Saudi Arabia stating that “whoever bets on a normalization agreement with Israel will end up losing.”

Why, in September of 2023, did Mohammad bin Salman say that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, “we will have to get one”? It is because the Arabians know that Iran aspires for their destruction. This fear was echoed in 2022 by Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, when he said: “If Iran gets an operational nuclear weapon, all bets are off … We are in a very dangerous space in the region”. Why do you think that Saudi Arabia, when the war with the Houthis started after the October 7th massacre, began offering Iran aid and investment to keep the Iranians from fighting for the Houthis and to stop the Israel-Hamas war from becoming a regional war? Because Saudi Arabia fears Iran.

In 2018, Mohammad bin Salman warned that if not enough international pressure is imposed on Iran, then in the next ten to fifteen years there will likely be a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia: 

“We must achieve this in order to avoid a military conflict, if we fail to do this, we will probably have a war with Iran in 10-15 years”

In 2017,  bin Salman stated that his country would not wait for Iran to take over Yemen and threaten Saudi security, but would instead “work so that the battle is for them inside Iran.” Iran’s Brigadier General Hossein Dehghan responded back by saying:  “I advise them against committing any ignorant move. But if they commit such a mistake, it is unlikely that anywhere in Saudi Arabia would remain intact with the exception of Mecca and Medina”.

The Arabians know that Iran wants to wipe them out, and this was reflected by major Saudi diplomat Thamer Al-Sabhan when he said in 2016: “Iran wants chaos and the destruction of the Arabs by creating a Shiite-Sunni conflict, and it does not believe in the Arab Shiites”. When protests broke out in Iran in 2019 due to higher fuel taxes, the Iranians blamed the Americans, Israelis and the Saudis and vowed to destroy them. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander Hossein Salami declared: “We have shown restraint and patience with the hostile moves against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which are behind America, the Zionist regime and Saudi Arabia. But we will destroy them if they cross our red lines.” There is a reason why Mohammad bin Salman warned in 2018 that “the contemporary triangle of evil comprises Iran, Turkey and extremist religious groups.” Saudi Arabia fears both Iran and Turkey because both of these countries seek for its destruction. Iran dreams of destroying two peoples of the Semitic race who are both the sons of Eber, the Arabians and the Jews, and this desire is reflected in the popular Iranian song, Nohe:

“We hear the shouts of the world-eating Jews from the throat of the Saudi king … Our missiles will rain down on our enemies. Our Sejjil Missiles will drop in the heart of Tel Aviv. The voice of Heydar [Ali] will prevail from the Kaaba. This is the Shia flag that will be waved from the top of the world. We will soon write ‘Ya Heydar e Karar’ (Imam Ali’s honorific title gained after the Battle of Khyber) on the green flag of Saudi Arabia.”  — Nohe (Iranian Shiite song)

 “I believe that the Turk must be the only lord, the only master of this country.

Those who are not of pure Turkish stock can have only one right in this country,

the right to be servants and slaves.”

— Mahmut Esat Bozkurt

After Israel launched its war against Gaza as a response to the October 7th massacre, Erdogan made a hint as to his desire to invade Israel:

“We are such a great nation and state that our strength, our problem, our struggle is not only limited to our borders. … From now on, we will continue on our path with the motto that we may suddenly knock on your door one night.”

Turkey wants to establish a new order against the established one: an Islamic order led by Turkey. This was expressed by Nejat Ozden, the vice-chairman of ASSAM — a front group for Erdogan’s paramilitary organization, SADAT. Once Israel began bombing Gaza, Ozden wrote that what is needed is an Islamic Union: “The Idea of Islamic Union is the search for a way of salvation and resurrection of the Islamic world from its weakness, helplessness and inferiority complex in the face of Westerners. In this respect, the Islamic Union, or in other words, the Islamic Union proposal, is an alternative to the current order in one aspect, and reactive in another aspect. It aims to improve the situation of Muslims against the West.” 

In 2021, Erdogan proposed the creation of an international peacekeeping force to enter Israel to protect Palestinians, stressing the need for “the international community to give Israel a strong and deterrent lesson”.  

And regardless of the fact that Turkey has been in a rivalry with Iran, both of these countries will unite in the case of a war with Israel. In November of 2023, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and his Iranian counterpart Ibrahim Reisi discussed in a phone conversation about how they both have a common stance against “Israel’s brutality in the Palestinian territories”. 

In Turkey, there is even a love for Adolf Hitler. An example of this was seen in Suleyman Sezen, an AKP (Erdogan’s party) city councilman at Samsun’s Atakum District. In October of 2023, he prayed for the soul of Hitler and praised the German Reich leader who committed the biggest genocide of the Jews:

“Historically, everybody has been angry with Hitler, and called him a racist. Hitler said: ‘You will curse me for every Jew I did not kill.’ This is true. Once again I pray for God to bestow mercy and grace upon Hitler. [I pray for this] because of the Jewish Zionist Israel –  those people who are spreading confusion throughout the world, and emerge from under every rock and from behind any evil.”

There is another group that is hated in Turkey besides the Jews, and that is the Syrians. 

On September 18th of 2023, Turkish historian Umit Dogan posted for his over 341,000 followers on Twitter a tribute to Djemal Pasha, the Ottoman governor of Syria in the beginning of the 20th century, known by local Arab populations as “the butcher.” On the post (shared 13,000 times with over a million views), Dogan writes: “Djemal Pasha, who was said not to have breakfast without hanging 20 Arabs every morning.”

The hatred has escalated into mob violence. For example, on June 29th of 2019, a mob drunk off rage demolished and vandalized shops and apartments belonging to Syrian refugees in the working-class neighborhood of Ikitelli in Istanbul. What stoked up the mob was a false rumor that spread around that a 12-year-old Syrian refugee attacked a 12-year-old Turk. The story was told to the mob’s ears by various social media pages, such as the WhatsApp group, the “Ikitelli Youth Movement,” and by various groups on Twitter and Facebook with the hashtags “#Idon’tWantSyriansInMyCountry” and “#SyriansGoAway!”

There are nearly four million Syrians living in Turkey, and they have held the status of guests (even if they have been there for over ten years). With their condition as guests, they are pretty much prevented from applying for Turkish citizenship. Turkish law permits children born in the country who cannot gain citizenship through their parents to become Turkish nationals. But this clause has almost never been enacted for Syrian children born in Turkey. Granted, 223,881 Syrians had become Turkish citizens as of the end of 2022, but this was under the 2016 policy of Erdogan which bestows citizenship on foreigners who provide an “outstanding service in the social or economic arena.” “There are highly qualified people among [the Syrians]; there are engineers, lawyers, doctors,” Erdogan said in 2017. “Let’s make use of that talent. … Instead of letting them work illegally here and there, let’s give them the chance to work as citizens like the children of this nation.” This angered the nationalists who accused Erdogan of trying to get more Syrians to become citizens to give his AK Party more voters. 

The Syrians of Turkey are—for the most part—stateless, and if the bloodthirstiness of the Turkish nationalist becomes policy, what protections would they have? Turkey has already had anti-Syrian mob violence. In 2021, mobs looted Syrian shops and homes in Ankara; and in In September of 2022, a gang of Turks fatally stabbed a Syrian teenager who was accepted to study medicine in Antakya.

The animosity towards Syrians is reflected in the hatred for the Arabic language. Turkish nationalist Umit Ozdag, who has been at the helm of the anti-Syrian movement and has made a party bent on deporting all Syrian migrants, funded a dystopian film called “Silent Invasion,” which is about a Syrian party that wins the 2042 Turkish elections and declares Arabic to be the official language. 

 In the state of Mersin, there was a campaign to purge billboards written in Arabic; similar calls for the removal of Arabic billboards took place in Izmir, Adana, Istanbul, and Kayseri. Ghazwan Koronful, lawyer and director of the association Free Syrian Lawyers, stated that “there is no willingness to accept or integrate [Syrians] into the Turkish society.”  Moreover, Koronful suspects that the policy of deportation and forcing Syrians to return to their home country might still be in its beginning stages: “In my opinion, within five years, the number of Syrians remaining in Turkey will only be approximately 500,000 [out of the 3.6 million currently in the country], and most of them will be naturalized citizens, university students, and businessmen.”

Turkey’s immense absorption of Syrian migrants has been amongst the least popular policies of Erdogan’s AK Party. In one 2019 study, the amount of people who said that they were “not pleased with” seeing Syrian refugees in Turkey was 59.8%. Those who were questioned said that the reason behind their dislike for Syrians was their “inclination to crime,” (even though the crime rate amongst Syrians is far lower than that of Turkish citizens). In a study done in 2020 by the Istanbul Political Research Institute, 10.5% of Turks in Istanbul defined Syrians as “the most important problem” in the city, and 75% of the interviewees believed that the Turkish government treated Syrian refugees better than Turkish citizens. Those who said that they were “concerned” about the sight of Syrians topped the list with 47%. 36% of the respondents said that they did not consider the Syrians in Turkey to be victims of war. In another survey from 2021, two-thirds (67.1%) believed that Syrians “disturb social peace and morality by engaging in violence, theft, smuggling, and prostitution”. 70.6% of Turks surveyed said that Syrians would “harm our country’s economy”.  40% of Turks surveyed believed that Syrians were “dangerous people who will cause us a lot of troubles in the future” and “burdens on us”

There has been a growing hatred against Syrians in Turkey, an animosity that says: “Syrians are living better than Turkish people”. When the majority feel that a minority is being treated better than them, ideologues and politicians take the opportunity express this hatred and gain the following of the masses. Another thing that happens is that false stories spread to manipulate the masses and stoke up their animosity. The minority deemed as a threat is dehumanized to the level of animals. For example, in Turkey there was a false story that went viral which claimed that 225,000 Syrians gave birth in Turkey. The widely circulated story got comments online such as, “they are like cats, they don’t wait neither for March nor for July, they do,” and “they can compete with cats and dogs in fertility”. There was another false report in Turkey that went viral, which stated that people who share videos, news, or photographs exposing Syrian refugees online would get prison sentences. Even though the claim was false, many Turks bought it and expressed their rage in the comments, such as: “you enjoy yourself in your thousand-room palace and we bear the burdens of these dirty Syrians.” Turkish comedian Sahan Gokbakar wrote to his 3.7 million followers on Twitter: “Health, shelter and all our material resources should be used only for our own people, not for foreigners.” While there was some criticism, the post got more than 280,000 likes.

This way of thinking, and the propaganda that stokes it, has led to grizzly murders. In November of 2021 Kemal Korukmaz murdered three Syrian migrants by burning them alive. According to Rudaw, Korukmaz “admitted that he had no enmity with the Syrian workers, that he did not know them, and that he burned them just because they were Syrian refugees.” Kemal Korukmaz stated that about a year before the murder, notes started to be left in a cigarette box in his car, the doors of which he left unlocked, and in these notes, it was written: “Continue your duty” and finally “Start your duty and clean” and he started to think that the Syrians needed to be purged. 

The International Organization for Migration asked 636 Turks questions about their thoughts on Syrians, and nearly half of them saw the Syrians as a “less talented race”. The racism in Turkey is like something out of the 19th century southern United States. One Syrian, Issa al-Karim, who became a Turkish citizen, recounted how his children (also citizens) were not allowed to be in their class photo because “it was limited to native Turks only.” There is a strong feeling amidst the Turks that the influx of Syrians will cause arabization in their country, and this fear is something that was alive and well in Turkey going back to the First World War. There is even a belief, pushed by firebrand politician, Umit Ozdag, that the Syrians (who Ozdag says are doing a  “silent invasion” of the country) will eventually cause a civil war within Turkey.

Ozdag called the flow of Syrian refugees a “strategically engineered migration”—a renewed imperialist plot, resurfacing a century after Turkey threw the British and Greeks out after World War One. But this time, Ozdag says, the imperialists are using the Arabs to undermine Turkey. “If these [refugees] stay here, in 10 years the borders of the Middle East will begin from Turkey’s northwest. We planned everything to not let that happen,” Ozdag told Foreign Policy. To block any more migrants, Ozdag wants there to be placed anti-personnel landmines along the borders, basically pushing for the killing of all border-crossers. This mentality is echoed in Turkish border security which has injured, and even killed, hundreds of Syrian migrants. On March 11th of 2023, Turkish border officers brutally tortured eight Syrians who were trying to cross the border, killing one adult man and a boy. On March 13th of the same year, A Turkish border officer shot and murdered a 59-year-old Syrian man as he was plowing his field near the border. Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia Director at Human Rights Watch, reported:

“Turkish armed forces and gendarmerie, responsible for border security, are indiscriminately shooting and mistreating Syrians along the Syria-Turkey border. Hundreds of deaths and injuries have been recorded due to these actions, which have occurred regularly in recent years. …Arbitrary killings of Syrians are part of a pattern of atrocities by Turkey’s border officials that the government has failed to effectively prevent or investigate.”

In Turkey we can see a desire to destroy both the Jew and the Syrian, and thus here lies another sign of the coming destruction of the Semitic race.

“May God enlarge Japheth,

And may he live in the tents of Shem”

(Genesis 9:27) 

When Japheth — the patriarch of all Europeans — leaves the tents of his brother Shem, he slays his brother. Noah declared: “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem” (Genesis 9:27), for it was from the line of Shem whence Christ came. Thus when Japheth resides in his brother’s tent, he has civility, but when he leaves, he is ferocious and seeks to burn down the tent of Shem. The world saw this in the Holocaust, and now that the world is turning against the Jews, the question lies: will Germany take part in the future holocaust? 

As the wood of the vine among the trees of the forest, which I have given to the fire for fuel, so have I given up the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I set My face against them. Though they have come out of the fire [the first Holocaust], yet the fire will consume them [the final holocaust]. Then you will know that I am the Lord, when I set My face against them. So I will make the land desolate, because they have acted unfaithfully,’” declares the Lord God. (Ezekiel 15:6-8, brackets mine)

One December 13 of 2021, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, published a series of papers under the umbrella title of German Foreign Policy in Transition. One of the papers was entitled, The Need for New Concepts to Address Conflicts in Europe’s Broader Southern Neighbourhood, and was written by Hürcan Aslı Aksoy, Wolfram Lacher and  Muriel Asseburg. In this paper Asseburg refers to Russian intervention in other counties — such as Libya and Syria — as a response “to the partial retreat of the American hegemon”. This sort of talk has been growing popular in German political rhetoric, that America’s hegemony is declining, and therefore Germany must become a serious military power to defend Europe. Asseburg’s paper goes beyond just mere defense; she goes so far as to say that Germany should focus not just on Europe, but on the Middle East, in the sense that Germany could enter other countries to bring war criminals to justice.

The realm outside of Europe that is of interest for Germany in stopping war crimes, according to Asseburg, is the “broader Southern neighborhood,” which includes the Middle East, specifically “suspected war crimes in the Palestinian territories”. Asseburg puts forth the criticism that “interventions by regional powers that are not guided by principles of international law, as well as polarisation in the UN Security Council, today place much tighter constraints on international criminal justice than was the case in the 2000s.” Since there are countries that intervene which do not abide by international law (she is obviously referring to Russia) and since the UN is not reliable to stop war criminals and bring them to justice, Germany can be a pioneer in different way towards getting rid of war criminals. “Effective conflict transformation in the broader Southern neighbourhood”, writes Asseburg, “is in Germany’s own inter­est in order to avert negative repercussions and pro­vide a convincing alternative to the offers of illiberal actors.”

To bring these war criminals of the neighboring South to justice is not something that the International Criminal Court can be relied upon to do, Asseburg writes, and so national courts (such as the German court) must step in: “prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) or international special tribunals is often impossible because per­manent members of the UN Security Council are involved. Therefore, the only option is for national courts to deal with the situation in accordance with the principle of universal jurisdiction.” To help solve this, Germany can take a pioneering role “by encouraging trials under the principle of universal jurisdiction in national courts (in Germany and other EU member states where this is possible)”, meaning Germany can intervene against war criminals and bring them to justice in a German court. Germany can also go against war criminals “by expanding the capacities of its own law enforcement agencies”.  And when speaking of stopping war crimes, Asseburg speaks of the Palestinian territories: “Germany can only credibly act as a pioneer if it consistently fulfills this role. This implies that crimi­nal prosecutions do not stop with the nationals of friendly states (see, for example, the ICC investigation into suspected war crimes in the Palestinian terri­tories)”. 

There is an interesting — and odious — trend that is building up within Germany: the care for the Holocaust, or the concern over the sensitivities around the Holocaust (or Shoah) is going down in Germany. This has been taking place for years without much attention. I remember when I was a sophomore in high school around 2005, I had a history teacher who had taught in Germany for some time, and I recall her telling me how the youths in Germany were tired of hearing about the Holocaust. This trend is very real, and has even been acknowledged by Germany’s foremost Middle East scholar, Muriel Asseburg who, in a 2015 interview, spoke of a “a gradual shift” in which Germany is not “automatically on Israel’s side” and that the care to remember the genocide of the Jews orchestrated by Germany is no longer as big as it once was:

“There is at least a gradual shift here, but so far no fundamental change in Berlin’s attitude. It is no longer the case that Berlin is always automatically on Israel’s side; a common European stance often takes precedence here. … While the significance of the Shoah [Holocaust] in the minds of citizens in Germany is decreasing, it remains a very strong constant in the Israeli education system. Accordingly, it powerfully underpins the desire to never want to be a victim again.”  

What Asseburg is saying is that while Israel doesn’t want another Shoah to happen again — and thus why it uses strong military responses — the Germans don’t care so much about the Holocaust anymore. So, what we have is an Israel that focuses on the Shoah and wants to prevent another through a robust military, and a Germany that doesn’t care so much about it. It is very strange to even be talking about such a situation in which Germany doesn’t care so much about the Holocaust. The Germans conducted the greatest massacre of the Jews in history — they were the closest to ever fully exterminating Europe’s Jews — and this dark page of history does not bother the Germans as much. This should, in the very least, bother us. Asseberg spoke of Germany’s growing indifference to the Holocaust in an interview in 2015. This was the same year that the German Bertelsmann Foundation did a survey on views on Israel and the Holocaust in Germany. 48% held a negative view of Israel, including a majority of those in the age group of 18 to 29. 55% of respondents agreed with this statement: “Today, almost 70 years after the end of the war, we should no longer talk so much about the persecution of the Jews, but should finally draw a line under the past”.

The majority of these particular respondents were amongst the younger generation (67% of Germans under the age of 40), while amongst older Germans its 51% who agree with the above statement. In the youngest age group (18 to 29 years old), almost 80 percent said they were annoyed by discussion on the Holocaust. A total of 81 percent of German respondents agreed with this statement: “one should let history rest and focus on current or future problems”. These numbers were later reflected in 2017 when a German nationalist book entitled Finis Germania (The End of Germany) and written by historian Rolf Peter Sieferle, was published. The book was published after Sieferle killed himself in 2016, and with the fame of his death, his book sold very well, selling 250 copies an hour, according to its publisher, and ranking No. 1 on Amazon’s German best-seller list, a position it held for almost two weeks (altogether, its first edition sold 20,000 copies in a matter of weeks). The book addresses itself against what Sieferle sees as the “cult” of the Holocaust. The Jews, says Sieferle, received forgiveness for murdering Christ, but the Germans will never get forgiveness for the Holocaust. Sieferle was embittered by what he saw as the world holding the Jews up to a position of moral superiority, and deeming the Germans as forever damned:

“Today, the Jews, to whom God himself had promised eternity, build memorials throughout the world to their murdered coreligionists. Not only are the victims ascribed a moral superiority, the wrongdoers and their symbols are ascribed an eternal depravity.”

He also stated in regards to the Holocaust: “National Socialism , or more precisely Auschwitz, has become the last myth of a thoroughly rationalized world. A myth is a truth that is beyond discussion”. 

Sieferle loathed the continual reminder of the Holocaust, and even mocked it, saying that murdering six million Jews was a record meant to be broken:

“What can you learn from Auschwitz? That modern technology is used for mass murder in the modern era? Anyone who is surprised by this should learn from Auschwitz. Or is it the sheer number of victims, the ominous six million? So something for the Guinness Book of records? But be careful, records are there to be broken.”

If the leviathan that is Germany was put down after World War Two, then how could such a book become a best-seller? In the groundswell of Germany there is a growing feeling of ire towards the stress on the Holocaust: people are tired of hearing of it, and they mordantly say things such as, ‘When will we Germans be finally seen as redeemed from this past event? When will we be pure?’ This way of talking has been heard not only from those who are against taking in non-European migrants, but also from those who support the “Boycott, Divest and Sanction” Israel movement (BDS). These people want Germany to boycott Israeli products, and to sanction and no longer invest in Israel. The German parliament has condemned the BDS movement as antisemitic, and this move was seen as influenced by the emphasis on the Holocaust. Muriel Asseburg said in an interview in June of 2023: 

“I believe that it has a lot to do with our perspective on this conflict … i.e. the German perspective and above all the German political perspective is extremely influenced by our past and how we try to come to terms with our past”. 

In the same interview, Asseburg speaks in a sardonic way that eerily echoes someone like Sieferle when he wrote that the Germans “are ascribed an eternal depravity”. Asseburg cynically said that the Germans have been “cleansed” of their crime — the Holocaust — because Germany gave the Israeli government the power to purify:

“We are cleansed, we, those responsible for the Holocaust, are cleansed and we have given the Israeli government and a few other institutions the power to decide whether that is the case or not.” 

The fact that figures such as Asseburg speak in such a way, and the fact that a book such as “Finis Germania” became a bestseller, tells us that a cynical view of the Holocaust has become mainstream in German society. This is also clear in the political realm. The German nationalist party, Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD), hit an all-time-high approval rating of 22% in election polls in July of 2023. The AfD is now amongst the largest parties in Germany, and it is full of politicians who have quite a bleak view of the Holocaust. In October of 2022, AfD politician Holger Winterstein sparked outrage after a photo came out showing him appearing to dance on top of the Holocaust memorial in Berlin. Alexander Gauland, a major leader of the AfD, referred to the Holocaust as a “speck of bird poop” in Germany’s history, stating that “We have a glorious history and it, dear friends, lasted longer than those blasted 12 years”. This conveys quite simply a ubiquitous feeling in Germany: ‘we are tired of talking about the Holocaust.’ Bjorn Hocke, probably the most famous of AfD’s leaders, exclaimed before an ecstatic crowd for the party’s youth branch: “our state of mind, is still that of a totally defeated people.” In other words, ‘we are still stuck talking about the Holocaust, and it is undermining us, weakening us.’ He then attacks the Holocaust memorial, expressing how sick of it he is: “we Germans, that is, our people, are the only people in the world who have planted a monument of shame in the heart of their capital.” He later affirms that the continual emphasis on the Holocaust has paralyzed Germany: 

“Coming to terms with the past as a permanent task for society as a whole paralyzes a people. And this stupid coping policy paralyzes us even more today than in Franz Josef Strauss’ time. We don’t need anything other than a 180 degree turn in the politics of remembrance!”

Hocke deemed remembrance for the Holocaust as a “dead rite” and called for a renewed awakening for German pride:

“We don’t need any more dead rites in this country. We no longer have time to execute dead rites. We no longer need empty phrases in this country, we need a living culture of remembrance that, above all, brings us into contact with the great achievements of those who came before us.”

This new sense of patriotism, according to Hocke, should be enforced:

“In short: It’s about giving the newly created facades, here in Dresden, but also Potsdam, and in Berlin the city palace is currently being rebuilt – thank God it’s being rebuilt – it’s about giving these newly created facades a new, worthy appreciation to breathe spirit. It is the spirit of a new, honest, vital, deeply founded and self-confident patriotism. Because we know: Without such a new patriotism, no civil society can survive.  …  But we dare to demand this inner renewal. Not only do we dare to demand it, no, dear friends, we will also enforce it for the sake of our dear fatherland.”

Indifference towards the Holocaust will enable the revival of the German reich. As the past is ignored, so is the repetition of the past. For, in an ahistorical society, a warning about a repeat of past evils is received by deaf ears. In September of 2023, the historian on the Holocaust Christoph Kreutzmuller did an interview in which he was asked if he found the resurgence of the German right surprising, to which he replied:

“No, I mean, there’s more than one factor. One is that history is long gone now. People have forgot what it really [was] like in Europe. The witnesses are dying — the eyewitnesses — and so the impact is dying. It’s not just like the witnesses of the persecuted, it’s the people… who can say, ‘Look, my village has been bombed, and it was dreadful.’ That is kind of receding, this acute knowledge of destruction and murder.”

What makes the rise of nationalism even more concerning is that it is happening at the same time when the idea of Germany’s military becoming more independent of US power is growing in popularity. Bjorn Hocke, in his 2017 speech, echoed this sentiment:

“Our once respected army has degenerated from an instrument of national defense into a comprehensive, multicultural reaction force in the service of the USA.”

This opinion is closer to, than it is far away from, the mainstream. What Hocke is saying echoes a greater desire for military independence and strength within Germany. In October of 2023, Germany’s defense minister, Boris Pistorius, said something in regards to the military that is not commonly heard:

“We have to get used to the idea that there could be a threat of war in Europe … We have to become ready for war. We have to be defensive. And prepare the Bundeswehr and society for this.”  

The striving for military willpower is not wanted simply for within German borders; rather, it widens to a greater European military strength. In September of 2023, German chancellor Olaf Scholz mirrored this yearning for a powerful Germany being the leading bulwark for Europe:

“As the most populous country with the greatest economic power and as a country in the middle of the continent, our army must become the cornerstone of conventional defense in Europe: the best-equipped force in Europe”

In a 2016 speech in Strasbourg , the head of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, called for a pan-European military independent of the US:

“Europe can no longer afford to piggy-back on the military might of others or let France alone defend its honour in Mali. We have to take responsibility for protecting our interests and the European way of life.”

In a 2018 speech for the Flemish regional parliament, Juncker was much more extreme in his words:

“At this point, we have to replace the United States, which as an international actor has lost vigor, and because of it, in the long term, influence”

So, in both the far-Right political realm with the AfD and the establishment political world, with the likes of Pistorius and Scholz, there is a greater desire for a powerful — and respected — German military. And in both the far-Right and the establishment, there is an antagonism and a growing ire for the emphasis on the Holocaust.  

And what would happen if Germany tried to intervene against Israel, when you have Jews whose identity is grounded on surviving the Shoah, and you have Germans who don’t care about the Shoah who want to intervene against Israel in defense of the Palestinians? A horrendous bloodbath would be the outcome if such a thing would ever occur in the future. There is an idea in the mainstream world that Germany, because of its murderous past, will always be on Israel’s side. But this common belief is contradicted by Asseburg who clearly states that there has been “a gradual shift” in which it is “no longer the case that Berlin is always automatically on Israel’s side”.

Thus, it cannot be always counted on that Germany will side with Israel, which means that it is possible that Germany will one day go against Israel. Like the Ottoman Empire being revived as neo-Ottomanism, the deadly wound that inflicted the German beast, will heal. One day the bitter anger between Jew and Arab will erupt in Israel so horrendously that the streets of Israel will flood red with blood. Is it really so complex to see such a horrid future, what with the things the world has already seen? The savagery that took place in 2021 between Jews and Arabs; how one attacked the other, how Arabs attacked Jews and Jews attacked Arabs; numerous wars between Israel and Gaza, the storms of rockets; the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank; the rapid rise of the vicious Jewish nationalists as their population grows and thus their political might.

This reality is clear to the eyes, and it is ever so in front of us that what will come is a storm of chaos and gore that will shock the onlookers of the earth. What then would happen if the ultra-Orthodox and ultra-nationalists butcher the Arabs in a desire for extermination? The world will see, the nations will rage, and those of military might who sympathize with the Palestinians — or who would see their suffering as a geopolitical  opportunity — will intervene. Within the geopolitical speak of Germany, there is an awareness of the rise of Jewish ultra-nationalism in Israel and how its henchmen desire violence, and there is a belief that Germany must not be so much of an ally of Israel any longer due to its nationalist policies. In a 2017 paper entitled “Shrinking spaces” in Israel, Ariel Asseburg wrote:

“Israel has always claimed to be the only democracy in the Middle East. However, the current government coalition of right-wing, ultra-Orthodox and national-religious parties is dominated by forces that represent illiberal positions and want to accentuate Jewish dominance in the entire “Eretz Israel” (i.e. in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories).” 

She then goes on to write that “Germany and the EU should work towards enforcing international law, improving the human rights situation and preserving space for civil society to act against Israel.” How would Germany “enforce” the law on Israel, without a strong military able to do foreign policy? The paper calls for “A new paradigm for dealing with Gaza” and states:

“In view of the escalation of the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip and the acute danger of a new outbreak of violence, Germany and its European partners will not leave regional conflict management to regional actors.” 

Asseburg does not want Germany to merely rely on the regional players of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to manage the conflict itself, but rather that Germany be a serious force within the fray. This means that Germany would not allow just the Israelis or the Palestinians to deal with the problem, but would itself be involved. Involved in what? Well, to use the words of Asseburg, in enforcing “international law”. But again, how would Germany enforce anything in a different country without a serious power to inflict violence? Foreign policy is nonexistent without the potential for violence. As Asseburg wrote, Germany has an interest in its “broader Southern neighborhood” in the Middle East, and could be a pioneer in “expanding the capacities of its own law enforcement agencies” against supposed war criminals.

When horrendous bloodshed breaks out between Jews and Arabs, Germany could impose itself on Israel against the Jews in the name of enforcing international law. Something to remember is that it was Germany who armed the KLA against Serbia in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, and it was during this same conflict that Germany was pushing for the bombing of Serbia. This was Germany’s beginning stage of awakening from the ashes of the Second World War and sparking light in its desire for hegemony in Europe. Germany has been continuously and gradually working to make a shift in foreign policy, to make Germany mighty again. This desire for a change in the zeitgeist was expressed by Asseburg in regards to a new German foreign policy when it comes to Israel:

“A change of paradigm is needed: It should not be a matter of simply making the GRM [Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism] less susceptible to corruption, but rather of protecting the rights of the residents of the coastal strip.”

Asseburg then affirms that the protection of the Gazan people “will henceforth be given priority over the security interests of the occupying power.” In other words, Germany must protect Gaza from Israel, even if that means ignoring the “security interests” of Israel (“the occupying power”). Asseburg is calling for Germany to protect the Palestinians from Israel. In December of 2023, Asseburg wrote an article on German policy in Israel and the possible scenarios for Gaza, one of which “would involve the deployment of a robust international force to ensure comprehensive disarmament and security and the placing of the Gaza Strip under an interim international administration.” If this scenario is done, this would mean German troops in Gaza.

Later on in the article she writes that Germany, alongside other EU militaries, should provide protection for Gaza:

“Given this bleak outlook, it would be all the more important that the Federal Government and its partners in the EU quickly coordinate how they can achieve effective protection for the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, avoid further destruction and contribute to the realization of constructive future scenarios.”

So German troops in Gaza providing protection, from who? Since Asseburg condemns Israel as an occupier, this would mean that she wants the German military to defend Gaza against Israel. 

When speaking of Germany’s future foreign policy in the Middle East, one cannot leave out the potential for the use of the German military. In 2013, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs and the German Marshall Fund published a paper entitled, New Power New Responsibility. In this paper it defines what German foreign policy would entail: 

“German foreign policy will continue to deploy the full range of foreign policy instruments, from diplomacy, foreign aid and cultural policy to the use of military force.” 

Why would Germany use military force in another country? According to the German Marshal Fund paper, Germany must be willing to use its military when “basic international norms” are violated and compromise can only be done in vain by the violator: 

“However, where spoiler states question the international order, where they violate basic international norms (such as the genocide prohibition or the prohibition on the use of weapons of mass destruction), where they lay claims to – or even attack – the commons or the critical infrastructure of globalization. In other words, where offers of compromise or dispute resolution are made in vain, Germany must be willing and able to use military power within the framework of collective measures sanctioned by international law (or at least credibly threaten its use), in order to be able to protect these goods, norms, and collective interests.” 

In the future, the anger with Israel is not going to be less but more intense, and Israel’s nationalism will be at a state more harsh. Israel will still be seen as a violator of human rights and a perpetrator of war crimes. If violence against the Arab population gets to a gruesome point, it would not be surprising if Germany deploys its military into Israel in the name of human rights. In fact, in the same report it says that Germany can no longer just focus on Europe, but must think on a global level, and specifically focus on the “increasingly unstable European vicinity”. What is this vicinity? North Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East. Furthermore, it says that in the case of “longer-term military operations” Germany will have to focus on the Middle East and it points out that a reason for this would be to take the place of the United States since the Americans are focusing more on Asia:

“This also means that a pragmatic German security policy, especially when costly longer-term military operations are called for, will have to concentrate primarily on the increasingly unstable European vicinity, from Northern Africa and the Middle East to Central Asia, not least to relieve Germany’s U.S. allies in NATO, as the United States increasingly focuses on Asia.”

As America more and more focuses less on Europe, it will have to unleash Germany to become the dominating power in the continent. This will be the consequence of America moving more towards itself and further away from its position as the world’s police force. When one of the most distrusted institutions in the United States is the military, how can the American empire remain? No longer is there the energy that the US had for military enlistment in the era of 9/11. At that time, people trusted the government more than now. So when the 9/11 attacks happened, there were massive lines of people wanting to join the military to punish the terrorists for what they did to the United States.

People eventually found out that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the war wasn’t about fighting terrorism, since the removal of Saddam did not stop the horrifying crimes of ISIS, but in fact unleashed more Islamic terrorism and removed the check against Iran, thus allowing the Iranians to become a regional power. The people became disillusioned with their government, especially in any idea of war with other countries, and so people have massively turned towards social media as opposed to mainstream media. The national opinion has become even more fragmented, and any hint of military intervention is met with rage, because people look to the destruction of Iraq and do not wish to repeat such a nightmare. People who supported the war, regret it, and it is now seen as fringe to want America to militarily intervene in any country. When people enlisted to fight in Iraq, they thought they were fighting in a war of good versus evil, only to soon realize that it was a war for the American empire, and had nothing to do with 9/11. Pundits would argue that the Iraq war was simply done on ‘bad intelligence’ and that ‘mistakes were made’.

But even if this is true, people will look at this and ask, ‘Why should we trust you again?’ The military political apparatus is looked upon with suspicion, as the bearer of bad intelligence or mere lies. Either way you look at it, the military is amongst the most untrusted institutions in the United States. Americans don’t want to be in wars; they just want to live regular and comfortable lives. How then, can the American empire sustain itself? It eventually will say, ‘We cannot watch over Europe or the Middle East and will have to rely on regional powers to deal with these lands.’ This is why the political think-tankers of Germany say things like German military operations will have to focus on the Middle East “not least to relieve Germany’s U.S. allies in NATO”. As the American empire is atrophied by disillusionment, other powers will rise to fill in the void. The German Marshall Fund paper makes note of this:

“On the military-operational level, however, the Europeans will have to get used to the idea that the United States will not only assume a leadership role less often, but will also want to participate in fewer joint missions. Europe and Germany must therefore develop formats for NATO operations that rely less on U.S. contributions. This requires greater investment in military capabilities, and more political leadership. Europe in particular will have to provide more security in its own neighborhood. This is Europe’s unique responsibility, and Germany will have to make an investment that is commensurate with its strength.” 

Florian Schöne, an officer in the German military’s General Staff Service, wrote in 2021: 

“In Syria, with Russia’s help, a brutal war is being waged against the population, also with the calculation of using the refugee movement migrating towards Europe to destabilise the European Union. … When it comes to settling conflicts, German foreign policy still relies too much on the United States (US) in particular. Washington’s focus on Asia makes it necessary for the Europeans to contain the violence in their own neighbourhood and areas of interest – be it Ukraine, Syria, Libya, or Mali.” 

If Germany is going to see the Middle East as its neighboring vicinity to watch over militarily, then what happens in the case of severe violence between Jew and Arab? One day the rhetoric from Germany may not be against a Syrian dictator, but an Israeli nationalist regime. One day, the Germans may say, ‘In Israel, there is a brutal war being waged against Palestinians, America cannot be relied upon to stop this, and it is up to Germany to fight the Jews.’ 

RIGHT-WING NATIONALISTS AGAINST ISRAEL 

If there is one thing that unites both the far-left and the far-right it is enmity towards Israel. 

Thor von Waldstein, a lawyer for the European New Right who works with German nationalist thinker Gotz Kubitschek, sees Israel as “a small state on the eastern Mediterranean that persistently tramples on human rights and has inflicted violence and terror on its Islamic citizens and neighbors for decades.” This is in total agreement with the Left who says the same things about Israel.

After Israel began bombarding Gaza as a response to Hamas’s massacre, climate change icon Greta Thunberg began activism work for Gaza, and she got support from one of Germany’s most popular nationalist thinkers, Jurgen Elsasser who addressed her as such: “She was one of my favorite enemies. Now she has my respect. I extend my hand to you across the divide of the climate discussion, you crazy little Swede. Because: You have backbone. And you have a heart.”    

There is a strange phenomena that has been occurring within this last decade and now: hatred towards the Jew and the Arab, simultaneously. In the 20th century, there was some antagonism  against Arabs amongst the Germans, but the fullest hatred was towards the Jews. But today, we see tremendous rage towards both the Jew and the Arab. There was, in the past, something to the likes of what we see today; the head ideologue for the Nazi Party, Alfred Rosenberg (ironically, a Jew), wrote of a war between the White race and the Afro-Semitic Islamic peoples:

“I say to you Europeans: be on your guard! … Before this coming purified hatred of the Black races and bastards, led by the fanatical spirit of Mohammed, the white races have more than ever all cause to be on their guard.”

Such rhetoric would be accepted by the Right-wing of today. But the Nazis of the past were mainly hunting for the Jews. It appears that now, what Rosenberg taught is becoming center-stage: a violent bloodlust against the Jew and the Arab. Current events in regards to both Israel and jihad are used by various political figures and thinkers to foment anger or hatred towards either Jews or Arabs, or both.  

On October 11th of 2023 (just days after Hamas’s massacre of the Jews in Israel) a group of neo-nazis in Dortmund, Germany, hung from their meeting house a banner that read: “The State of Israel is our misfortune”, and next to this banner was the Palestinian flag. The words on the banner were based on the National Socialist slogan: “The Jews are our misfortune”. Dortmund has an active neo-nazi scene, a figurehead of which, Michael Brück, held up the Palestinian flag during a speech in the Dortmund city council. The Palestinian flag is no longer this emblem waved for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but rather has become a global symbol against world Jewry.

One of Germany’s most notorious far-rightists is a former vegan celebrity chef and ethnic Turk named Atilla Hildman. After the October 7th massacre, Atilla stated that Shani Louk, a German Israeli who was kidnapped and murdered by Hamas, was not a German but “a jew” (the irony of this is that this is being argued by an ethnic Turk who is a German citizen). Atilla also said that all the pictures of Shani Louk in the back of the Hamas terrorists pickup truck are “a planned production with the Jew […] to justify the planned mass murder of Palestinians!”  

In Germany’s biggest nationalist party — Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) — both anti-Middle Eastern and African refugee sentiments and anti-Jewish feelings have been expressed, and at times there have been clashes between those who want blatant anti-Jewish hatred expressed and those who want to be more cordial to make a better image for the party. We see this, for example, between AfD leader Jorg Meuthen and major German nationalist ideologue, Gotz Kubitschek. When Jorg Meuthen talked about pro-Israel policies and sanctions against Iran with reference to the Holocaust, Kubitschek gave a nasty response: “Is it the lesson of history that it is important to be on the winning side?” In the world of ethno-nationalism there is a two-sided coin when it comes to the Jews: simultaneously there is both hatred towards the Jews and a pointing out to the state of Israel as an example of an ethno-state.

If the Jews can have their own state specifically for people who are actually Jewish, then why can’t Germany be a state for actual Germans and not refugees and immigrants? This is the argument that is made by German nationalists. Meanwhile, there are German nationalists who point to Jewish forces as the ones behind the mass entry of migrants into Germany. So they point to Israel as an argument for ethno-nationalism while expressing adversity to Jews for mass migration of Africans and Middle Easterners. So here we can see the hatred towards both the Jew and the Arab. Gotz Kubitschek, after the October 7th massacre, wrote in an article: 

“Israel has what we do not have and what many national conservatives around the world admire as an identity model: a people linked to birth and religion”. 

So Israel is referenced as a nation that has something that the nationalists want: a country founded on ethnic identity. In the same article, Kubitschek says that Israeli Jews are mainly nationalistic, but regardless of this, the Jews in the West will always be pro-Israel and thus not fully loyal to their host country: 

“In general, Jews in Israel are mostly nationalist, while in the Diaspora the majority are “multicultural.” But even if they represent positions more like ours, pro-Israel is always part of the package – prominent examples from France are Alain Finkielkraut and Éric Zemmour. It is in our interest to ask the question of loyalty here too.” 

This suspicion of Jews because of their loyalty to Israel was also reflected in Martin Lichtmesz when he, after the October 7th massacre, wrote to the Jewish chairman for the “Jews in the AfD,” Artur Abramovych, how one feels “if one belongs to a people that is granted the right to retaliate from all sides?”, a direct criticism of Israel’s bombing of Gaza. He also expresses interest in “how you can reconcile being involved in Germany’s national movement via the AfD, while at the same time your primary loyalty appears to be to another state, Israel.”

Kubitschek brings the loyalty of western Jews into question, and stresses that the loyalty of other immigrants must also be questioned: 

“It must be in Germany’s interest to prevent any further flow of refugees, to ask the question of the loyalty of those who have already immigrated and to steadily and consistently reduce the potential for conflict.”

Both Jews and immigrants are seen with suspicion in regards to their loyalty to the country, and Kubitschek stresses that the number of immigrants must be reduced to preclude a conflict. So in this paradigm, the Jew and the Middle Easterner are not entirely trusted and too many immigrants means the potential for bloodshed. What the nationalists foresee is a bloodbath; this is what they are waiting for and expecting: a race war, with the Jew being the perpetrator behind the curtains. As Kubitschek writes: 

“There are strong Jewish lobby organizations in this country that have supported the destabilization of the Federal Republic of Germany through mass immigration, using moral-political intervention – historically-politically charged and in a way that nipped necessary discussions in the bud.” 

So the ethno-nationalist agrees with the Jewish nationalist on the making of an ethno-state, but at the same time there is enmity for the Jews in the West for their more liberal ideas, especially when it comes to immigration. The German ethno-nationalist does not like the immigrant, and he sees the Jews as the reason for the immigration; meanwhile the liberal is seen as a “masochist” because of his support for immigration from non-European countries. They refer to immigration as “Umvolkung”, or the process of getting the German people (volk) to forget about their national identity and language; and they refer to the liberal establishment with labels like “the ethnomasochistic theocracy”. This paradigm is applied to not just immigration, but to the government’s support for Israel. The ethno-nationalists point to mass migration and say that this is sign that the government cares more about outsiders than it does for the native people. And they will point to state support for Israel as a sign that the government cares more about the Jews than it does the people. This very sentiment was expressed by Martin Sellner, the leader for the Austrian Identitarian movement, which is an ethno-nationalist group that holds to syncretism between Christians and neo-pagans. After the October 7th massacre, Sellner wrote:

“The Middle East conflict is lighting up the darkness of the German political landscape like lightning. In this light it appears for moments like a theocracy. The protection of “Jewish life” is their top priority. The fact that millions of foreigners come to Germany without identifying with the country and its people, and that insults like “mutt race” and “potato” are commonplace, leaves the priestly caste of the theocracy cold. The population exchange and its bloody “distortions” are acknowledged with indifference. A particularly penitential order of the ethnomasochistic theocracy, the “Team Umvolkung,” even celebrates this.” 

After the October 7th massacre, it became common for nationalists to use the bloodbath to argue against migration. To allow migration, they say, will only bring in antisemites from the Middle East. This is really more so just a strategy to foment hatred against any waves of migrant, than it is a pro-Israel expression. As Martin Sellner wrote: “I also don’t want to import legions of rabid anti-Semites from Arab countries. I wouldn’t bring them into the country even if they were big Israel fans.” Its not about being pro-Israel, its just about being against migrants and immigration. Another example of this is Martin Lichtmesz, an Austrian member of the European New Right. After the October 7th massacre, Lichtmesz wrote an article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which he feared the coming of Palestinian migrants coming into Germany.

He ended his article by saying: “we should be less concerned about what immigrants think of Israel than how they are changing our own demographic makeup.” Its not about being pro-Israel, but about keeping the German race pure of outsider blood. In the same article, Lichtmesz warned against the “guilt-cult-fueled dominant narrative that demands worshiping both the Jew and the migrant.” We can see here an adversity to both the migrant and the Jew. Lichtmesz is against immigration because, according to him, it will ruin the homogeneity of the Germanic nation. But, at the same time, he has an antagonism towards the narrative of the Holocaust being emphasized in education for German children because, as Lichtmesz argues, it breaks down the sense of national defense in the volk:

“Israeli school classes are taken to the former concentration camps (as depicted in the film “Defamation” ) in order to awaken and increase their national will to defend themselves; German school classes, however, in order to break their national defensive spirit.” 

Lichtmesz, while agreeing with right-wing Western Jews on immigration, is adverse to the idea of allying with Zionists because, as he writes: “it has so far escaped me that any Israeli politician would be concerned about the right to exist of European nations that, like their own country, are threatened by demographic trends (which in turn are closely linked to events in the Middle East).” So, the German right is essentially saying, ‘Why should we care about the Israeli cause, when Israel does not care about mass migration into Germany?’ One would think that the German right and the Jewish right would be unwavering allies, but there is a feeling of distrust present within the circles of the German (and much of the European) right. American conservative Jews like to speak with jubilation when it comes to the rise of the European right, but truly the times they refuse to see the dark side of the European right are legion. They do not want to see that in the European nationalist circles there lies an enmity for the Jews. Yes, both the Jewish right and the European nationalist don’t want mass migration of Middle Eastern refugees, but there is something that the European rightist despises and the Jewish right-winger will not compromise on, and this is the Holocaust. The German right is tired of hearing about the Holocaust, but the Jew will never stop talking about the Holocaust. On this issue, the two sides are at violent odds. This is why Lichtmesz has a mistrust for the Jewish right, because it is in agreement with the mainstream German government position on the  Holocaust, which he describes as “philo-Semitism”:

“The Israeli right and the leading thinkers of the Federal Republic of Germany (not just the decidedly left-wing or left-liberal ones) have a number of overlaps, for example when it comes to the singular meaning of the Holocaust and the special world-historical position of the Jews as a “victim people” and the Germans as a “perpetrator people”. In Germany, in addition to the “cult of guilt,” this has given rise to the “philo-Semitism” associated with it” 

He gainsays the term “Semitism,” another sign of how the eyes of these “new” rightists of Europe hold onto a misgiving towards the Semitic race; they see it with suspicion. And take heed to how they see the emphasis on teaching the Holocaust with disdain. It reflects exactly what Asseburg spoke of back in 2015: that the Germans are caring less and less about the Holocaust.

Remember, the only reason why there are friendly relations between Germany and Israel is because of the Holocaust. Before the end of World War Two the relation that the Germans had with the Jews was one of extermination. Once the concern about the Holocaust goes down to the point that it becomes insignificant, then what will become of German-Jewish relations? The only reason why the German government has shown such a passionate support for Israel is because of Germany’s responsibility for the Holocaust and thus obligation to be outraged by the greatest massacre of the Jews since the Holocaust.

But what if the Germans stopped caring about the Holocaust? Then they would not care about the future holocaust.  In Turkey, nobody cares about the Armenian Genocide; in fact, they deny it. What is Turkey doing in our own time? It has killed more Armenians through its proxy Azerbaijan. In Ukraine they don’t care that Ukrainian proxies for the Nazis butchered over a hundred thousand Poles in the 1940s. And in Ukraine today there are statues of, and buildings and streets named after the very criminals who did these massacres. And even today, Ukraine refuses to allow Poland to bury the dead of those killed by Ukraine’s national heroes. This all stems from an indifference to history. This is why it is so vital for Germany to continue remembering the Holocaust, and to continue speaking of it. History repeats for those who do not learn from history. For the Germanic New Rightist, continuously talking about the Holocaust weakens Germany. “Containing Germany’s original sin”, writes Martin Sellner, “is the task of the global community.” The teaching on the Holocaust is then seen as a conspiracy; hence, Zionists — who will always talk about the Shoah — are hinderances to the strengthening of Germany.

The insistence on always remembering the Holocaust is looked at with a disdain towards the Jews. Martin Sellner betokens this when he writes things like: “This Germano- and Judeo-centric guilt cult, as bizarre as it sounds, is currently the most powerful meta-narrative of all.” Immigration from so called “third world” countries is despised by both the European new right and the right-wing zionist. Nonetheless, the German new right grievously sees both the Jew and the migrant as having privileges that the German does not have. “Being a Jew or a migrant means a privilege in today’s Germany” writes Martin Sellner. “It provides a protected ‘place of speech’ from which one can act racistly against locals.”

If the Turk, the German and the Jew all shout slogans of ethnocentrism, what makes them so different from each other? In the end, it will become pottery cracking other pottery; the end result is potshard. Shem will destroy himself, and Japheth — outside of the tent, will kill his brother. 

Source