Many gentiles are quite willing to make
all manner to apologies for the wrongs done, or allegedly done, to Jews
throughout the centuries. Jews, however, never offer any apologies. And
the fact of the matter is, gentiles, at least respectable gentiles, never
charge Jews with any historical wrongdoing. It would seem that unlike
guilty gentiles, the Jews have been totally blameless throughout their
history. In fact, it is considered to be "anti-Semitic" to charge them
with any wrongs--their role in the African slave trade and Soviet
Communism are two taboo subjects. One leading theme in Jewish history has
been the terrible persecution of Jews by Catholics and Christianity in
general. No mention is ever made of Jewish persecution of Christians--though,
of course, Jews sought to exterminate early Christianity.
One never-mentioned Jewish atrocity toward Christians, which took
place after Christianity had become the state religion of the Roman
(later Byzantine) Empire, was the Jewish massacre of perhaps 90,000
Christians after the Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614.
A little background: As the 7th century began, Persia and the
Byzantine Empire (the remnant of the Roman Empire) had been at war for
hundreds of years. While the Byzantine Empire was Christian, the state
religion of Persia was Zoroastrianism. The Byzantine Empire was becoming
In 611, Persia began the greatest of its westward invasions during
the Christian era. The Persians swept into Syria and Asia Minor.
In 614, they took Jerusalem by storm. They sacked the city and took the
Jews, who still were numerous in Palestine at the time, especially
in Galilee, had aided the Persian invaders. The Persians turned over Jerusalem
to the Jews as a reward for their support. Now for the taboo part. According
to Christian chroniclers, the Jews set about demolishing Jerusalem's many
Christian churches of Jerusalem. Moreover, Jews purchased Christian captives
from the Persians, who numbered up to 90,000, and slaughtered them.
In the words of Henry Hart Milman's "History of the Jews," (published in
1829) "The vengeance of the Jews was stronger than their avarice."
Unlike in the Holocaust (where all the bodies were cremated and
vanished), there is actually physical proof of this mass murder. A mass
grave has been discovered by archeologists in the spot where Christian
chroniclers claimed the massacre took place (the reservoir of Mamel or
Mamilla). And the graves contained Christian artifacts along with bones.
Although this Jewish massacre of Christians was readily mentioned in 19th
century historical works, it has been played down or omitted altogether
in the histories written in the 20th century, especially histories
written by Jews, who tend to dominate the subject. And certainly there
is no popular knowledge of this event.
The cover-up of this massacre is discussed at length by the Jewish
writer Elliott Horowitz in his article "'The Vengeance of the Jews was
Stronger Than Their Avarice': Modern Historians and the Persian Conquest
of Jerusalem in 614," which came out in the Winter 1998 issue (Volume 4,
No. 2) of the journal "Jewish Social Studies." The full text of this
article can be accessed on the web at www.iupjournals.org/jss/jss4-2.html.
According to Horowitz, this tendency to ignore Jewish violence
against Christians increased in Jewish accounts in the decades after World
War II. "After 1967 [when Israel acquired the West Bank and other territory
through war] the reluctance of Israeli historians, especially those linked
institutionally to universities and research institutes, to acknowledge
Jewish violence in the distant past has become even greater than in the
decades immediately following the Holocaust.
This is true especially with regard to acts allegedly committed
against non-Jews in the land of Israel and its environs. One suspects
that the resistance to acknowledging such phenomena in the past is related
to a desire on the part of many Israelis to see themselves as enlightened
and humane occupiers in the present."
It is not that case that Jewish historians find sources that absolve
Jews of wrongdoing. Rather, Jewish historians omit information that refers
to Jewish wrongdoing while relying on the same sources to prove some positive
Jewish attribute, even sometimes twisting the information in the process.
For example, modern Jewish historians readily write of Jewish military
support for the Persians--the alleged existence of special Jewish battalions.
This fits into the Zionist ideal that Jews possess martial traits.
If the modern historians do mention the killing of the Christians, which
is sometimes totally omitted, this is attributed to the Persians. One work
even attributes the slaughter to the Monophysite Christian minority who
had been mistreated by the Orthodox. (None of the contemporary accounts
seem to make this charge.) A few works mention simply that Christians
were killed "but they did not indicate how many were killed, nor by whom,
nor who destroyed their churches."
Of course, there is no way to determine exactly what happened
in Jerusalem in 614 AD, just like there is no way to determine the absolute
truth about any historical event. But considerable evidence points to Jewish
involvement in the 614 massacre. Not only are there eyewitness accounts
in various chronicles but there is the archaeological evidence of a mass
grave of Christians in the location where the 614 massacre is said to have
taken place. Moreover, the Persians don't seem to have committed comparable
massacres in the other cities they conquered. And, as Horowitz points out,
there are a number of references to Jewish attacks on Byzantine Christians
in late antiquity and concomitant Byzantine persecutions of Jews, making
it reasonable to believe that some Jews felt enough animosity toward Christians
to resort to killing if given the opportunity. In short, the proof
for Jewish involvement in the 614 massacre of Christians is as good as
the evidence of almost any event in ancient history.
As Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, most Jewish histories about
Jews are fundamentally apologetics. But it should be noted that this article
on the 614 massacre omission was written by a Jewish academic in a Jewish
publication. It really appears that in today's climate, gentiles are more
apt to omit mention of negative Jewish actions than Jews, in order to avoid
the lethal stigma of "anti-Semite." Since the charge of "anti-Semitism"
cannot easily be applied to Jewish individuals (the moniker "self-hating
Jew" does not carry the same sting), Jewish scholars seem to be able to
get away with some criticism. For example, many of the leading academic
critics of Israel are Jewish--Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein.
Since one cannot expect today's Establishment gentiles to delve
into the truth on matters regarding Jews (with rare exceptions those gentiles
who dare to violate the taboo are effectively marginalized), one perhaps
has to look to Jews to try to partially rectify the situation and put in
a little truthfulness. Some Jews seem to believe that an understanding
of historical reality would be beneficial for Jews. For example, the Jewish
historian Norman Cantor writes in his illuminating "The Sacred Chain: The
History of the Jews" of the conventional "model of Jewish history that
consists entirely of victimization and celebration-the Jewish past is sentimentally
to be celebrated with appropriate mourning for Jewish suffering in the
past two millennia at Christian and latterly Nazi hands." Jewish
history is presented as "a litany of Jewish victimization." (p. xviii)
Cantor writes: "As long as historians, from the comfort of their
endowed chairs, regurgitate the serviceable mythology of the past, the
intellectual advancement of Jewish historiography and its instrumental
value to reopen fundamental questions about Jewish life, present as well
as past, will fall well short of its potential therapeutic, possibly reforming
impact on Jewish culture and society." (p. xviii)
"Political freedom is an idea but not a fact..." (Protocol 1:6)