I am not an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism is hatred of all Jews on account of their race. I attack some Jews on account of what they do, but I never attack any Jew on account of his birth. I never attack any man on account of his race or religion. If a Jew does something against the interests of Britain or of Europe, he should be attacked like anyone else. He should not be attacked because he is a Jew, but equally he should not be immune from criticism because he is a Jew. This is a consistent principle from which I have never departed, before or since the war. I cannot, therefore, be called an anti-Semite, who is a man who attacks all Jews on account of race or religion. Our clear-cut principles differ from anti-Semitism for reasons which anyone can understand.
I have challenged opponents who have searched through all my speeches and writings to quote one case in which I have attacked Jews on account of race or religion, and they have failed to do so because no such quotation exists.

Question : How then has the idea got around that you have some special quarrel with the Jews?

Answer: The idea started in the early 1930’s for the following reason. The Jews were then engaged in a quarrel with the anti-Semitic German government. Hitler condemned all Jews because they were Jews, which we never have done. Jews in England feared that we would develop on the same lines. They were mistaken, because as stated in previous questions we were a British Movement faced with British problems, and therefore had totally different policies in many respects from a German government faced with German problems. Also we felt differently and developed differently in many ways. We were entirely a British Movement.
But some Jews in Britain feared that we should develop in this manner, and attacked us in many different ways ranging from financial pressure of every kind, victimisation of our members in industry, etc. to the point of some Jews attacking our members with razors in the streets. During the first two years of our Movement’s existence I never criticised Jews at all. In fact, I was quite unconscious of any such problem. But when these things happened, I hit back and denounced the perpetrators with some vigour. That is how the quarrel occurred.

Question : Did you accuse some Jews of trying to involve us in a war against Germany in the thirties, and again more recently, of trying to involve us in war over Suez?

Answer: Yes. On principle I have always opposed the sacrifice of British lives in any quarrel which is not vital to the life of Britain. It seemed to me that certain Jewish interests were attempting to drag us into war with Germany, not in a British quarrel but in a Jewish one, so I denounced them with even more vigour. I was not alone in this view; for instance the British ambassador to Berlin was reported as saying that the hostility to Germany did not represent the will of the British people, but was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis (see Documents on German Foreign Policy, D. vii. 200).
According to the same constant principle I attacked the financial power of some Jews in 1956 at the time of the Suez adventure in the following terms: “Britain has been dragged towards war for the second time in no British quarrel but a Jewish quarrel. For the second time we have been dragged towards war by international Jewish finance …. We are certainly not anti-Semites who are against all Jews just because they are Jews. No man, woman or child can help how they are born, and Jews are as much entitled to a fair deal as anyone else. But I am resolutely opposed to Jewish financial interests which involve Britain in alien quarrels, and I will expose them always when they act in a way contrary to the interests of my country. Union Movement is the only force in Britain which dares to stand up to them. I oppose them not on the grounds of race but on grounds of what they do. And then only when they do something which injures Britain or Europe.”

I will always attack any interest, Jew or Gentile, or any man, Englishman or Eskimo, who in my view attempts to drag Britain into unnecessary wars which will lose British lives in quarrels which are not our own. But throughout these events I have held to our principle of never attacking all Jews and thus becoming an anti-Semite. I criticised Jews only for quite specific and definite activities against our country’s interests.
The deep quarrel concerning the second World War is now over, because the issue is over. I retract nothing, because I believe I was right about the war. But I do not continue feuds or quarrels when the reasons for them have ceased to exist. Both sides have suffered, and both should forego revenge. It is ignoble, and can again bring disaster.

Question : Do you attack International Finance in general, or Jewish Finance in particular?

Answer: I attack international finance in general, not Jewish finance in particular. Before the war I attacked Jewish finance in particular, and, for reasons just given, again since the war at the time of Suez. These issues are now over. I attack the principles of international finance in general, not individuals of the various races and faiths who are engaged in the business. Our policy brings the power of international finance to an end, not by discriminating against Jews but by changing the system. Our policy once for all brings to an end the evil we combat-international finance. We fight bad principles. We do not persecute individuals.

Question : Will the laws affecting finance and other matters apply impartially to Jew and Gentile?

Answer: Yes, certainly. Let us be quite clear on this matter:
(1) We attack no man for what he is born, only for what he does.
(2) We are not anti-Semites, who think Jews are bound to do wrong because they are born Jews.
(3) We establish a system which brings to an end the power of international finance, and also terminates the internal corruption of the financial power.
(4) These laws will apply equally to Jew and Gentile. Those who do not obey the law will stand trial and will be subject to a jail sentence if they do not first leave the country; they will be “inside”-or outside. The wrongdoers of the present system will obviously leave because they will prefer pursuing their practices elsewhere to going to jail. No Jew should complain of this, unless he means to break the law which will apply to all. And no anti-Semite should complain because, to the extent his view will be true, this policy will solve his problem.
(5) We welcome the co-operation of all in Europe – whether Gentile or Jew – who will work genuinely for the construction of the new nation, according to the law and method of the new system.

This is a policy of clear principle and plain sense which will be supported by the British people, who rightly detest persecution. And it solves the problem because it establishes the new European system, which alone can free us from the dominion of the big Wall Street operators in the great international of finance. That is why – having established principles which we believe can save Britain and Europe, which are both just and decisive of the main problem – we treat any Jew like anyone else. These same principles can at last terminate to a controversy which has long vexed mankind, and in a manner which humanity can approve.