Genocide - a guide to the deeds of the German eagle. There is, most probably, something anarchistic in an attempt to discuss anti-Semitism in the 19th century, in a context of "genocide". But, what we are doing here is not just prattle, but rather hard evidence of murder, and a manner of conduct and culture of a nation. Genocide - a combination of the Greek 'genos' (people) and the Latin 'cide' (killing). Raphael Lemkin first used this term, an American Jewish lawyer in his essay "Genocide, a new international crime", published in 1946 in a French magazine. Lemkin was one of three scholars who phrased the "pact concerning the prevention and punishing of the crime of genocide", accepted and approved by the UN general assembly on January 12, 1951. Nehemia Robinson, a lawyer, composer of the entry "the pact concerning genocide" in the Hebrew Encyclopedia, claims that the background for this pact lies in the "general reaction to the Nazi crimes against the Jewish people" (systematic premeditated murder of 6,000,000 Jews). He thinks there is a direct line connecting to the trials of Nazi war criminals in the Nuremberg international military tribunal. Nevertheless, Robinson states that mass annihilations were not invented by Hitler in the 20th century, and "can be found in earlier human history", though "none amounted in terms of numbers and planning to the massacre of European Jews by the Third Reich". The fact is that among all atrocities in human history, only one repeats itself in frequency and intensity, for two thousand years - the persecution of Jews by European natives, ending usually in mass killing of innocent, helpless, men women and children - in varying scope, according to circumstances. If, for example, in 1931, in the Polish small town of Pshitik, rioters, murdered "only" 12 Jews on market day, it can certainly be considered mass killing, since these were all the Jews where killers could lay their hands on. Were there more Jews to be found - they certainly would have killed them too. Our conclusion is, thus, that the issue of mass murder, not just of Jews, is not a function of the number of victims, but mainly the intentions and will of the mob and those who lead it to carry out their scheme of premeditated physical annihilation. The anti-Semitic theories of the 19th century, together with the continuous historic load, inherited and nurtured by various persons, were the real, practical background - with all the elements of cause and effect - for the European Nazi idea. Its followers accepted seriously everything written and said about Jews for about 100 years prior to Hitler's rise in Germany. There seems to be another important element in the genocide pact, relying on retroactive vision, which justifies the analysis of ideas spread by anti-Semites in the 19th century. It allows us to relate to them as an opening gate, a sort of prelude to the great holocaust. Paragraph 2b of the pact says that the meaning of genocide is an act of "causing severe damage, physical or emotional, to people belonging to a group of people" (national, ethnic, racial or religious). The question is what "severe emotional damage" means? Did the theories, publicly spread by anti-Semites, not cause severe emotional damage to people who read them in the papers, or heard them in public meetings, in speeches made in the parliament or anywhere else? After all, these were quite frequent during the 19th century, largely distributed, though there was not any mass media available then. There is, therefore, a well based reason to examine the nature of these anti-Semitic theories, and put them on history's trial, from the simple point of view of genocide. The problem is that we have no scientific tool able to measure the impact of public agitation on the individual's soul. It is a psychological issue, depending on each individual's personal sensitivity and reaction. Still, we could argue the opposite - i.e., that malicious, destructive anti-Semitic propaganda made some Jews of stature rise and return to their own people and start working in its favor, after being disappointed by all-human ideals and hurt by anti-Semitism. It is true that the mass escape of Jews from their small East European towns, after the pogroms, was the basis for American Jewry - which was all for the best. But, nothing in these arguments could justify the physical and emotional torments, suffered by masses of people - hurt, persecuted, threatened and killed. Paragraph 3 of the pact specifies the acts leading to punishments: a) Genocide; b) A conspiracy to perform genocide; c) Direct, public agitation to genocide; d0 An attempt of genocide. In the 19th century there was not one state in Europe, including Czarist Russia, granting the persecution of Jews the authorization of a state law. Still, it is a well known fact that senior government officials, district governors and army officers, acted behind the back of the mobs, allowing them a free hand in acts of robbery, killing and murdering helpless Jews. This fact was, also, an excuse for the people shaping the Nazi regime - even before they reached actual power - to grant a state stamp for pogroms, without being punished. They could learn it easily from 19th century events. According to the spirit of the pact, there is no room for any formal claim of punishment for any acts performed prior to the legislation and inclusion in the legal system of any state signing the pact. I.e., the argument of retroactive legislation does not apply in this case. And if such is the situation, then it stands to reason that anti-semitic agitators of the 19th century should be tried. But, in the absence of such juridical trial, there remains only the trial of historic research. This should be done severely and resolutely, knowing that they are the actual legitimate ancestors of the largest disaster ever happened to the Jewish people, as well to humanity in general, in the first half of the 20th century - a period which is a natural chronological continuation of its preceding 19th century. But, the Jews were not the only victims of the European Native. It is amazing to see how far the "European Native" was from religious light that the Jewish people experienced 3300 years ago, upon accepting the specific command "Though shalt not kill". In the USA of the last century, the atrocities done by the European native to the Africans are no less horrible than those done to Jews at the same period. Some people resent this comparison between the Africans' 'holocaust' and that of the Jews in Europe. Indeed, there is nothing to compare but rather follow the culture of the European native, the racist patronizing of whom made him do such horrible murders to large number of Africans. The discrimination of the black people was legitimate in the white man's consciousness, based on racist theories and logically compatible with the reality he created for himself. The black man was, indeed, a born slave, thus - a proof of his inferiority, and naturally right. "Since, if black people are, by nature, of an inferior race, then the term 'natural rights' - not requisitionable - do not imply for them" The movement of Enlightenment acknowledged the sovereignty of logic and the use of logic to understand reality and allow the control of reality and nature. The sense of control in shaping of reality in the western world created the monstrous modern world of the white man. "In the years between 1890 - 1905 scores of lynches were done in the south of the USA, the details of which were unashamedly published in the local papers". Between 1880 - 1940 many outbursts of protest by various social organizations arose in the USA, opposed by individuals and racist associations, which used their freedom to do as they liked in harassing black people. The Supreme Court was behind allowing the southern states to make rules limiting the blacks, without refuting the constitution. Rules relating to voting on the grounds of comprehension did not discriminate on a specific racial basis, neither did they contradict the 15th amendment to the constitution. "The right of USA citizens to vote in elections shall not be denied or limited by the USA or any state for reasons of race, color of skin or a past state of slavery. The congress has the authority to enforce the stipulation of this section by legislation". The appointment of federal judges is a totally political procedure, and in the 20th century most appointments were of members of the President's party. It turns out that the Supreme Court does nothing but represent the "justice" of the strong members of society, with the political and economic interests, at the same time allowing freedom of interpretation of a vague constitution, which - according to this interpretation - defends the rights of human beings, not including "niggers" as equal members. Laws forbidding inter-racial sexual relations were not ruled out by the Supreme Court, which became an accomplice. The partnership between Court and government goes both ways. The Supreme Court depends on government and public support, and in order to enforce court orders will sometimes ask for the President's or the Congress assistance. So that the situation in which the USA was in, seemed all distorted and in-human in Jewish eyes, whereas in the eyes of the modern Romans it seemed totally acceptable. Click to continue >> 8 Arnon Gottfeld, American democracy - the real, the imaginary and the false, p. 53, Lod, Zmora-Bitan, 2002. 9 Arnon Gottfeld, American democracy - the real, the imaginary and the false, p. 11, Lod, Zmora-Bitan, 2002. 10 Arnon Gottfeld, American democracy - the real, the imaginary and the false, p. 57, Lod, Zmora-Bitan, 2002. 11 Charles Herman Pritchett, The American Constitution, p. 162, Tel Aviv, Zmora-Bitan, 1982.