eChurch Christian Blog

There has been uproar recently relating to the unveiling of the Israeli plans to build hundreds of new homes in East Jerusalem, which I posted about here.

This episode has so inflamed the world that it allowed – and I quote Prof. Barry Rubin – the Palestinian authority to walk out of talks with big smile’s on their faces.

Anyway, for me, all of this is an extension of the question of who Jerusalem rightly belongs to.

Many loud voices have recently called for the division of Jerusaslem to serve as the Capital of both a new Palestinian State and the Israeli nation.

Instinctively as a Christian, the division of Jerusalem feels intrinsically and deeply wrong, and I find myself siding with Netanyahu’s recent address to the “Christians United For Israel Jerusalem” Summit, in which he opened with:

Welcome to Jerusalem, the undivided, eternal capital of the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

And concluded with:-

After centuries in exile, I have come here to assure you, the people of Israel have come home and no force on earth will ever make us leave our home again.

As a consequence of these developments, I have been pondering the Scripture verse found in Luke 21:24:

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.

It strikes me that this Scripture is relevant to current events. As a result I asked a learned friend (Calvin Smith – Principal of King’s Evangelical Divinity School – whom I consider a mentor) his opinion, and he pointed me to one of his recent blog posts, which I reproduce in full:

Calvin Smith

Here’s a little point concerning Israel and the end times of which I would be interested to hear your thoughts and comments. It concerns the prophecy found in Luke 21:24. Naturally, liberal Protestants who reject the concept of predictive prophecy will likely dismiss interpretations of this verse by those who take the opposite view. Nonetheless, for those with a high view of Scripture, whether they are pre-, post- or a- millennialists, dispensationalists or supercessionists, this verse deserves closer attention, not least because it goes to the heart of how some pro-Israel Christians view the modern State of Israel.

Many pro-Israel Christians juxtapose Luke 21:24 with the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, but more specifically her capture of Jerusalem in 1967 during the Six Day War, as evidence that we are currently in the last days. The argument goes something like this. With the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and the failed Bar Kochba revolt in the second century, the Jews were (with some minor exceptions) expelled and separated from their ancestral homeland for nearly two thousand years until the rise of Zionism and the founding of Israel in May 1948. With the capture of Jerusalem in 1967, it is argued that the city is no longer trampled under foot by the Gentiles and thus Luke 21:24 has, in fact, been fulfilled. Given that the whole tenor of Luke 21:5-36, which is paralleled in Matthew’s Great Eschatological Discourse (chapters 24 and 25) is clearly eschatological, it is maintained that we are thus living in the last days. Both passages are rooted in an eschatological consummation of the age (though futurists do well to note how aspects of both passages are also fulfilled or foreshadowed in Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70). Thus, the 1967 capture of Jerusalem is seen not only as the fulfilment of prophecy in Luke 21:24, but specifically the fulfilment of an end-times prophecy which marks the imminence of Christ’s return. For this reason 54% of respondents to our recent poll on Israel agreed that “Modern Israel is, without doubt, the fulfilment of end times biblical prophecy, so we must be in the last days”.

Yet such an interpretation yields several problems, perhaps demonstrated by the sizeable proportion of our poll’s respondents (25%), who agreed that Israel will be restored eschatologically but nonetheless were unable to say with certainty whether the modern State of Israel is necessarily the fulfilment of end-times prophecy. Let us consider briefly several problems with claiming Luke 21:24 has been fulfilled. First, if the 1967 capture of Jerusalem marked the end of the city’s trampling under foot by the Gentiles, as well as the fulfilment of the “time of the Gentiles” (cf Romans 11:25-6, i.e. the age of salvation for the Gentiles), why are so many Gentiles today still being saved more than forty years after Jerusalem was captured? Conversely, if the fulfilment of the time of the Gentiles (Luke 21:24) is marked by an eschatological mass salvation of Jews (again, see Romans 11:25-6), why aren’t Jews converting to Christ en masse? In short, why hasn’t “all Israel” been saved yet?

A second problem with maintaining that Luke 21:24 has been fulfilled is that arguably Jerusalem, specifically the original city of Zion – the Ophel Ridge, including the Temple Mount at the northern end of the ridge – is still being trampled underfoot by the Gentiles. After the 1967 capture of Jerusalem, the Israeli general Moshe Dayan (that iconic figure sporting the eye patch), much to the chagrin of many Israelis returned control of the Temple Mount to the Palestinian Muslim authority. This authority, known as the Waqf, has in recent years been responsible for a well-publicised display of breathtaking vandalism. Seeking to build a new mosque within the Temple Mount compound, tonnes upon tonnes of earth have been excavated and literally dumped in the Kidron Valley without any thought whatsoever for the immensely important Second Temple period artefacts which are being discovered by archaeologists sifting through the dumped mounds of earth. The Waqf, of course, has no interest in assisting in the discovery of Jewish religious history on the Temple Mount (many Muslims clerics even deny there was ever a Jewish temple there). Thus, a present-day triumphalist rendering of Luke 21:24, in the cold light of day, seems overly optimistic at this stage. Not only that, but Israel is under more pressure than ever before to cede parts of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as the world pushes for a resolution to the bitter Israel-Palestinian crisis.

One response by the Christian believer in biblical prophecy might be to reject an overly literal interpretation of Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:25-6. Indeed, one could argue that the time of the Gentiles is being fulfilled right now, that it is coming to an end gradually, rather than all happening on one day as a strict literal interpretation would suggest. Meanwhile, statistically Jews are turning to Christ in greater numbers that at any time since the second century, and thus one could argue that in a sense all Israel is, in fact, being (continous tense) saved in the lead up to Christ’s return. Yet it is an ongoing work and salvation, rather than a pivotal historical event on a single day, as a strict literal rendering of the relevant passages suggests.

I don’t really have a problem with such a solution. After all, much of end-times prophecy takes events and projects them into the distant future, so that the fulfilment of prophecy becomes telescoped and blurred. Thus, if indeed the founding of modern Israel represents the prophetic restoration of the Jewish people to their ancestral homeland, it is important to note how it occurred over several generations and not on a single day, much like the return of the exiles and the nation (re)building under Zerubbabel stretched nearly a century into the future under Nehemiah’s eventual leadership. However, it should also be noted that with regards to end times, the Bible often focuses on the consummation of the age as the “day of the Lord”. This is certainly the thrust and main theme of Joel, arguably Paul’s discussion in the latter part of Romans 11, and the last third of Zechariah (specifically 12:10 and 13:1). So the fact remains that while Jews may be turning to Christ in ever greater numbers, arguably one cannot claim we are seeing the final consummation of these prophecies just yet.

Moreover, the fact remains that the religious and historic parts of Jerusalem, the Ophel Ridge, by and large remain trampled underfoot by an Islamic ideology which in the twentieth and twenty first centuries, much provoked by the founding of the Jewish state on Muslim land, has increasingly elevated the religious significance of the Dome of the Rock to one of its most inflexible, potent and defining symbols. It just so happens to be located just a few yards from where Jews pray at the Western Wall. So can some Christian Zionists today really claim that Luke 21:24 has been fulfilled?

What am I getting at here? Before answering that question, first let me say I’m not suggesting, as some Christians undoubtedly argue, that we need to tear down the Dome of the Rock, rid East Jerusalem of its Palestinian population, and usher in that time when the city is no longer trampled underfoot by the Gentiles. Premillennialists rightly reject how postmillennialism seeks to usher in the kingdom of God by establishing and presenting it to Christ, thus hastening the Second Coming. Such an attempt to establish the Kingdom makes the parousia (Second Coming of Christ) an anthropocentric, rather than a theocentric event. It does so by employing a hermeneutical method whereby Christians read themselves into key Bible texts. The technical term is to ‘actualise’, that is, to read oneself into a pivotal role and/or interpretation of Scripture. Yet some premillennial Christian Zionists do precisely the same thing, feeling they must (through lobbying, political activity, financing, and so on) bring about the ultimate fulfilment of passages such as Luke 21:24, which in turn will hasten the return of Christ. Such a mindset is no less anthropocentric than postmillennialism’s approach. The short of it is, God will send Christ when He so chooses and there is little we can do to hasten that event. It is one thing to express political support for and lobby on behalf of Israel, which I believe Christians should do (incidentally, I also think that as her true friends we ought to speak to her when she gets it wrong). But it is quite another to feel our political activity has any bearing at all on God’s eschatological plans. If our motive for supporting Israel is on the basis that they are God’s chosen people, well and good, but if some Christians’ motive is to hasten the consummation of the age, theirs is an anthropocentrically-driven, erroneous motive.

Having got this off my chest, let’s get back to Luke 21:24. I simply wanted to raise this issue to explain why some pro-Israel Christians (for example, 25% in our recent poll) may not necessarily be convinced current events in the Middle East represent the fulfilment of prophecy. I also wanted to respond more fully to a question raised by a reader at the end of a rather gloomy blog entry I wrote concerning how the current State of Israel might eventually break up. The reader asked an important question, namely, given how strongly Israel and the Jews played in his understanding of Christianity and how God had His hand continually on them, how might their demise as a state (which some political commentators believe might well occur within a generation or two) have a bearing on the faith of pro-Israel Christians? The point made is an important one. In short, if pro-Israel Christians maintain Luke 21:24 has already been fulfilled, how might their faith suffer if it later transpired this was not the case, for example if Jerusalem was given back to the Palestinians, or if Israel as a nation eventually even ceased to exist? I suggest those who currently maintain dogmatically that Luke 21:24 has been fulfilled might well have their faith severely shaken. At best, pro-Israel Christians might feel the need to re-examine their hermeneutics, eventually reinterpreting Luke 21:24 by spiritualising or preterising it (ie maintaining those events were fulfilled in AD 70). Either way, their hermeneutical realignment would likely lead to a radical reinterpretation of their theological understanding of Israel and the Jews as God’s chosen people. This is precisely the point made by the blog reader mentioned above.

Apart from current dogmatic assertions that Luke 21:24 has been fulfilled, or a hermeneutical realignment which preterises the text’s setting, there is a third alternative, namely, to keep our options open about whether or the current situation in the Middle East indeed marks the end times. Doing so means conceding that Luke 21:24 may not necessarily have been fulfilled. Note carefully what I am not saying here, though. Taking such a position still allows one to hold steadfastly to the view that Luke 21 and Matthew 24-25 are eschatological in nature. Neither are we ditching our great eschatological hope, or denying Israel as God’s chosen people or her central role in His consummation of the age. Israel features strongly in the Bible’s teaching of the end times, and frankly it requires hermeneutical gymnastics to allegorise or spiritualise any and every eschatological passage concerning Israel in order to claim them for a Church which supersedes her. All I am asking is this: can Bible-believing Christians say with certainty Luke 21:24 has been fulfilled and we are indeed in the last times?

For my part, I cannot help but view as miraculous not only the way the modern State of Israel was founded, but also how she has survived throughout the twentieth century against all odds. But neither do I want to be overly dogmatic and claim Luke 21:24 has been fulfilled. After all, many Christians no doubt reached similar conclusions that they were in the last days during the apocalyptic events marking the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Yet of course such was not the case. One thing is certain: Yahweh is referred to as the “God of Israel” over 200 times in the Bible. Yet the Holy One of Israel will not allow His name to be besmirched, and whenever His people have degenerated into unspeakable sin and abominable wickedness, they have experienced swift divine judgment in the form of external enemies who have overpowered them, tyrants from within, and ultimately exile (see, for example, Isaiah 1). Thus we must never fall into the trap of believing just because the Jews are God’s chosen people they can do no wrong. Today, Israeli society is bitterly divided into religious and secular camps. Meanwhile, some Israelis have totally cast aside the faith of their fathers, and like people throughout the world hate their neighbour, engage in crime, and practice witchcraft. So who knows? The modern State of Israel may experience God’s judgment in the future, which is all the more reason for not being overly dogmatic in one’s view about whether or not Luke 21:24 has been fulfilled. Moreover, many Israelis rely on American support and their own military prowess, rather than the God of Israel. Yet we see in David’s census that this is not God’s way, and who knows, maybe there will have to come a time when she has no friends to turn to that, at a moment of impending catastrophe the entire nation will finally turn to God when all seems lost.

I was born less than a year after Israel captured Jerusalem and was brought up to believe this was nothing less than the fulfilment of Scripture. This may well be the case, but equally it may not be so. We cannot say with dogmatic certainty that Luke 21:24 has been fulfilled. But neither do we need to. If this passage remains unfulfilled at this time it need not shake in any way our sincere belief that God has not finished with Israel or that she figures strongly in His consummation plan.

Let me know what you think about this comment, whatever position you take. It is good to discuss and reach clarity on such issues, which helps us to be so much more effective when we stand for Israel against those within the Church who despise her.

Originally posted on the King’s Evangelical Divinity School blog in December 2007. Details of the poll referred to can be found here.

To all Christian groups that desire to boycott and divest against Israel, at least do it properly:-

H/T: Naming His Grace

Thorough analysis over at Solomonia looking at the Obama administration’s recent “strategy” in dealing with Israel.

Is Israel a Banana Republic with a Banana History? Obama Seems to Think So.

Could the people who have been complaining about the “timing” of the Israeli announcement of 1600 new Jerusalem apartments — which includes pundits on both left and right — please now adjust their commentary? We’ve now found that the Obama Administration is continuing to hammer the Israelis over, not the timing of the announcement, but the substance of Jews building living space. I supposed there’s something positive in that. It’s illuminating, liberating even. Let’s get down to substance and skip the cosmetics and the diplomatic dance. Good! Unfortunately, what it says about the direction the Obama Administration is taking is nothing good.

Continue Reading

And more on this theme from Prof. Barry Rubin:

The Palestinian Authority Walks Out of Talks with a Big Smile on Its Face

In 1994, Israel asserted, and the PLO accepted, that construction would continue on existing Jewish settlements. For the next 15 years, negotiations were never stopped by that building.

In January 2009, the Palestinian Authority (PA) stopped negotiations because Hamas attacked Israel from the Gaza Strip and Israel defended itself. Of course, Hamas is also the PA’s enemy and the PA would be delighted if Israel destroyed that group. But for public relations’ purposes, the PA had to pretend inter-Palestinian solidarity.

Then came President Barack Obama who demanded a stop to all construction on settlements in 2009. Israel finally complied but announced that it would keep building in east Jerusalem. The United States accepted that arrangement and even highly praised Israel’s policy as a major concession.

But the PA refused to return to negotiations. Why, because the construction offended it? No, because the PA’s radical forces don’t want to make a peace deal because they believe they can win total victory and destroy Israel. The more moderate forces are too weak to make a deal because of Hamas and their own radicals, though they also have some problems with mutual compromise.

Continue Reading

CAMERA

The Presbyterian Church (USA), which has lost approximately 1 million members over the past 25 years, is preparing to debate a number of resolutions regarding Israeli policies at the church’s upcoming General Assembly. One resolution calls for the church to convict Israel of the crime of “apartheid” while others call on the church to rebuke Caterpillar for continuing to sell products to Israel.

The information delegates will use to inform their decision comes from a number of sources which ominously enough, have exhibited a troubling hostility toward Israel. For example, the Israel/Palestine Network of the Presbyterian Church (USA), has hosted a blog which linked to an obviously anti-Semitic video titled “I AM ISRAEL” that accused Israel of controlling American foreign policy.

While IPMN’s website attracted some negative attention to the PC(USA), it will soon become a sideshow to another controversy after the publication of a lengthy report by the denomination’s Middle East Study Committee, created by a vote of the General Assembly in 2008.

This report, which includes a historical analysis that demonizes Zionism, omits important information about Arab violence against Jews in the first half of the 20^th century also includes a letter to American Jews that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of mainstream Jewish leaders in the U.S.

Jewish leaders in the U.S. have responded with anger, as have some members of the denomination. Below is a roundup of useful links relating to the PC(USA)’s deliberations.

Breaking Down the Walls: Report of the Middle East Study Committee to the 219^th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA). March 5, 2010. This is the full report. Smaller sections of the report can be found here.

“Presbyterian report affirms Israel’s right to exist, criticizes occupation of Palestinian lands,” Courier-Journal.com (Louisville), March 5, 2010.

“Jewish Group: PC(USA)’s Israel Proposals Will Damage Relations,” Christian Post, Feb. 23, 2010.

“An unholy campaign: Presbyterian Church elders are poised to defame Israel,” New York Daily News, March 7, 2010.

“Gearing Up for Another Season of Anti-Zionism in the PC(USA),” Snapshots, (CAMERA’s blog), Feb. 20 2010.

“Middle East study team nears release of its final report,” Presbyterian News Service, Feb. 2, 2009. This article, published before the report was released, provides interesting detail about the committee’s deliberations regarding Israel’s right to exist.

Readers should also visit Viola Larson’s blog, “Naming His Grace.” Larson has numerous posts related to the PC(USA)’s stance on Israel. She has addressed the issue here, here and here. (There are numerous posts on this issue at this blog.)

For historical background about the PC(USA)’s animus toward Israel, read “Pride and Prejudice: The Presbyterian Divestment Story,” by Will Spotts, a former member of the PC(USA). Spotts left the denomination in part because of the church’s animus toward Israel.

Numerous CAMERA articles about the PC(USA) can be found here.

From the Institute on Religion & Democracy:

Church groups centered on Middle East peace are marking the time of Lent with criticism of Israel. A season of penance and fasting traditionally associated with preparing for Easter, Lent is being promoted as a time to single out Israel as aggressor.

Lenten reflections issued by Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) direct attention to Israel’s alleged sins and portray Israel as solely responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict. CMEP-provided materials do not encourage the same level of attention or understanding to the role Israel’s Arab and Muslim adversaries have played in contributing to the continued existence Arab-Israeli conflict.

Agencies of mainline Protestant churches including the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), United Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ are all members of CMEP, as are some Eastern Orthodox and Catholic groups.

One CMEP reflection written by an executive of the United Church of Christ reads “In Israel and Palestine, Israeli settlements, the separation barrier, conditions of refugees, and myriad aspects of occupation–as well as destabilizing and debilitating violence–diminish hope and dehumanize people.”

Direct references to Israel such as settlements and the separation barrier are contrasted with diffuse and vague references to “destabilizing and debilitating violence” – not direct naming of those groups responsible.

IRD President Mark Tooley commented:

“It is ironic that a sober season centered on personal disciplines and penance would be appropriated by some church groups as a time to attack others.

“As is sadly typical, Middle East church groups heap criticism upon Israel while largely ignoring the transgressions of neighboring Arab governments and the Palestinians.

“Few have an interest in the ongoing miseries of Egypt’s persecuted Coptic Christian population, while the economic embargo of Hamas-dominated Gaza is viewed as an intolerable evil.

“Groups like Churches for Middle East Peace seem determined to put Israel as well as fish into the frying pan this Lent.”

Perhaps Rowan should read this.

Cross-post from Anglican Samizdat:

From here:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that despite believing Israel has a right to defend itself, he is “baffled and angry” at some of its methods.

Dr Rowan Williams spoke in conversation with Times editor James Harding in front of more than 200 people at a JC-sponsored event organised by the Board of Deputies on Wednesday.

Less than 15 minutes into the 90- minute discussion, Mr Harding asked Dr Williams to face the “elephant in the room” and reveal his views on Israel.

“The state of Israel is a legitimate state,” the archbishop said. “It has a right to exist and right to defend itself. The very fact that Israel makes so much of its status as a democratic state leaves me baffled and sometimes angry at what seems like collusion with unauthorised parties. I want to hear a legal defence of settlements and I am yet to hear it.

“Unless there is a way of representing the settlements as legitimate self-defence I remain very disturbed about that, along with many.”

Rowan would undoubtedly be much happier if Israel would engage Hamas – who don’t seem to make Rowan angry at all – in Indaba sessions, holy listening and telling stories; then, at least everyone would be baffled.

Previous posts on the The Presbyterian Church’s anti-Israel stance; here and here.

CAMERA

The Presbyterian Church (USA) will debate numerous proposals regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict at its upcoming General Assembly scheduled to take place in Minneapolis in early July 2010. One overture submitted to the General Assembly by the San Francisco Presbytery declares Israel guilty of the crime of apartheid. Other resolutions call on the denomination to rebuke Caterpillar for continuing to sell its products to Israel.

Setting the stage for the debate is a lengthy report issued by a Middle East Study Committee created by the PC(USA)’s General Assembly in 2008. The report of this committee includes a number of letters to various stakeholders, a theological treatise on how the denomination should address the conflict, a list of recommendations from the committee itself and a distorted history of the Arab-Israeli conflict written by two members of the committee.

In the committee’s letter to its “American Jewish Friends,” the committee includes states the following:

We want to be sure to say to you in no uncertain terms: we support the existence of Israel as a sovereign nation within secure and recognized borders. No “but,” no “let’s get this out of the way so we can say what we really want to say. We support Israel’s existence as granted by the U.N. General Assembly. We support Israel’s existence as a home for the Jewish people. We have said this before, and we say this again. We say this because we believe it; we say it because we want it to be true.

This is troublesome, but what is more troublesome is the historical analysis submitted by the committee. This document, written by committee members Nahida H. Gordon and Frederic W. Bush, is explicitly anti-Zionist.

The document’s authors reveal their anti-Zionist agenda when they compare the influx of Armenians into pre-1948 Palestinians with the influx of Jews into the region during the first half of the 20^th century. The overall assessment is that the Armenians were well behaved guests while the Jews were violent marauders.

Here is how the document describes Armenian immigration into pre-1948 Palestine:

The Armenians came to Palestine to seek refuge with a wish to live, raise their families, and contribute to the culture of their new home. They embraced the culture, learned the language, shared its cuisine, and most importantly contributed to the rich diversity of Palestinian society. Deep friendships and lasting family connections were common among the newly arrived Armenians and the indigenous Palestinians. Tragically, the Armenian-Palestinians were uprooted once more in 1948–1949 during the Nakba, the expulsion of Palestinian Christians and Muslims by the newly arrived Jewish settlers from Europe.

The authors report that when the Armenians came into Palestine, they joined a pre-existing community of Jews who “spoke Arabic, lived peacefully on the land with Christian and Muslim Palestinians, shared its cuisine, and enjoyed Palestine as did their Christian and Muslim neighbors. They were part of a multicultural Palestine, without whom Palestine would have lost some of its rich diversity and heritage. Friendships between these Jewish Palestinians and their Christian and Muslim neighbors were common.” The narrative continues as follows:

So why did things change? They changed with the mass immigration of Jewish refugees from Europe to Palestine during the first half of the 20th century. These refugees came to Palestine to escape centuries of segregation, expulsion, murder, and the horrors of their holocaust during World War II. They were a traumatized people who, rather than integrating into the existing Palestinian society as the Armenians had done earlier, eventually came to displace the Palestinians. They took the land of Palestine from a majority of its inhabitants at gunpoint. The land dispossession by the state created by these European immigrants continues to the present time to further add to the widely dispersed 1948 Palestinian refugee population. Tragically, the government of these immigrants continues to nurture the belief that security comes only from military might. Not surprisingly, Palestinians responded with violence to their displacement. Violent elements in both the Israeli and Palestinian communities have repeatedly frustrated efforts at reconciliation. (Emphasis added.)

The message of this document is that Israel’s creation was a fundamentally illegitimate act that colors everything it has done in the years since 1948. In other words, everything Israel does is tainted by the original sin of its creation. Readers who examine this historical analysis closely will find that it applies a utopian standard to Israel’s creation, and makes the adherence to this standard a condition for its continued existence.

The anti-Zionist message inherent in this document should not come as a surprise. In an article published before the study committee report was made public, the Presbyterian News Service reported that there was some controversy in the study committee over the language acknowledging Israel’s right to exist. The report states:

Israel was built on the ruins of Palestinian land and culture,” said Nahida Gordon, a committee member and Palestinian American who teaches at Case Western Reserve in Cleveland. “I take this personally — my personhood as a Palestinian has been obliterated. Palestinians are being erased as human beings. To say this [‘the right of Israel to exist'] is to give Israel a pass on the way Israel was created and denies the legitimacy of the Palestinian people.”

At the suggestion of the Rev. Susan Andrews of Hudson River Presbytery, the committee added the following footnote: “The phrase ‘the right of Israel to exist’ is a source of pain for some members of our study committee who are in solidarity with Palestinians, who feel that the creation of the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.”

There is a furore over the Israeli governments announcement of plans to build hundreds of homes in east Jerusalem. To make matters worse the timing of the announcement coincided with the official state visit of US vice president Joe Biden, to begin indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authorities.

Telegraph:-

Israel’s controversial announcement that it had approved construction of 1,600 new apartments coincided with Mr Biden’s arrival in the country for a round of meetings with Israeli officials.

In a strongly-worded statement, Mr Biden criticised the decision to announce the plan during his visit.

“The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now,” he said.

“We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them,” he added, warning that “unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations.”

Although ministry officials said the announcement was procedural and unconnected to the visit, a top aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he had been blindsided by the news. Mr Netanyahu tried to contain the damage at a late-night dinner with Mr Biden, but it was too late and Mr Biden issued his statement after the dinner.

Relations between Israel and the Obama administration have been chilly precisely because of the settlement issue, and one of Mr Biden’s main goals had been to try to repair ties. Mr Biden is the highest-level member of the Obama administration to visit Israel.

Did you notice this comment:-

Mr Netanyahu tried to contain the damage at a late-night dinner with Mr Biden, but it was too late and Mr Biden issued his statement after the dinner.

If you are wondering why they met during a “late-night dinner” and not earlier in the day, then the answer lies in my post from yesterday:-

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday addressed a Christians United for Israel (CUFI) summit in Jerusalem and encouraged Christian Zionists around the world to stay the course in their defense of the Jewish state.

It would appear that Benjamin Netanyahu decided to meet with the CUFI earlier in the evening, rather than meet with Biden.

On top of this, the Middle Eastern press has been unimpressed and rather subdued about Biden’s visit:-

BBC

Press commentators in Israel and the Palestinian territories have given a subdued response to the visit of US Vice-President Joe Biden to Israel shortly after a new round of indirect negotiations between the two sides was announced.

Israeli papers recognised that the visit was aimed at reaffirming relations with the US, but some acknowledged that the spirit of the trip was undermined by the news that Israel had approved the construction of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem.

The Palestinian press, already cool on the prospect of indirect negotiations, were also unenthused by Biden’s visit, with two papers saying he was more interested in Iranian issues than Palestinian ones.

It certainly looks as if the Obama administration is a spent force in the Middle East currently, and these incidents were designed to snub.

Following is Netanyahu’s Address to the Christians United For Israel Jerusalem Summit, and notice the opening comment relating to Jerusalem, which I happen to completely agree with:-

Welcome to Jerusalem, the undivided, eternal capital of the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

Your presence here today represents a profound transformation in the relationship between Christians and Jews. This transformation has its roots in the 19th century when the early Christian Zionists came to the Land Israel and when they began exploring the land of the Bible, when they began to yearn for the Jewish restoration in this land, the restoration of our numbers, the restoration of our sovereignty.

In fact, Christian Zionism preceded modern Jewish Zionism, and I think enabled it. But it received a tremendous impetus several decades ago when leading American clergymen, among them most notably, Pastor John Hagee, a dynamic pastor and leader from Texas, began to say to their congregations and to anyone who listened, it’s time to take a stand with Israel. It was time to take a stand with the sole democracy in the Middle East. It was time to take a stand against the lies and the slander and the vilifications. It was time to defend the Jewish state’s right to defend itself.

Today, Christians by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, by the hundreds of thousands, by the millions, by the tens of millions – today they have heard this call, and they stand with Israel. I salute you, the people of Israel salute you, the Jewish people salute you.

Time after time, through thick and thin, you have stood shoulder to shoulder with our state, and I have come here tonight to thank you for your unwavering friendship. And today that friendship is more important than ever because Israel faces unprecedented challenges to its security and its legitimacy.

No security challenge is more important to our common future than preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I have said before and I’ll say again, that the greatest threat facing mankind is the specter of a militant Islamic regime acquiring nuclear weapons, or the specter of nuclear weapons acquiring a militant Islamic regime. The first is dangerously close to happening in Iran, and the second may or may not happen in Pakistan. I believe that with the right policies both can be averted.

If Iran develops atomic weapons, the world would never be the same. We would witness a cascade of terrorism across the globe as terrorists would operate under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. Look at how much havoc, how much terror they sow now, when there is no such umbrella, and understand what can happen if Iran, their patron, sponsor, supplier and supporter, if that Iran had nuclear weapons. Equally, the region’s vital oil supplies could be severely threatened and efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would collapse as one regime after another would rush to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. Worst of all, if nuclear weapons would be given to terrorists, or to terrorist states, a 65 year-old era of nuclear peace would be endangered for the first time.

Remember that for the tyrants in Tehran, Israel is only the little Satan. In their eyes, America is the Great Satan. America is their ultimate target. Yet for Israel, the threat from Iran could not be clearer. Iran’s leaders openly call for Israel’s destruction. They brazenly deny the Holocaust and they hope, and they say so just about every other day, they hope to wipe Israel off the map of the Middle East.

We must not allow such a regime to threaten the peace of the world, the peace and security of all humanity. All responsible members of the international community must do everything in their power to stop Iran from developing atomic weapons.

As we speak the United States is leading an international effort to impose sanctions on Iran. We believe those sanctions must have teeth. And to have teeth, they must bite deep into Iran’s energy sector. Simply put, they should prevent Iran from importing gasoline and from exporting oil. I believe that such measures might convince the regime to choose between continuing the weapons program and between assuring the regime’s future. But there must be tough, biting sanctions.

I said that we face great challenges to our security, but we also face unprecedented challenges to our legitimacy. Now this assault on our legitimacy comes in many forms – it comes from the so-called human rights bodies in the UN which would deny Israel its legitimate right of self-defense, it comes by falsely charging Israel’s political and military leaders with imaginary war crimes, and it comes by the outrageous waging campaigns to boycott, divest and sanction Israel. You are all familiar with that.

But I think that there is an even greater assault on our legitimacy. I think it is the attempt to perpetrate one of the greatest lies of history — to deny the connection between the people of Israel and the land of Israel; to cast the Jewish people as foreigners in the land of our forefathers. Make no mistake about it. The attempt to deny our history in this land is an attempt to deny our future in this land. That is why to defend our past is to defend our future.

I ask you all to join us in this battle to defend the truth. Remind them of Abraham and Isaac, remind them of Joshua and Samuel, remind them of David and Solomon. Remind the world that the land of the Bible is not in the heavens but right here on earth. And that the people of the Bible, are on the land of the Bible.

Let me tell you how I remind foreign officials of this connection of the Jewish people to our history and to this land. You see, they visit my office. And I say, Would you come and look at this little signet ring that I was given on loan from the Department of Antiquities? It was found next to the Wall of the Second Temple, but it dates back to the First Temple. It goes back some 2800 years ago, to the period of the Kings. It is a signet seal of a Jewish official, and it has a name written in ancient Hebrew, which I can read. The name is: Netanyahu. Netanyahu Ben-Yoash. I say, that’s my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back 1000 years earlier, to Benjamin the son of Jacob, who also walked these hills. That is our connection. And nobody can deny the connection of the Jewish people to the Jewish land.

Israel faces great challenges. We must prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We must repel the assault on our legitimacy. We must find a way to achieve peace with our neighbors. We must all pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

After centuries in exile, I have come here to assure you, the people of Israel have come home and no force on earth will ever make us leave our home again.

Of course the Obama administration could always attempt to impose a solution on Israel, however, given the above, I doubt that the US has the power or the influence to do so.

A little encouragement for Christian Zionists from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and let’s face it, we are in need of some positive gestures from Israel at times, it really does help.

Israel National News

Netanyahu reiterated the amazing turn of events that the presence of Israel-loving Christians in the Jewish state represents after centuries of Christian persecution of Jewish minorities.

“Your presence here today represents a profound transformation in the relationship between Christians and Jews,” said the prime minister. “This transformation has its roots in the 19th century when the early Christian Zionists came to the Land Israel and when they began exploring the land of the Bible, when they began to yearn for the Jewish restoration in this land, the restoration of our numbers, the restoration of our sovereignty.”

Netanyahu noted the Christian Zionism actually preceded modern Jewish Zionism, and acted as a stepping stone for the reestablishment of Israeli sovereignty. In the same spirit as those 19th century Christian Zionists, Netanyahu said leaders like CUFI Director John Hagee are continuing to hold Israel aloft in both prayer and advocacy.

“Time after time, through thick and thin, you have stood shoulder to shoulder with our state, and I have come here tonight to thank you for your unwavering friendship,” said Netanyahu. “I salute you, the people of Israel salute you, the Jewish people salute you.”

The summit was attended by 1,000 Christian delegates and led by Hagee, who took the opportunity to reaffirm his support and the support of tens of millions of American Christians for Israel.

Here are some of Hagee’s comments from the summit:-

Voice of the Copts – Ahmadinejad the ‘Hitler of the Middle East’

Oh Dear.

Weekly Standard:-

PCUSA Tempted to Divest from Israel – The church’s leadership takes a pro-Palestinian stance.

Six years ago, the nearly 3 million member Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) became the first and only U.S. religious body to adopt a divestment policy against Israel. After a large uproar from Christians and Jews, including a personal appeal from Presbyterian former CIA Director James Woolsey at the church’s General Assembly in 2006, the divestment stance was repealed.

Controversy over the church’s stance towards Israel may now reignite. A special PCUSA study committee is proposing that the denomination’s 2010 General Assembly take a strident anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian stance. The committee’s report points to the Israeli presence on the West Bank as the great evil in the Middle East. It urges the United States to “employ the strategic use of influence and the withholding of financial and military aid to enforce Israel’s compliance” with demands for withdrawal. The committee recommends no similar pressure against any other actors in the region.

The PCUSA committee calls the U.S. government “to repent of its sinful behavior throughout the Middle East, including its ongoing war in Iraq, its undermining of democratic processes in Iran and the Palestinian National Authority, its continuing support of non-democratic regimes, and its acquiescence to the ongoing Israeli Occupation.” Such rhetoric, if adopted by the General Assembly in July, would introduce another explosive cause of division into the fractured and declining denomination. And it would certainly not help the PCUSA’s inconsistent efforts at dialogue with the U.S. Jewish community.

This proposed new Middle East policy seems likely to revive the animosities from the 2004 General Assembly, which mandated “phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.” After bitter public debates, the 2006 PCUSA assembly rescinded the divestment mandate. This reversal marked a turning of the tide against pro-Palestinian activists pushing churches to target Israel for economic punishment.

The 2008 Presbyterian assembly pledged that “we will not over-identify with the realities of the Israelis or Palestinians” and advised against “taking broad stands that simplify a very complex situation into a caricature of reality, where one side clearly is at fault and the other side is clearly the victim.” But that same assembly also established the special committee, which proceeded to ignore the assembly’s advice.

The special committee report has not yet been released; however, excerpts and paraphrases in an official PCUSA News Service account suggest the one-sided nature of the document. According to PCUSA News, the committee’s lead recommendation is “an immediate end to the [Israeli] Occupation [of the West Bank].” Other demands are likewise directed at Israel: “An immediate freeze on the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements on occupied territory, the relocation of Israel’s ‘separation barrier’ to the internationally recognized 1967 border, a shared status for Jerusalem, equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel.”

The special committee, according to PCUSA News, advocates “an immediate cessation of violence by both sides” and “immediate resumption of negotiations toward a two-state solution.” It briefly deplores “threats by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel.” But its only specific request of the Palestinian leadership is that the Fatah and Hamas movements should “work together toward immediate reconciliation,” so as to form a united front against Israel.

The PCUSA committee affirms “the right of Israel to exist,” but adds an apology in a footnote: “The phrase ‘the right of Israel to exist’ is a source of pain for some members of our study committee who are in solidarity with the Palestinians, who feel that the creation of the state of Israel has denied them their inalienable human rights.” It supports “the right of return” for all Palestinian refugees—a policy that would quickly submerge Israel under an Arab majority.

The most extreme aspect of the report is its endorsement of a pro-Palestinian manifesto called “Kairos Palestine.” Put forth last November by a group of Palestinian church officials, the manifesto rejects the identity of Israel as a Jewish state.

“The injustice against the Palestinian people which is the Israeli occupation, is an evil that must be resisted,” according to this document proposed for PCUSA approval. “Kairos Palestine” argues for non-violent measures such as an international “system of economic sanctions and boycott to be applied against Israel.” At the same time, it seems to justify violence: “Yes, there is Palestinian resistance to the occupation. However, if there were no occupation, there would be no resistance, no fear and no insecurity.” The manifesto refers to Palestinian “terrorism” in sneer quotes, as if to doubt the existence of the phenomenon.

Even before its release, this PCUSA report is stirring up a storm. The Simon Wiesenthal Center sent out an e-blast predicting that both Jews and many Presbyterians would be outraged. “PCUSA has some of the staunchest supporters of Israel in its ranks,” declared Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein of the Wiesenthal Center. “They are as frustrated as we are that their church leadership team spends so much energy on the Arab/Israeli conflict where there are relatively few Presbyterians who live in either Israel or the disputed territories, and spends too little energy on major human rights issues impacting Christians and Presbyterians who live in Muslim countries, China, and North Korea.”

Alan F.H. Wisdom is vice president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy and director of Presbyterian Action.

Here is a report from the Christian Post:-

Jewish Group: PC(USA)’s Israel Proposals Will Damage Relations

Do you remember the shameful episode last December when it looked as though an arrest warrant would be issued against former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for “war crimes” on visiting the UK? Or do you remember the shameful episode last September when a London judge had to reject a call to issue an arrest warrant against Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak? Well we had some good news today, or so I thought.

The Telegraph carried this story today:-

Britain must protect foreign leaders from private arrest warrants

In recent years the world has made huge progress in the way it acts against those suspected of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Significantly, the United Nations has embraced our responsibility to intervene in countries where such atrocities are being committed.

And the complement to this is the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows for prosecution in any country of certain serious offences wherever and by whoever they were committed.

It is our moral duty to ensure that there is no hiding place for those suspected of the most serious international crimes.

Britain will continue to take action to prosecute or extradite suspected war criminals – regardless of their status or power.

This is why the UK was among the first countries in the world to put in place legislation providing for universal jurisdiction over torture, hostage taking and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Without universal jurisdiction the Afghan warlord Faryadi Zardad, who had fled to London on a fake passport, would not have been brought to justice for a merciless campaign of terror in his homeland.

Britain will always honour its commitment to international justice. The police here remain ready to investigate cases; the Crown Prosecution Service to bring them; the courts to hear them.

But the process by which we take action must guarantee the best results.

The only question for me is whether our purpose is best served by a process where an arrest warrant for the gravest crimes can be issued on the slightest of evidence.

As we have seen, there is now significant danger of such a provision being exploited by politically-motivated organisations or individuals who set out only to grab headlines knowing their case has no realistic chance of a successful prosecution.

Continue Reading

After reading this I had similar thoughts to Calvin L Smith:-

About Time

According to this morning’s Daily Telegraph Gordon Brown at last is going to put a stop to the politically-motivated abuse of our court system. About time! How can Britain ever be taken seriously as a peace broker if every time an Israeli official or politician comes to Britain they’re threatened with arrest because a campaign group seeking publicity approached a magistrate? As usual, it’s one rule for Israel and another for everyone else.

However, my bubble has been burst by a far shrewder Melanie Phillips:-

Smoke and Mirrors

The Israeli paper Ha’aretz , along with the Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, appear to have been taken in by Gordon Brown’s noisy but misleading announcement in today’s Daily Telegraph that he will change the law to prevent the abuse of ‘universal jurisdiction’ through threats to arrest visiting Israeli dignatories for ‘war crimes’, an abuse which has caused the cancellation of a number of high-profile visits by Israelis to the UK of which the latest was the planned visit by Livni. Brown wrote:

There is a case now, therefore, for the evidential basis on which arrest warrants can be allowed to be tougher and for restricting the right to prosecute the narrow range of crimes falling under universal jurisdiction to the Crown Prosecution Service alone.

Livni and Ha’aretz naively take this at face value to assume that the UK is to change the law. But this is not so. Brown has merely said he intends to change the law and will consult on the best way to do this. But with a general election to be held by June at the very latest, and with no legislation actually being tabled, there is clearly no time for any such change in the law to occur.

It is actually very easy to end this abuse, as Brown suggests; all that has to happen is for the consent of the Attorney-General or Director of Public Prosecutions to be required before any arrest warrant can be issued, just as is now required for any prosecution. This should be introduced not just in respect of visiting Israelis but to cover any other such vexatious and oppressive arrest stunts. But the reason Brown will not do this is that more than 100 Labour MPs have given notice they will revolt against any such infringement of ‘ancient English liberties’ – a cover for their actual motivation which is their hatred of Israel.

Brown’s announcement today, and the fact that he personally associated himself with the case for a change in the law, are merely designed to camouflage the diplomatically embarrassing fact that he is in fact unable to take measures to prevent ‘lawfare’ in the UK against Britain’s ally by extremist activists determined to delegitimise Israel over its defence against genocidal attack — because so many of his own MPs share that same despicable objective.

The JTA has picked up on this and make a similar point to Melanie Phillips:-

Brown vows to change universal jurisdiction law

LONDON (JTA) — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he will change legislation enabling Palestinian organizations to obtain arrest warrants against Israeli political leaders on suspicion of war crimes.

However, in practice, the legislation is likely to wait until after the general elections in the United Kingdom.

[.....]

However, since the UK is in the midst of an election campaign, and the prime minister might announce the election date before the date the committee has to present its conclusion, it might be too late to enact the law before the election.

Israeli officials and military officers, unwilling to risk having an arrest warrant issued against them, have been avoiding the UK.

Britain wants to continue to be involved in the Middle East peace process, and the British government is aware that it would be marginalized if Israeli politicians refuse to visit Britain.

[.....]

The Conservative Party’s spokesman on Justice, Dominic Grieve, said: “This morning Gordon Brown wrote in the Daily Telegraph that ‘Britain cannot afford to have its standing in the world compromised’ by spurious and politicized war crimes prosecutions. This afternoon he kicked the whole issue into the long grass. The Conservatives would have supported him in resolving the problem, but he has chosen to duck it instead.”

Read All

Ben White is traversing the blogosphere currently.

I posted yesterday about Ben White in relation to the so called “Israeli Apartheid Week” and Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia. Then a commentator pointed out (thanks Canon Peter) that Mr White is currently “on tour” in the US and has aroused the wrath of Pamela Geller.

And now this from Joseph Weissman, guest-posted at Harry’s Place:-

Amnesty UK Promotes Ben White Again

Amnesty UK are once again hosting Ben White. Amnesty’s expressed purpose is ‘to protect people wherever justice, fairness, freedom and truth are denied.’ Amnesty are rightly famous for protecting the freedom of the individual.

One instance where freedom was nearly denied to individuals was a case in New York in which anti-Semites threatened to blow up a synagogue. Happily, they were arrested, thanks the police infiltrating the group.

Not everyone was happy though.

Here was Ben White’s post at the time:

A fully controlled threat to our freedoms

May 21st, 2009

A federal law enforcement official described the plot as “aspirational” — meaning that the suspects wanted to do something but had no weapons or explosives — and described the operation as a sting with a cooperator within the group.“

“It was fully controlled at all times,” a law enforcement official said.

Ben White thus seemingly admitted that those arrested were planning an attack on a synagogue, yet bizarelly titled his post ‘A fully controlled threat to our freedoms.’ So what were ‘our freedoms’ here then? Was this about our freedom to worship in synagogues without fear of terrorist attack, or about our freedom to plot attacks on synagogues so long as we aren’t successful in carrying them out, or don’t actually have explosives?

You would think that Ben White’s definition of freedom chimes strangely with Amnesty UK’s definition of freedom. Amnesty UK have a right to voice their opinion on East Jerusalem, but hiring Ben White to speak for them makes no sense.

And there’s more: Ben White has previously written in praise of Christian “anti-Zionists” Colin Chapman and Stephen Sizer, who have developed a theology which suggests that the modern state of Israel is an offence to God, as Jews are no longer God’s Chosen People. For example, Sizer thinks that Israel is a rejected vineyard tossed into the flames by God.

Is this irrelevant for Amnesty UK?

If Amnesty UK decide to protest against Robert Mugabe tomorrow, will they pick a fundamentalist Christian to argue that the Curse of Ham extends to all black people, and so black Africans running their own countries are disobeying God?

If Amnesty UK want to protest against the authoritarianism of the Saudi government, will we hear a radical Christian cleric arguing that Ishmael’s descendants are all under a curse, so Muslims don’t have a right to run their own countries?

Following Amnesty UK’s shameful treatment of the committed human rights activist Gita Sahgal in favour of the reactionary pro-Islamist Moazzam Begg, Amnesty UK is now promoting a “thinker” who recommends Holocaust deniers, obfuscates Holocaust denial, and thinks the Palestinian leadership is full of “natives” more interested in making money than national liberation. Where is the justice, the fairness, the freedom and the truth?

Ben White also campaigns against Israel alongside Azzam “Kaboom” Tamimi. In fact, he spoke with Tamimi, urging students to boycott Israeli goods, last month at the SOAS event where Tamimi engaged in hate speech that is now under investigation by the police:

At SOAS, he praised Hamas and said: “Today Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation because that’s what the Americans and Israelis and cowardly politicians of Europe want, but what is so terrorist about it?

“You shouldn’t be afraid of being labelled extreme, radical or terrorist. If fighting for your home land is terrorism, I take pride in being a terrorist. The Koran tells me if I die for my homeland, I’m a martyr and I long to be a martyr.”

He criticised calls for a two-state solution and said: “Why are the Jews superhuman and better than anyone else that God would give them a homeland? Is God a racist? A god who would prefer people because of their race is not a god I want to associate with. Claiming they are being given the land of God is a racist idea.

“If the world felt so guilty about the Holocaust, the Jews should have been compensated, not brought to my country at the expense of my people.

“Israel does not belong to my homeland and must come to an end. This can happen peacefully if they acknowledge what they did — or we will continue to struggle until Israel is no more.”

At least Amnesty UK can take comfort from the fact that Ben White does not consider himself a racist – although he’ll understand if you are.

The sixth international Israeli Apartheid Week kicked off yesterday, with the “week-long” festivities taking place over 14 days in over 40 cities across the globe.

Organizers say this year’s events are meant to “educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaigns as part of a growing global BDS movement.”

No country is perfect in this world, but to vilify Israel in this manner is absurd at best, especially when you pause for a moment to consider the rogue, despot, brutal regimes that exist in our world today, most notably; Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and others.

As CAMERA rightly point out on their IsraelApartheidWeek website, even the name of this campaign is subtly designed to malign and delegitimise Israel:-

They come as part of “Israeli Apartheid Week,” a series of lectures, exhibits and events that single out Israel for fierce attack. Students are told the Jewish state is, by nature, a racist, colonial and oppressive state. They are told Israel should be boycotted, and even destroyed. They are told this by ideologues who distort facts about country while ignoring genuine oppression in the Middle East and across the world.

One need look no further than the event’s title to understand its malignant nature. The canard that Israel is an apartheid state is an assault on the country’s very legitimacy. South Africa’s racist, apartheid regime was rightfully dismantled, and this campaign seeks absurdly to cast Israel — the Middle East’s most progressive state and only liberal democracy — as being guilty of similar policies and equally deserving to be dismantled.

Having said all of this, the truly disheartening sight for me personally, is watching “Christian organisations” joining the chorus of Israel-bashers. Jonathan Bartley over at Ekklesia, has this to say about the Israel Apartheid Week:-

Since it was first launched in 2005, IAW has grown to become one of the most important global events in the ‘Palestine solidarity calendar’, but in the UK it often passes by without a mention.

Last year though more than 40 cities around the world participated in the week’s activities, which took place in the wake of Israel’s brutal assault against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. IAW continues to grow with new cities joining this year.

In London, most of the action takes place around universities. I see that my friend Ben White (a regular Guardian CIF contributor) is speaking at the LSE next Tuesday.

I make no secret of my Zionist theology, however, this DOES NOT equate to a “blank cheque” approach to Israel and it must be remembered that anti-Zionist theology has the potential to pose an existential threat to Israel, especially when hijacked by Israel hating radical groups and regimes. See my recent post on this:-

‘Liberal Protestant churches pose growing threat to Israel’ – Rabbi Abraham Cooper says some theologians “are seeking to destroy Israel from Above.”

Ekklesia is vocal in its condemnation of Israel and it is most notable that Jonathan Bartley should mention his friend Ben White, who is a regular Guardian CIF contributor.

This is a comment from CIFWatch, which is a blog set up to combat the virulent anti-Semitism relentlessly propounded through the Guardian’s “Comment is Free”:-

When it comes to coverage of Israel on ‘Comment is Free’, readers are regularly exposed to a noxious mix of antizionism, antisemitism and other garden variety Israel-bashing.

On the pages of ‘Comment is Free’, contributors regularly label Israel as a racist and apartheid state and use emotive epithets such as “coloniser”, “ethnic cleansing”, “war crimes”, “separation wall”, “bantustans” and “war-mongering” to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist. Intentional acts of violence against the civilian population in Israel are either downplayed or totally ignored while attempts by Israel to prevent such attacks portray Israel as the unprovoked bloodthirsty aggressor that is motivated by an innate and racist hatred of the non-Jewish Arabs.

Recurring themes include spuriously characterizing Zionism as the antithesis of core Jewish values, touting of the one-state solution, comparing the acts of the Israelis with those of the Nazis, dehumanizing the Israeli settler population, morally equivocating between the Israeli right-wing and the Islamists, trumpeting the “Israel lobby” lie, accusing Jews of dual loyalties and sneering at those that dare defend Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state.

It is no coincidence that Jonathan Bartley’s friend, Ben White, is a much loved contributor to the Guardian CIF, as he himself is most certainly not friendly to Israel.

Seismic Shock has blogged on Ben White and has this to say:-

…..I’ve also blogged about Ben White, a British journalist who rose to fame recently whilst defaming Israel and praising Christian anti-Zionist theologians such as Stephen Sizer and Colin Chapman. In recent months, White has gained notoriety for recommending the work of a Holocaust denier in a polemical book against Israel, banning Zionist Jews from his meetings and facebook groups, and for being alarmed at the arrest of antisemites who plotted to blow up a synagogue in New York.

It was the Seismic Shock blog that first picked up on Ben White’s infamous quote “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are”. 

The Modernity Blog has an interesting article reflecting on Ben White’s journalism in the Guardian.

Following is an excellent article from Seismic Shock, posted on CIFWatch, reviewing Ben White, the Guardian and also mentioning Ekklesia:-

All About Zion

Yesterday Bataween over at the Point of no Return blog, articulated a salient point relating to the furore over Israel placing the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem, on its list of national heritage sites and their plans to renovate the tombs.

There has been condemnation after condemnation of Israel for this move in the mainstream media and now by UNESCO’s Director-General, Irina Bokova, and yet a stunning silence on the desecration of the ancient shrine of Ezekiel in al-Kifl south of Baghdad.

Bataween rightly points out:-

UNESCO’s Director-General, Irina Bokova, has ‘expressed concern‘ at the Israeli government’s plan to include in its renovation programme the biblical heritage sites of the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s tomb in Hebron. We’ve yet to hear any expression of concern from Mrs Bokova at Iraq’s planned islamicisation of Ezekiel’s tomb, or indeed news that control of renovation works has passed to UNESCO, as promised by the Iraqi authorities.

Perhaps there is a bias somewhere? This from the Jerusalem post today:-

The Palestinian Authority on Monday called on the international community to stop Israel from placing the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem on its list of national heritage sties.

To protest the inclusion of the West Bank sites the PA believes will one day be part of its future state, it moved its weekly cabinet meeting from Ramallah to Hebron on Monday.

In a statement that it released after its meeting, the PA said that this decision was against international law.

“These sites are an inseparable part of Palestinian land which has been occupied since 1967. The PA has turned to all the international bodies to demand that it oppose Israel’s decision and cause its abolishment,” said the PA.

The PA also spoke of its opposition to Israeli actions in east Jerusalem, including its construction of Jewish homes and demolition of Palestinian homes there as well as the steps it took Sunday to quell Palestinian rioters on the Temple Mount.

It also turned to the European Union to ask that it help stop Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.

On Monday the EU said that Israel was harming the peace process.

A spokesman for Catherine Ashton, the EU policy chief said in a statement that she regarded the addition of the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb “as detrimental to the attempts to re-launch peace negotiations. The EU calls on Israel to refrain from provocative acts.”

Since the sites were placed on the list on February 21, Palestinians have clashed with the IDF in Hebron. Clashes were more intense for the first five days, and since then have dwindled down to small incidents of rock throwing.

According to  AP, a group of settler youths, some as young as 4 years old, threw rocks and cursed at Palestinians.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has warned that placing West Bank sites on the heritage list could lead to a religious war.

But Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told AP, “We are not going to be drawn into a cycle of violence. We are fully determined, and we count on our people understanding fully well that the best response to this … is to stay focused” on state-building.

The cave where the biblical forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are buried is sacred to both Jews and Muslims, both of whom pray in separate sections of the complex.

Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, said he hoped the present tension over Rachel’s Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs was just a “rough moment, a hiccup” that could be overcome on the way to renewing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.Kerry, at a Jerusalem press conference on Monday, said that access to the sites –  which he said were important to Jewish and Moslem understanding of their “history, culture and religions” — was shared.

Saying that he thought what Netanyahu did was “understandable” within the context of trying to “preserve and renew” the Jewish components of the sites, Kerry added that “the timing and manner of the announcement needs to be taken into account in the future context of trying to move people to dialogue.”

Kerry said that the move “certainly lends itself to misinterpretation without adequate explanation, and I  think there is an explanation, and I think you have to be carful with these things. My caution as we go forward is we have to be thoughtful about everything we say and do so we keep a dialogue on track.”

Cross-post by Joseph at the Rosh Pina Project:-

If you are a Christian in leadership, please copy and amend the following letter with your name, and email it to the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus at: christianalliescaucus@gmail.com.

Do also write to the Israeli embassy in your country.

Dear Sir,

We write to you as Christian leaders who are staunch supporters and friends of the state of Israel.

Our concerns surround the organization in Israel ‘Yad L’Achim’ which calls itself an “anti-missionary” organization. Over a prolonged period of time, Yad L’Achim has been actively hostile towards people who hold to beliefs which they consider heretical.

In November 2009, a man named Yaakov Teitel confessed to having murdered two Palestinian Arabs, attempted to murder a Messianic Jewish family, and deliberately wounded an Israeli professor. Yaakov Teitel placed a bomb in the home of a Messianic Jewish family, which resulted in serious injuries to the family’s teenage son Ami Ortiz. In particular, the case of Ami Ortiz has concerned many Evangelical Christians outside of Israel.

It has recently emerged that Yakov Teitel was actively involved in the Yad L’Achim organization over a 5 year period prior to his arrest. I would draw your attention to the recent petition from attorney Calev Myers of the Jerusalem Institute of Justice to the Attorney General of Israel, Mr Yehuda Weinstein. Myers’ letter regarding the Yad L’Achim organisation may be read online:

http://www.jij.org.il/articles/JIJ-AG%20Request_ENG_.pdf

The report shows that Yad L’Achim activists and leaders have consistently spouted propaganda against individuals and charitable organisations whose beliefs do not correspond to their own. Yad L’Achim has also been connected to actual cases of physical attack, as well as several cases of harassing and intimidating individuals and communities over a long period of time.

We would urge the Government of Israel to disband the Yad L’Achim organization so that both the quality of Israeli democracy and the freedom and security of all Israeli citizens may be improved. To disband Yad L’Achim, we believe, would be in-line with the interests of the state of Israel and of the wider international community.

Many thanks for your assistance. I hope to hear from you soon.

Yours faithfully,

Israel Today:-

Dozens of young Arab Muslims holed up in the Al Aqsa Mosque atop Jerusalem’s Temple Mount attacked visiting Jews and Christians with stones on Sunday morning.

Two Israeli police officers and at least 10 of the Muslim rioters were injured in the ensuing clash.

The riots then spread to Arab areas outside the Old City, where young Muslim stone-throwers attacked Israeli police and soldiers. Several arrests were made, but no more injuries were reported.

The violent demonstrations were believed to be in response to last week’s decision by the Israeli cabinet to add the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem to its list of national heritage sites. Both towns are under Palestinian control.

The decision to officially recognize the sites as sacred to Jews and improve their preservation as such has already resulted in widespread riots in Hebron and Bethlehem. The international community has also harshly condemned Israel’s decision.

An interesting and informative article in the National Post today looking at the controversy surrounding the move to canonize Pope Pius XII.

Is Pope Pius XII the The Nazi pope who facilitated Nazi aims, or is he the misunderstood and much maligned protector of the Jews, in a harrowing period of history? You decide:-

Holy Post:-

The road to sainthood is never speedy, but rarely is it as divisive as the campaign to canonize Pope Pius XII. Just last week, a group of prominent Catholic scholars urged Pope Benedict to slow down the process in order to better assess contradictory evidence. Some see the Pope, who reigned over the Roman Catholic Church during the Second World War, as a pro-Nazi collaborator and anti-Semite who went along with the Holocaust. To others, including some prominent Jews, he was an anti-Nazi, who actively saved Jews, risking his own safety and that of the Church in defence of the persecuted. To add to the complexity, many historians say Pius was neither a war criminal nor a saint, just a complicated individual caught in one of history’s most catastrophic conflicts. The National Post’s Charles Lewis looks at some of the leading theories in the complex case for and against the making of his road to sainthood.

Read More

CBN - Erick Stakelbeck (Hat-tip Solomonia)

Have you ever heard of a supposedly “pro Israel” group that has issued more press releases condemning Christian Zionists than it has Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Hezbollah and Syria combined? No? Then welcome to J Street, the self-described “pro Israel, pro peace” lobbying group that bends over backwards to insult Israel’s friends and supporters, especially evangelical Christians, and makes a living off of criticizing Israeli government policies.

I’ve discussed J Street’s naked anti-Christian bigotry before (see here and here) but since they are at it again (more on that in a bit), I felt compelled to undertake a little research project. I went to J Street’s website and surveyed the group’s press releases from the past year and a half. The results? To start, four press releases (including one from February 1, 2010) attacking John Hagee and Christians United for Israel (CUFI). Indeed, two of J Street’s first four press releases were devoted to slamming Hagee. Talk about misguided priorities: a purportedly pro-Israel group using all of this ink on Hagee and evangelical supporters of Israel at a time when Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria are stockpiling increasingly lethal weapons and publicly calling for Israel’s destruction.

In those press releases, J Street essentially painted Hagee–a man Senator (and orthodox Jew) Joseph Lieberman once compared to Moses–as a closet anti-Semite and portrayed Christian supporters of Israel as some sort of wild-eyed, apocalyptic death cult (a strategy which this release by J Street’s founder, Jeremy Ben-Ami, took to new extremes).  But what may be even more offensive is that J Street has come up with exactly one–one–press release condeming genocidal Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadenijad. And zero press releases condeming either Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah or Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, two others who regularly threaten Israel’s demise. If J Street wants ”end times” and “apocalyptic,” then Ahmadenijad, Assad and Nasrallah–who all met yesterday in Damascus to plot further attacks against Israel–are certainly the real deal. So why the bizarre preoccupation with evangelical Christians, an extremely large and influential group that Israeli government officials of every political persuasion routinely hail as among the Jewish people’s greatest friends and supporters?

I was greeted by the same puzzling output when scanning through opinion pieces penned by “members of J Street’s Advisory Council and by its staff and friends.” No less than three scathing op-eds that mention Hagee or CUFI in the title, and others, like this one, that slam them in the body of the piece. Yet not one op-ed that mentions Ahmadenijad, Nasrallah or Assad in the title, or Hamas for that matter. Christian supporters of Israel and Israeli government officials, on the other hand, are specifically targeted for criticism. Again, this is a quite peculiar strategy for a “pro-Israel” group to pursue.

Which brings us to the latest example. J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami once again mischaracterized CUFI recently, erroneously claiming that the group contributed money to a certain Israeli organization. I won’t go into all the details here–rather, I  strongly encourage you to read two comprehensive responses to J Street written by a pair of CUFI spokesmen (see here and here).

Bottom line: J Street’s press releases, writings and public statements reflect a great deal of time and energy spent cutting down Israel’s friends and supporters–with a special venom reserved for evangelical Christians–not to mention, the Netanyahu government. On the other hand,  the group has spent precious little time condeming Israel’s sworn enemies. You can call this perplexing tactic many things. Pro-Israel is not one of them.

Melanie Phillips – Spectator

I have been following for some time the remarkable journey of Mosab Hassan Yousef, about whom I wrote here last year. Yousef, the son of a Hamas leader, renounced not just terrorist violence but his family and his faith to become a Christian and move to California. Since apostasy from Islam carries a death penalty, this in itself was an act of extreme courage. The Telegraph ran an interview with him which set out starkly the extreme risk he was running, along with the principled reasons for his actions:

Continue Reading

SaltShakers

The Word: I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; They shall never hold their peace day or night. You who make mention of the LORD, do not keep silent, and give Him no rest till He establishes and till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth. The LORD has sworn by His right hand and by the arm of His strength:”Surely I will no longer give your grain as food for your enemies; and the sons of the foreigner shall not drink your new wine, for which you have laboured. But those who have gathered it shall eat it, and praise the LORD; Those who have brought it together shall drink it in My holy courts.” Go through, go through the gates! Prepare the way for the people; Build up, Build up the highway! Take out the stones, lift up a banner for the peoples! Indeed the LORD has proclaimed to the end of the world:”Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Surely your salvation is coming; Behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him.’” And they shall call them The Holy People, the Redeemed of the LORD; and you shall be called Sought Out, A City Not Forsaken. (Isaiah 62:6-12)

‘Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls, because of the multitude of men and livestock in it. For I,’ says the LORD, ‘will be a wall of fire all around her, and I will be the glory in her midst.’ ”
(Zechariah 2:4-5)

• Pointers for prayer:

• Stolen Identity: Once again, as we continue to stand with Israel, may all our actions, support & prayer be lead by the Holy Spirit. Please pray that we would have ears to hear, and hearts open to the areas the Lord wants us to be effective in. Please pray that many within the church would have a clear revelation regarding God’s purposes for Israel. Pray that we would have many opportunities to share the truth regarding Israel within our churches and fellowships. Please pray for strength and wisdom for the leaders in Israel, especially Prime Minister Netanyahu to deal with the threats of Abbas regarding Israel’s national heritage sites.

• On your walls O Jerusalem: Praise God for the constant reminders of the truth as to whom the land of Israel belongs to. As archaeologists unearth more proof of historical Israel, do pray that many in the Church would make the connection with the Israel of the Bible, and the Israel of today.

• Pray for truth: There continues to be much deception and propaganda surrounding the whole issue of Israel. This week, the controversial Respect MP George Galloway was speaking at a meeting in Haringey, London, to mark the “anniversary” of the 2008/09 conflict in Gaza Please pray that the truth will be revealed and that lies and deception will be cast down, wherever they are found.

Stolen Identity

Continue Reading