By Doug Miller

“Oh the Protestants hate the Catholics
and the Catholics hate the Protestants
and the Hindus hate the Muslims
and everybody hates the Jews;

But during National Brotherhood Week…”

And for those who are not familiar with Dr. Lehrer’s sardonic satire, the full version of this song deriding one of the patronising habits of the LBJ-style liberal years of the US in the 60’s is here: where only a week a year was set aside for “Brotherhood”.  And even that is gone, now.

But in that context we might question what “Brotherhood” there might be hidden amongst the detritus of the untrammelled power play in which political Zionism originated.  The answer is most likely: none.  The larger question is whether or not anti-Zionism is truly and always anti-Semitic, a question most Jews of today consider to be so.  Strangely, though, it is not being squeamish which drives the question, but that it may depend on the definition and kind of Zionism, whether it is the original one identifiable with the Hebrew culture, the more recent manufactured political one that indicates British Empire intrigues, or the one that speaks of a Judaic homeland that most everyone recognises.

And if one actually investigates it, looks at the players and what they did and why they did it, then even the question of Zionism becomes not the clear, black-and-white, religious formalism of which orthodox Jews speak affectionately.  The 19th century saw it transmogrified into a deceitful example of the Empire/Oligarchy [E/O] seeking to manipulate another set of countries to do their rapacious bidding rather than the beneficent “donors” of conquered land to enable the Balfour Declaration.

Before we look at the entirely hidden politics of the E/O, let’s first review and explore the two recognisable common definitions of Zionism before we tackle the third and solely political one, each of them coming from a separate time and origin.

For this author, first, and 2500 years ago or so, the initial meaning was recognised during the reign of Israel’s King David prior to his son Solomon and the splitting of Israel into Judah and Samaria, happening after Solomon’s regime.  King David so loved G-d and Jerusalem that it is said that he would dance for joy in front of the procession carrying the Ark of the Covenant.  That, in particular, is the Zionism with which orthodox Jews identify by and large.  It is and remains for them a term of respect and reverence to their faith and joy in the Lord, their G-d and Jerusalem, His city.  That is historically and sentimentally definition one, rooted in the Hebrew religion, defined long before the functional political schisms that plague that part of the world today.

In the second temple period, during the Roman occupation, political motivations began to separate the Hebrew sects based far more on secular than religious grounds.   One is suspect that this was a mission of the Romans to covertly break up what appeared as a Hebrew political base in order to defuse local resentments and emasculate group solidarity.  However, with the natural schisms of the sects – remember there were over 23 in Jerusalem alone in that period – one is perplexed as to why this was needed.  It is a little later in this period that the Christian messianic sect began to draw Jews from the predominant Sadducee and Pharisee groups, noting that the third major group, the Essenes, were located more north of Jerusalem and altogether separate, by and large.  In fact, so separate were they that recent translations of part of the Dead Sea Scrolls notes an unnamed Messianic figure amongst the Essenes 100 years before Yeshua ben Joseph who preached an almost identical liturgy and, similarly, died by crucifixion.  There is a form of Zionism suggested in this second Temple period context, but this author will categorize this with the E/O manipulation noted later as it appears to emphasize and separate and divide Jews based on secular, as opposed to religious, issues.  More importantly, it was superseded by the later revolt and dispersion by the Romans.

Depiction of the Roman triumph celebrating the Sack of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus in Rome.

In more modern terms the story is, again, different but more familiar.  “In CE 138, the ancient nation of Israel ceased to exist when the Roman emperor Hadrian crushed the Bar Kochba revolt and banned all Jews from Palestine (i.e., the biblical regions of Judea and Samaria known as the Land of Israel), thusly named as the Roman term for the Phoenicians, staunch enemies of the Israelis and a direct insult to the rebellious Jews that had kept the accumulated might of the Roman legions at bay for three years! The land was conquered by various nations until 1517, when it was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans retained control until 1917, when the British captured Jerusalem during World War I.”

“By 1850, only about 14,000 Jews lived in Palestine [before the colonisation efforts of Montefiore and Rothschild.  Ed.]. But in 1881, in reaction to growing anti-Semitism in Europe and Russia, a number of Hovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion) organizations were established with the aim of furthering Jewish settlement in the area. The Hovevei Zion groups were the forerunners of modern homeland Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel.”

“Theodore Herzl—officially referred to in the Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel as “the spiritual father of the Jewish State“—launched the modern (homeland) Zionist movement in 1896…” and one might remember that Herzl did not recognize orthodox Jewish conventions and, it is said, literally hated Judaism, so his involvement was sadly considered more political and secular than religious.  This created conflicts in the formation of the state that still exist because those who followed in his position, e.g., Chaim Weitzman, chose to accept the secular conditions on offer from the nominal owners of Palestine.

Theodore Herzl

“In 1897, Herzl began to put his plan into action by convening the first Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland. At this symbolic congress… the group adopted the Basel Program with this stated goal: ‘Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law.’ “ And while this is neither the beginning nor the end of the Herzl story, establishing a homeland for the Jewish people is generally accepted as definition two, rooted in the modern Jewish culture, as it currently encompasses such appropriate actions as “Aliyah” [moving back to Israel, the homeland] which, amongst the general run of Jews, is currently considered the ultimate expression of Jewish faith and belief.

However, it is just not that simple.  Were that so, then the increasingly objectionable habit in the Western culture, that of an antipathy fashionably termed anti-Zionism would be naively comforted within the idea that it has arisen from merely the lack of knowledge about the nature of Zionism, both the real religious Zionism and the re-invented in the 19th century form of homeland Zionism.  It may be convenient and politic to ignore the nature of this growing, malodorous expression, but everyone actually understands that anti-Zionism commonly translates in real terms to just the baseless Jew hatred to which the world has seemed to be strangely addicted for centuries, missing entirely the (formerly Venetian) Empire that has enslaved, diseased, colonised, murdered, drugged it, and trafficked humans for over a millennium. 

One might even posit that the Empire promulgates this hate-focused shibboleth to deflect from its own perfidy.  In fact, as we shall explore, it was the British Empire, the transplanted Golem from Venice apparition, that created modern political Zionism (long prior to engaging Herzl) in order to further its political ambitions in the Middle East and act as a bulwark against other interests, to say nothing at this point of the idea of removing all Jews from Europe.  It may not be pleasant to swallow, but just as the Empire subverted and uses Islamists and Arabs as its political tools yet today, so does it use the Jews and Israel (and anyone else that accepts their money and mentoring).  A form of political Zionism originated in the political machinations of the British Empire as just one of the cults it was establishing in the 19th century to further its hegemonic ambitions.  Let’s briefly note some points and personalities in the development of the political Zionism that emerged before the Balfour Declaration as one of its “achievements”.

One of the better educational paths for understanding the 18th and 19th century Empire mentality that created many cult groups in order to support the Empire’s rapacious hegemony is Webster Tarpley’s 1996 presentation of “Palmerston’s Zoo” in video  ( and transcribed ( format. 

The representation of the Empire’s multiple avenues toward influence in many countries (that persists to this day) includes the little known fact that it was the Empire, through using a Scottish Rite Masonry cult, which created the B’nai B’rith organization as an intelligence gathering and sedition group in order to subvert the USA in the midst of the 19th century.  The public face of this organization was a Jewish benevolence secret society while it actively aided and supported Southern Confederacy Secretary of State Judah Benjamin and his colleagues in their role in the creation of the southern secessionists, Benjamin showing his true loyalties by escaping to the UK after the war.  One of the active militant groups working as a storefront for the B’nai B’rith was and still is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), retaining its disguise as a fighter of anti-Semitism while actually supporting it through the political Zionism that means NOT love of G-d, but separation and control of the Hebrew people through relegation to corporate Israel. 

For those whose education did not include any information on one of the long standing dimensions of the Empire/Oligarchy, E/O, in world history (about 3,000 years), let the author refer you to an excellent and brief introductory section of a longer article that focuses on Schiller’s Ghostseer, here: where the earlier interactions of Plato and the Oracle at Delphi organization are omitted.  A more lengthy and detailed history of the Empire and its migration from Venice through Amsterdam to London is here: and Webster Tarpley’s extensive lectures and papers on the Oligarchy are here: .

While the casual reader will be confused by an Empire of which he or she has never contemplated or even been aware, let it be sufficient for now to know that the world’s six owners of 95% of all communications media are themselves storefronts of the highly secret organization that has hidden its activities behind hundreds or thousands of organizations in much the same way as depicted in Palmerston’s Zoo, referenced above.  Therefore, is it at all curious that an organization whose nefarious designs are sought to be kept secret should be so with that level of protective ownership cover?  It might be further clear that whether warned to this effect or not, those who betray The Empire’s cover and secrets are often subject to the infamous, “I’d tell you but then I’d have to kill you” flavoured injunction and termination, the results of which have been increasingly public ever since the first Clinton administration in the US.

So, how does this relate to political Zionism?  In order to appreciate the manipulation that was created in political Zionism by the British authorities at the time, a broader scope of their hegemonic engagement is helpful so that we are not left with the idea that it was merely the Jews, per se, that were the sole targets of the Empire’s continuing efforts to control the world.

In fact, it can be said that the efforts of Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria’s PM, were key to the creation both of Zionism and Nazism, both the results of the Isis cult racism that perfused many an academic, literary, and political house in the 19th century.  The key to understanding this connection lies in Disraeli’s relationship with Edward Bulward-Lytton, an arch-priest of the Isis cult crowd in Britain and author of works such as Reinzi, which was to be the basis of one of Wagner’s first operas.  Yes, that Wagner, of hysterical anti-Semitic fame, whose music was as much beloved by Nazi’s as it revolted many less strident music lovers.  But the global and British creation of many Isis type cults in the latter half of the 19th century were designed for the creation/collection of terrorists, anarchists, and other zombified enemies of progress that could be deployed against whatever obstacles were perceived to be in the way of Britain’s Imperial designs.  That included more than one US President.

Zionism arose as a tool of this Imperial mandate with the development of French and Egyptian cooperation and “interests” in the Middle East (M.E.), both during and after the impending development of the Suez Canal, a project to aid the world, but not seen as helping further British Imperial colonisation.  The realisation of Zionism must have seemed a doomed enterprise at first to the Seventh Earl of Shaftsbury who preached the idea of returning the Jews of Europe to Palestine because while a few Hassidic Jews in Eastern Europe thought that a great idea, the vast majority of European Jews, if moving, were headed for the USA.  From around 1820 to 1838 Shaftsbury was even publishing a monthly periodical, under whose auspices missionaries were sent to Eastern Europe to proselytize the Anglican return to Israel doctrine to Jews.

Lord Palmerston

But in 1838-40, Shaftsbury’s in-law, Lord Palmerston… the same Lord Palmerston noted above and who was busy establishing Scottish Rite Freemasonry cults across the world out of which the US got B’nai B’rith… took on the idea of Zionism because of the need to counter the French-Egyptian partnership that was threatening to impede Imperial interests.  That and other interest generating activities [read minor terrorism] caused Moses Montefiore to get involved in the manufactured movement.  Even though Montefiore was to sponsor various colonial movements to Palestine on his own, there was not a great rush of enthusiasm despite continued British exhortations to that effect up to and through the mid 1870’s.

Sir Moses Montefiore

It is said that Disraeli, the PM by that time, wound himself up with more and more fantastic racially charged themes in his novels and was convinced that the future of mankind rested on some of his rather kooky notions about Semitic and Aryan race superiority.  However, with Edward VII’s visit to the Holy Land in 1862, Zionism became a fixture of policy of the British Crown, recognizing the obsession of Shaftsbury, Disraeli, and Bulwer-Lytton.  When the Crown becomes interested, logically, the Oxbridge schools reflect that, which witnessed a Palestinian Christianity renewal that had little to do with G-d, but more it was the effort to collapse Christianity and Judaism into the paganism of the religion of the British Oligarchs, the cult of Isis, and then resell the product as Zionism.

But remember that in all of this, the primary benefactor of it was not to be the Jews, per se, but the Imperial designs of the British Oligarchy.  In the 1860-80 period, the foreign Office was determined to undermine French progress in Egypt because they were building the Suez Canal.  Similarly, the British were infiltrating various cult groups within the rapidly decaying Ottoman Empire in order to divide and conquer the entire Balkan-Near East-India region.  “The urgency of these efforts were magnified with the defeat of the British-run Confederacy in the US Civil War and the continuing potential of a U.S.-Russia-France-Germany alliance opposed to the British Empire and its policies.”  The actual focus of these moves were actually on Egypt, not Palestine, to the extent that when Disraeli came to office in 1874 he had one of the London Rothschilds buy the Egyptian ruler’s shares in the Suez Canal for the British government.

Among Disraeli’s and Shaftsbury’s Zionist initiatives were the 1877 Jewish State blueprint published anonymously by Smolenskin at British request in Vienna; using a South African mystic for a large scale Jewish settlement project in Palestine; and development of a charter of rights for Jews in southeastern Europe which in principle gave the Foreign Office the ability to interfere in the affairs of the principalities of the region.  All of this smoothed the way for the Round Table group that ran British foreign policy from the 1880’s onward to promulgate the Balfour Declaration, preparing the way so that the emergence of Theodore Herzl in the 1890’s was almost anticlimactic.

Though Herzl is held as the spiritual father of the nation of Israel, but none of it is that simple for he had a morbid idolisation of Richard Wagner, was himself a racist and cultist, was said to be an Anglophile, politically servile, prone to like blond little girls, devoted to a domineering mother that broke up his marriage, and thought by many of his peers to be a borderline lunatic.  This political Zionism, as defined by the British Oligarchs, the idyll which Herzl bought completely, is a rejection of Judaism as was the common opinion at the time amongst Jews.  Living in a Vienna that was socially and financially controlled by London, it was not difficult to see the manufactured injection of anti-Semitic thought as was similarly done in Paris, all of this in the1880’s in order to persuade Jews that their only hope lay in emigrating to Palestine. 

However, resistance to Herzl and political Zionism was widespread throughout the Jewish community.  We might remember, please, that in the 19th century Europe and continuing today, most senior Jewish religious authorities recognise that the dispersion of Jews throughout the world was a benefit in order to spread humanitarianism and make manifest His injunction that they be His priests and bring the enlightenment of humanity into a world striven with material lusts [that are the seduction/attraction elements of the Empire].  Thus, political Zionism is diametrically opposed to this role as His priests.  The emergence of political Zionism came about long before the popularity of Aliyah as an expression of faith.  It was seen to be an assault with genocidal implications, directed mainly against Jews and Judaism, trying to remove all Jews from Europe and the UK.  It is not underestimating the culture to note that Herzl met with opposition and derision from 99 percent of the Jews he contacted.

This leads us to a particularly contentious set of issues: political Zionism and the rise of Nazism, funded and supported by many of the same people, to wit, The Cliveden Set, the Rothschilds, the foreign policy creating Round Table, etc., who endorsed both political Zionism and the holocaust.  In fact, many of the supporters of political Zionism used anti-Semitism to bolster their argument for the return of Jews to Palestine; this went to the extent that openly anti-Semitic journals and periodicals as well as Russian pogrom coordinators supported Herzl and political Zionism.  If that reads strangely, remember then that beginning with Disraeli, Zionism and race-cult theory (part of the hypothetical reality that drove Hitler and his eugenics mania) were interchangeable.  In parallel, is there not a similar mental dynamic in the herding of vast quantities of people to Palestine and the dystopian stress on eugenics found amongst the glitterati class of Britain at the time?

It comes to this differentiation: political Zionism is the name for the creation of a separate incorporated State of Israel, created and supported to gather the world’s Jews in one place in Palestine from which they were ejected by the Romans almost 2,000 years ago as of this writing, having absolutely nothing to do with the practice of, the belief in, or the holiness of Judaism and the G-d of the universe.  It is merely the creation of a state designed to be a vassal State of the British Empire and existing at the pleasure of Her Majesty’s government.  Period.  It is the embodiment of all the hegemonic and imperial designs of the British government and has the support of that same political body as its sole raison d’etre.  In that form it becomes the political Zionism of Herzl, the race-cult edifice designed to develop the pure Semitic race.  It is solely subservient to the British government, its intelligence agencies, its institutions and follows their orders as instructed. 

This is the political reality.  It does not reflect the humanitarian dimensions, aspects, desires, or intentions of Judaism, Jews, or any converts thereto.  It is just a cold, hard, corporate State to which no human aspirations can be related, not the religious Zionism with the love of G-d and Jerusalem, nor even merely the homeland Zionism used as the idyll marketed to generate the sympathetic yearning for the land of the Hebrew Patriarchs.  In that form and setting, it appears Israel may have been acting not only for its own survival as a country but as a servile, but highly competent and technically adept, tool of its British masters, irrespective of the public masquerade of a higher motive and purpose.

Linked with discussions of political Zionism is always the Rothschild family. 

Herzl initially approached the Rothschilds in Britain and the discussion of Zionism was not favourably received.  However, their family in France were committed Zionists and may have exerted some friendly influence so that the eventual Balfour Document was a letter addressed to Lord Walter Rothschild.  However, long before Herzl took up the cause, the (French) Rothschilds had been buying up properties in Palestine from their Levant owners.  By the time WWI ended and before the Sykes-Picot agreement had been finalised, the Rothschilds were considerable owners of Palestine.  In fact, according to English historian Simon Schama, the Rothschilds owned 80% of what they have opportunistically called “Israel”.  This accumulated through purchases made by the Rothschild’s Jewish National Fund beginning in the 1890’s.

One suspects that the Parliamentary incorporation of the State of Israel to make it a suitable asset and represent the Rothschild investment means that the Rothschilds were likely granted 80% of the stock in the corporate country.  After all, Britain did not own the property on top of which it placed Israel.  It was and is owned by the Jews, Arabs, and Bedouins who had been living there since the Roman clearance and those who had bought property earlier.  And any further investigation as to the true ownership of the land and Israel encumbers legal issues and matters, most of which are not available to the author.  However, it can be safely assumed that most Jews will find the idea of a corporate Israel disconnected to the land on which it is supposed to be located rather unnerving.  The author is unsure if this idea is even covered in the Talmud.  Thus, the author might opine, the development of political Zionism created a British or Empire owned asset that behaves in line with the Imperial hegemonic desires, governs as it is directed by its owners, and does not conform to the illusion of either the homeland Zionism or religious Zionism with which most people are familiar.  Remember, it was earlier noted that the 19th century political Zionism more refuted Judaism than mirrored it. 

It then becomes possible to see [corporate] Israeli actions, accomplished at the behest and orders of its owners, as representing Imperial desires involving various levels of nefarious activities wholly applicable to political Zionism but completely foreign to the other noted definitions, even though the actions will be seen as Israeli, not as coming from the Empire that issued the directions.  In this way, Israel [Inc.] becomes not the religious idyll of millions of Jews, but a mere storefront to be used as a political bludgeon and to take the blowback flak generated in response to its actions, shielding the Empire from the recriminations that justly belong to the Crown, but carrying out missions aligned with the desires of the Empire.  It is, by the way, the pattern of the Empire to create such storefronts to wage its battles, keeping its involvement hidden, as a notorious secret society would do, no?

This may not coincide with everyone’s image of what Israel is or should be, but as was noted above, the conflation of Zionism and Nazism through the Isis cult race creed mechanism to extend Imperial strategies was progressed by successive British PM’s, establishing political Zionism‘s role as a tool of hegemony rather any representation of religious or homeland desires.  This understanding is critical when it comes to notable Quisling issues in relation to Jews, the Holocaust, Nazi’s and certain Jewish collaborators working with the Nazi’s to sacrifice many of their co-religionists in order to save a few.  That is the story and theme in Ben Hecht’s book, “Perfidy”.  It relates the story of a Dr. Kastner and his communications and relationship with various Nazi officers in charge of clearing out Hungarian Jews to the death camps.

Hecht also presented cogent evidence that the Jewish Agency (the Israeli-state official governing body for Israel) and the Joint Distribution Committee systematically and will-fully withheld information from the world’s press and governments about the mass extermination of Jews by Hitler; that affidavits written by Kastner immediately after the war were solely responsible for the acquittal by the Nuremberg Trials of such genocidal murderers as Kurt Becher; and that Kastner’s activities were only a somewhat extreme variant of the hegemonic attitude of the Zionist leadership of David Ben-Gurion, Moshe Sharett, and others, whom Hecht frequently identifies as nothing more than British stooges.

It appears that as the entire Mapai group and their activities were to be opened up to public scrutiny in the early 1950’s as Kastner was threatened with prosecution for Nazi collaboration, but his sudden assassination by a young man that had been in the employ of Israeli Intelligence months before was more than fortuitous for Israeli leadership.  In other words, it appears difficult to separate the activities of early Israeli leadership from what might be presumed as their role as British agents which, quite often, seemed to be supporting the Nazi’s.  The case of Joel Brand makes that even more clear for the perfidy involved.  Therefore, is the claim of The State of Israel being a vassal in the M.E. for the E/O so outrageous as the behaviour of its leadership appeared highly directed at satisfying Imperial strategies?

Now that we have laid out the problems found in defining religious Zionism, homeland Zionism, and political Zionism and their development from distinctly different orientations, it becomes obvious that opposing each of them entails a different kind of anti-Zionism because being antipathetic to religious freedom and Judaism is qualitatively different from opposing the manipulation of people and events based on the millennia-old E/O hegemony.

Interpretively, it is the author’s humble opinion that the types of anti-Zionism revolve around two bases: anti-Jew and anti-Political or anti-Empire/Oligarchy.  The anti-Jew version seems to coincide, rather ubiquitously, with mere Jew hatred, that ancient addiction that the author earlier suggested was promulgated by the E/O itself to deflect from its own criminal and nefarious activities.  The hate-fuelled anti-Zionism posture is not just the author’s view or that of the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, z”l, former Chief Rabbi of Britain who expressed this view in writing earlier; but “74% of the general public agreed with the 85% of Jews who view anti-Zionism as inherently anti-Semitic, with near identical numbers of Republicans (74%) and Democrats (73%) sharing this view…”.  And the latter statement arose from the repeat of a 2019 study where “the American Jewish Committee commissioned a poll aimed at understanding how American Jews perceived these various threats against them. This year (2020) it repeated the exercise, while also polling the general public on its views on American anti-Semitism.

Alternatively, it appears that some more studious types, recognising the role of corporate Israel as a mere vassal of the E/O, seem to classify those E/O agents working with Israel as Zionists in a pejorative manner that, they would make clear, has nothing to do with Judaism or Jews.  Similarly, as we noted earlier, the development of political Zionism had nothing to do with Judaism or Jews, it being an outgrowth of the Isis cult race focus of the various groups created in the 19th century to oppose any and all efforts that might impede the Imperial design.

So, where does all that leave us?

It seems the Israel of our hearts is not exactly the Israel of the political realities.  This may present an adjustment, maybe highly stressed cognitive dissonance for some.  Unfortunately, being a contrived mechanism, political Zionism is but another transmogrification created by an E/O which respects no belief set, man, mentality, or sentimentality, but invariably plots ways to extend itself until it becomes the sole Hegelian governance model in the world, the anticipation of such forging many a fight for independence from the stifling colonialism that has dehumanised all under its rapacious grasp. 

Religious Zionism is still the love of Jerusalem and the G-d that created us all.  You do not have to believe or have faith in that as do orthodox Jews, but if you can be so PC as to reference black people as black rather than the old pop epithet that begins with an “N”, you can be similarly respectful to those who exhorted the monotheism out of which has come religions for the majority of the world’s population, irrespective of how one views those separate sects.  Respect outside of Aristotelian dimensions means valuing the humanity more than the obsession to appear right within parameters that deride all aspects and belief holders outside that narrow band.


Burdman, M. (1978, December).  How Britain’s Biggest Racists Created Zionism.  The Campaigner, 11(10), 26-51.

Carter, Joe.  (n.d.).  “9 Things You Should Know About the Creation of Modern Israel”.

Docherty, G. and Macgregor, J.  (2017, July 11).  The Balfour Declaration 4: Early Zionist Roots in Britain.  First World War Hidden History.

Fyne, S. (1906, December 9th).  Zionism.  Lecture delivered at the Public Library, Swansea – mode/2up

Goldstein, P.  (1978, December).  B’nai B’rith, British Weapon Against America.  The Campaigner, 11(10), 16-25.

Hecht, B. (1961). Perfidy. (1999 Edition).  Gefen Publishing House.

Raphael, C.  (1979, July).  Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel, by Simon Schama  [Review of the book Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel, bySchama, S.], Commentary, (n.p.), Retrieved from 

Rosen, Armin.  (2020 November 1).  “Anti-Semitism in America”.

Rothschild Land Purchases and Early Israel.  (n.d.). (n.t.). Retrieved 25 November 2020 from

The Rothschilds Own 80% of Israel (Understanding the Conflict).  (2015, February 6) IHOPETHERUSSIANSLOVETHEIR CHILDRENTOO.  Retrieved from

The Rothschilds own 80% of Israel… (n.d.).  Truth Revolution.  Retrieved November 22 2020 from

Sacks, Jonathan Rabbi Lord. (2012, April 4).  “Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism”.

The Myth is Canada.

 What role did the Rothschilds play in the establishment of Israel? (n.d.) Quora. Retrieved from

Zionism  What is Zionism.  (n.d.) Alma.  Retrieved from

The author, Doug Miller, can be contacted on


Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount


Or enter a custom amount

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

One thought

Leave a Reply