Goldstone’s waffling diatribe in the Washington Post—although hardly the “retraction” of his report so heralded by the pro-Israel camp—should not have come as a surprise. Given the amount of Zionist pressure put on Goldstone, it is a wonder that his backpedaling took so long. He was blackballed throughout the international Jewish community, even prohibited from attending his own grandson’s bar mitzvah. It would be difficult for anyone to bear the extraordinary pressure wielded by such a powerful concerted effort and Goldstone must have been particularly susceptible because he was—and is—a self-described Zionist. Granted, in light of his initial report alleging Israeli war crimes, he could be labeled a “soft Zionist,” but a Zionist nonetheless.
The Jewish Virtual Library defines Zionism as “the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel…” In other words, Goldstone, along with every other Zionist, believes Jews have an unalienable right to come from the four corners of the world to take over Palestine. So, Goldstone’s betrayal of Operation Cast Lead’s victims, particularly the al-Simouni family, who lost 29 members in a single Israeli attack, was to be expected:
“The shelling of the (al-Simouni) home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack. While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly.” –“Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel War Crimes”
Of course Goldstone’s more recent conclusions are self-contradictory; they ignore the fact that, according to paragraph 1756 in his original report, “The Mission found major structural flaws that in its view make the (Israeli investigatory) system inconsistent with international standards….there is the absence of any effective and impartial investigation mechanism and victims of such alleged violations are deprived of any effective or prompt remedy.” We are all too familiar with the criminal cover-ups inherent to IDF internal investigations, dubbing the attack on the Mavi Marmara an act of “self-defense” and Rachel Corrie’s murder an “accident.”
But Goldstone most blatantly reveals his true Zionist colors with the statement, “I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.”
Come again? A history of bias? Israel’s proxy, the USA, has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council; hence the vast majority of resolutions critical of the Jewish State are vetoed. In fact, a mere 79 resolutions condemning various forms of Israeli aggression managed to slip through since 1948.
It is this type of victimhood on which Israelis and their apologists rely; sadly we Palestinian activists have fallen prey to this phenomenon and feel the need to appease this victimization at every turn. We now spend far too much of our time qualifying all our statements with “…now I don’t have a problem with Jews or Judaism, but rather Zionism…” If you are a Jew who is against Zionism, you know who you are and don’t need the constant caveats from pro-Palestinian groups living in constant fear of being labeled “anti-Semitic.”
Moreover, many of the organizations supposedly advocating for Palestinian rights support the defunct “Two-State Solution,” which is inherently Zionist. Israeli settlements are ensconced in what is left of the West Bank, Palestinian communities are isolated by Jewish-only roads and the non-contiguous Gaza Strip is under siege. A Palestinian state under such circumstances is not viable and to declare statehood under these conditions only legitimizes the Israeli occupation of more than 85% of historic Palestine.
Some Arab-American and Muslim organizations have even praised J Street, the “kinder, gentler” face of Zionism to “counter” AIPAC in our halls of Congress. .” According to the Jerusalem Post, one of J Street’s finance committee members - with a $10,000 contribution threshold – is none other than Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, a current board member of Amideast and former board member of the Arab American Institute. If there was any doubt about J Street’s motives, New Israel Fund CEO Daniel Sokatch removed all doubt when addressing their conference thusly: “And we believe that working for justice and equality in Israel is the best way to re-ignite a commitment to Israel in our own American community.”
Somehow another recipient of the “balanced and moderate” label is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. His condescending tripe entitled “US Must Step In to Pull Israel and Turkey Back to the Middle” in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara massacre included a quote from one of his Israeli friends “…and the Palestinians are beginning to act rationally.” I wonder how rational Friedman would act if he was denied the opportunity to work, travel, go to the hospital, or have access to little more than 6 hours of electricity a day for years and then watch close family members be blown apart?
Come on, people. We should know the “good cop-bad cop” routine by now. The reality of so called “moderate” voices such as Goldstone, Friedman, and J Street is that they represent the most insidious and virulent form of Zionism: the idea that this poisonous ideology can peacefully co-exist with the rest of humanity.
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
April 15, 2011
March 14, 2011
"Radicalization": It's Not A Muslim Thing
New York Congressman Pete King served as ringmaster at the latest congressional circus looking into Muslim “radicalization” and its perceived threat to the Homeland. Unfortunately, I was not invited to testify at this hearing, else I would have been happy to share my insights with Congressman King as to what “radicalization” means and how I became “radicalized.”
Granted, I am not a Muslim; therefore I will not pretend to speak for Muslims, “radicalized” or not. I will, however, hazard a guess I could do a better job than Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, who tearfully recounted the story of Mohammad Salman Hamdani during the recent hearings. Hamdani was the Pakistani Muslim firefighter killed on 9/11 who was accused posthumously of being a co-conspirator in the attacks, allegations which were later proven false. The poignant theatrics by Ellison would have been an appropriate show of sympathy, was it not for the fact that a large portion of his congressional career to date has been devoted to serving as poster boy for the State Department. Engaging in such “image-building” abroad illustrates what a tolerant and diverse country the U.S. truly is and that Muslims are accepted and even elected to prominent positions in government—when they’re not being waterboarding or spied upon while praying. Ellison also proudly served as the token Muslim on a trip to the Jewish State sponsored by the America Israel Education Federation and visited Iraq in order to personally bestow praise on occupiers.
Not to be outdone was Imam Rauf, whose exchange with erstwhile john and now co-host of yet another talking head show on CNN Elliot Spitzer, was posted on the aptly named blog “Ikhras,” (Arabic for “shut up”). Rauf’s only complaint about the Peter King hearings was that more law enforcement agencies had not been invited to testify just how many Muslims are quislings for the FBI, spying in mosques and informing on their neighbors. Such gross displays of allegiance to an organization hell-bent on oppressing not only Muslims, but peace activists as well—23 of whom have been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury— pushes those of us who believe in civil disobedience rather than collaboration a little closer to “radicalization.”
According to Wikipedia, “radicalization” is defined as “the process in which an individual changes from passiveness or activism to become more revolutionary, militant or extremist. Radicalization is often associated with youth, adversity, alienation, social exclusion, poverty or the perception of injustice to self or others.” By the same token, a “radical” is “a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles, extremist” or “a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.” While the word “militant” has a violent connotation, the definition does not specifically include the word “violence” or the word “religion.” In fact, tens of thousands of non-Muslims in Wisconsin have been “radicalized” by a Hitleresque attack on labor unions, yet they have been pretty peaceful thus far.
Being a Christian, my “radicalization” did not involve indoctrination by Islamic militants; it began with my own observations during a trip to Palestine in 2001. One of the first things I witnessed was an Orthodox Jew riding his bike through a crowd of Muslim women in the narrow streets of Jerusalem’s Old City, his legs outstretched nonchalantly as they scrambled to get out of his way. After a few days, I traveled to Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza and met 14 year-old Muhammad, who told me he was beaten by Israeli soldiers for playing on the beach.
The process continued months later when I went to the Jordan Hospital in Amman and visited a child who had been blinded in an Israeli attack. In the same place, I saw the life ebbing away from Taha Abu Snineneh, a young man who was also a victim of Israeli fire, enduring weeks of machines working his vital organs for him before finally passing away.
I felt still more marginalized, when, like so many others in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, I was the victim of harassing phone calls and requests for a meeting with unidentified government officials from “the Defense Department” and later in 2007 when two FBI agents showed up at my door to ask me about my “connections” with Hamas.
During a protest in New York City against the 2008-09 Israeli assault on Gaza, a Jewish man was allowed to cross over from the pro-Israeli counter-demonstration and berate two Arab men while shoving his finger in their faces, all done under the watchful eye of numerous police. At the same event, I was grabbed by an officer and practically shoved down when I attempted to confront three Israeli demonstrators who were heckling me as I walked by. To add insult to injury, a letter to my Congressman resulted in a reply shamelessly promoting “our Israel.”
These incidents which led to my “radicalization” are nothing when compared to the humiliation and suffering Palestinians experience every day of their lives, whether they are forced to endure Israeli attacks, checkpoints, home demolitions and unwarranted searches, or the endless limbo of refugee camps in Lebanon and other Arab nations where they live in varying degrees of second-class citizenship.
Was it not for the grotesquely bloated handouts to the Jewish State enabling the violent persecution of Palestinians—Muslim and Christian alike—we Americans would not be faced with such drastic cuts to medical care, children’s hospitals and education, the brunt of which is being borne by the poorest among us. Ultimately “injustice to others” and “injustice to self” are intertwined.
So there you have it, Mr. King. Radicalization has nothing to do with Islam. It is a reaction: a testimony to the human spirit that we will only take so much adversity, alienation, social exclusion and injustice before demanding fundamental political, economic and social reforms by direct and uncompromising methods.
Granted, I am not a Muslim; therefore I will not pretend to speak for Muslims, “radicalized” or not. I will, however, hazard a guess I could do a better job than Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, who tearfully recounted the story of Mohammad Salman Hamdani during the recent hearings. Hamdani was the Pakistani Muslim firefighter killed on 9/11 who was accused posthumously of being a co-conspirator in the attacks, allegations which were later proven false. The poignant theatrics by Ellison would have been an appropriate show of sympathy, was it not for the fact that a large portion of his congressional career to date has been devoted to serving as poster boy for the State Department. Engaging in such “image-building” abroad illustrates what a tolerant and diverse country the U.S. truly is and that Muslims are accepted and even elected to prominent positions in government—when they’re not being waterboarding or spied upon while praying. Ellison also proudly served as the token Muslim on a trip to the Jewish State sponsored by the America Israel Education Federation and visited Iraq in order to personally bestow praise on occupiers.
Not to be outdone was Imam Rauf, whose exchange with erstwhile john and now co-host of yet another talking head show on CNN Elliot Spitzer, was posted on the aptly named blog “Ikhras,” (Arabic for “shut up”). Rauf’s only complaint about the Peter King hearings was that more law enforcement agencies had not been invited to testify just how many Muslims are quislings for the FBI, spying in mosques and informing on their neighbors. Such gross displays of allegiance to an organization hell-bent on oppressing not only Muslims, but peace activists as well—23 of whom have been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury— pushes those of us who believe in civil disobedience rather than collaboration a little closer to “radicalization.”
According to Wikipedia, “radicalization” is defined as “the process in which an individual changes from passiveness or activism to become more revolutionary, militant or extremist. Radicalization is often associated with youth, adversity, alienation, social exclusion, poverty or the perception of injustice to self or others.” By the same token, a “radical” is “a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles, extremist” or “a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.” While the word “militant” has a violent connotation, the definition does not specifically include the word “violence” or the word “religion.” In fact, tens of thousands of non-Muslims in Wisconsin have been “radicalized” by a Hitleresque attack on labor unions, yet they have been pretty peaceful thus far.
Being a Christian, my “radicalization” did not involve indoctrination by Islamic militants; it began with my own observations during a trip to Palestine in 2001. One of the first things I witnessed was an Orthodox Jew riding his bike through a crowd of Muslim women in the narrow streets of Jerusalem’s Old City, his legs outstretched nonchalantly as they scrambled to get out of his way. After a few days, I traveled to Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza and met 14 year-old Muhammad, who told me he was beaten by Israeli soldiers for playing on the beach.
The process continued months later when I went to the Jordan Hospital in Amman and visited a child who had been blinded in an Israeli attack. In the same place, I saw the life ebbing away from Taha Abu Snineneh, a young man who was also a victim of Israeli fire, enduring weeks of machines working his vital organs for him before finally passing away.
I felt still more marginalized, when, like so many others in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, I was the victim of harassing phone calls and requests for a meeting with unidentified government officials from “the Defense Department” and later in 2007 when two FBI agents showed up at my door to ask me about my “connections” with Hamas.
During a protest in New York City against the 2008-09 Israeli assault on Gaza, a Jewish man was allowed to cross over from the pro-Israeli counter-demonstration and berate two Arab men while shoving his finger in their faces, all done under the watchful eye of numerous police. At the same event, I was grabbed by an officer and practically shoved down when I attempted to confront three Israeli demonstrators who were heckling me as I walked by. To add insult to injury, a letter to my Congressman resulted in a reply shamelessly promoting “our Israel.”
These incidents which led to my “radicalization” are nothing when compared to the humiliation and suffering Palestinians experience every day of their lives, whether they are forced to endure Israeli attacks, checkpoints, home demolitions and unwarranted searches, or the endless limbo of refugee camps in Lebanon and other Arab nations where they live in varying degrees of second-class citizenship.
Was it not for the grotesquely bloated handouts to the Jewish State enabling the violent persecution of Palestinians—Muslim and Christian alike—we Americans would not be faced with such drastic cuts to medical care, children’s hospitals and education, the brunt of which is being borne by the poorest among us. Ultimately “injustice to others” and “injustice to self” are intertwined.
So there you have it, Mr. King. Radicalization has nothing to do with Islam. It is a reaction: a testimony to the human spirit that we will only take so much adversity, alienation, social exclusion and injustice before demanding fundamental political, economic and social reforms by direct and uncompromising methods.
September 12, 2010
Ramadan Reflections From A Christian
As of this writing, the Islamic holy month of Ramadan is coming to a close. The past month has been a time of unprecedented turbulence for Muslims around the world. While both natural and man-made disasters plague our brothers and sisters overseas, media-fed controversy strains Muslim/non-Muslim relations here in the United States.
The unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe in the aftermath of the flooding in Pakistan has been compounded by evidence revealing India’s role in opening major dams along shared rivers. Such tactics are reminiscent of Israel’s opening of the al-Wadi dam which flooded parts of Gaza earlier this year; however due to the size and volume of the rivers, the suffering in Pakistan is much more widespread. After rainfall subsided on July 29, the Baghliar Dam located in Indian-occupied Kashmir and the Sarobi Dam near Kabul and maintained by India, were opened, causing the rivers to overflow. To make matters worse, vitriolic comments began appearing on Western news websites covering the disaster. One example, forwarded to me by a colleague in Lahore:
“lets hope more rains and floods kill more pakis soon!! pray to god for this that he brings more rain to kill more pakis!! lets hope the rain washed these samosa smelling bastards before they are sent to hells gates! a good paki is a dead paki!!”
Kashmir, long a prisoner of the Indian army, has been under curfew for a good portion of the month; praying at mosque has been a sporadic privilege for most Kashmiris. Funerals on the other hand, have been quite commonplace as youths protesting the injustices are gunned down. Images from Indian-occupied Kashmir mirror those of Israeli-occupied Palestine, where, despite the latest round of direct “peace talks,” it is business as usual.
While Abbas and Netanyahu posed for their American-orchestrated photo op, two Israeli soldiers who committed separate atrocities walked free: one who emptied his magazine into a Palestinian schoolgirl was acquitted and peace activist Tom Hurndall’s murderer was released from prison. The monotony of the siege on Gaza is broken only by periodic missile attacks from the Israeli Air Force as tunnels—Gaza’s precarious lifelines to the outside world—are destroyed. Yet the American news media has pursued only two stories for the sole purpose of stoking controversy and pitting non-Muslim against Muslim.
The “Ground Zero Mosque” as it has been inappropriately dubbed in the press, actually sits two blocks away and cannot be seen from the former site of the World Trade Center. What should have been an issue of a man’s right to do what he likes with his private property (within zoning constraints) has transformed into a clash of civilizations-style debate on religious freedom—or lack thereof—in the United States. In all fairness, since September 11, 2001 was the manufactured catalyst for the deaths, injuries, displacement and detainment of untold millions of Muslims worldwide, the “Ground Zero Mosque,” moreover, Ground Zero itself, should become home to a Muslim Holocaust Museum.
Due to Eid al-Fitr coinciding with the ninth anniversary of 9/11, many Muslim organizations are choosing to “tone down” or cancel their Eid celebrations altogether. I daresay this falls into one of two categories: fear of retaliation from those who listened to talk radio fascists circulating the myth that Muslims are celebrating 9/11 this year, or a sheepish appeal to the American population at large that says “we respect your sensitivities, please like us.”
Either way, I want to ask those organizations if Eid festivities were ever toned down to honor the Palestinian victims of the Black September massacres in 1970. Or to honor the one million Iraqis killed during and after the U.S. invasion? Were Eid festivities ever canceled when the holiday coincided with any one of the numerous massacres in Palestine? I would point out to them that Americans aren’t canceling any celebrations for 9/11. Here in Dayton, the Hispanic Heritage Festival will pause for a “September 11 Commemoration,” but the salsa music is set to resume shortly afterwards.
This is all well and good, as commemorating the anniversary of 9/11 should not be tied ceremonies at the pieces of ground in Lower Manhattan, Washington, D.C. or a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It should not be about playing Taps or waving flags; citizens would do the greatest honor to the victims by pursuing the truth as to what really happened that day, demanding answers to the discrepancies, omissions and falsehoods put forth by the 9/11 Commission. Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel held a press conference regarding evidence of explosive material in Buildings 1, 2 and 7 of the WTC, although mainstream media was massed in Gainesville, Florida and missed it.
Although I hate to contribute to a publicity-hungry pastor’s fifteen minutes of fame, the irony of General Petraeus’ condemnation of “International Burn the Qur’an Day” merits a mention. This is the same guy who orders drone attacks destroying mosques, schools and homes in which Muslim men, women and children are incinerated, let alone copies of the Qur’an which they undoubtedly kept.
In the midst of anger and frustration at the ignorance festering within my own country, fasting throughout the month of Ramadan has increased my patience, self-discipline and inner peace. Friends and family wondered why a Christian would elect to partake in such a difficult fast, one that is not mandated by our religion. Some thought I had converted.
My reasons for fasting are simple: Jesus fasted; he also advised that some forms of healing only come with prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29). I also wanted to be in solidarity with those facing hard times in Gaza, Pakistan and so many other places who may not get to break their fasts at sunset. I fasted to support my Muslim brothers and sisters here at home in a sometimes hostile society rife with hatred and misunderstanding. It is my sincere desire to reflect this newfound patience and peace to my community and to the rest of the world.
The unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe in the aftermath of the flooding in Pakistan has been compounded by evidence revealing India’s role in opening major dams along shared rivers. Such tactics are reminiscent of Israel’s opening of the al-Wadi dam which flooded parts of Gaza earlier this year; however due to the size and volume of the rivers, the suffering in Pakistan is much more widespread. After rainfall subsided on July 29, the Baghliar Dam located in Indian-occupied Kashmir and the Sarobi Dam near Kabul and maintained by India, were opened, causing the rivers to overflow. To make matters worse, vitriolic comments began appearing on Western news websites covering the disaster. One example, forwarded to me by a colleague in Lahore:
“lets hope more rains and floods kill more pakis soon!! pray to god for this that he brings more rain to kill more pakis!! lets hope the rain washed these samosa smelling bastards before they are sent to hells gates! a good paki is a dead paki!!”
Kashmir, long a prisoner of the Indian army, has been under curfew for a good portion of the month; praying at mosque has been a sporadic privilege for most Kashmiris. Funerals on the other hand, have been quite commonplace as youths protesting the injustices are gunned down. Images from Indian-occupied Kashmir mirror those of Israeli-occupied Palestine, where, despite the latest round of direct “peace talks,” it is business as usual.
While Abbas and Netanyahu posed for their American-orchestrated photo op, two Israeli soldiers who committed separate atrocities walked free: one who emptied his magazine into a Palestinian schoolgirl was acquitted and peace activist Tom Hurndall’s murderer was released from prison. The monotony of the siege on Gaza is broken only by periodic missile attacks from the Israeli Air Force as tunnels—Gaza’s precarious lifelines to the outside world—are destroyed. Yet the American news media has pursued only two stories for the sole purpose of stoking controversy and pitting non-Muslim against Muslim.
The “Ground Zero Mosque” as it has been inappropriately dubbed in the press, actually sits two blocks away and cannot be seen from the former site of the World Trade Center. What should have been an issue of a man’s right to do what he likes with his private property (within zoning constraints) has transformed into a clash of civilizations-style debate on religious freedom—or lack thereof—in the United States. In all fairness, since September 11, 2001 was the manufactured catalyst for the deaths, injuries, displacement and detainment of untold millions of Muslims worldwide, the “Ground Zero Mosque,” moreover, Ground Zero itself, should become home to a Muslim Holocaust Museum.
Due to Eid al-Fitr coinciding with the ninth anniversary of 9/11, many Muslim organizations are choosing to “tone down” or cancel their Eid celebrations altogether. I daresay this falls into one of two categories: fear of retaliation from those who listened to talk radio fascists circulating the myth that Muslims are celebrating 9/11 this year, or a sheepish appeal to the American population at large that says “we respect your sensitivities, please like us.”
Either way, I want to ask those organizations if Eid festivities were ever toned down to honor the Palestinian victims of the Black September massacres in 1970. Or to honor the one million Iraqis killed during and after the U.S. invasion? Were Eid festivities ever canceled when the holiday coincided with any one of the numerous massacres in Palestine? I would point out to them that Americans aren’t canceling any celebrations for 9/11. Here in Dayton, the Hispanic Heritage Festival will pause for a “September 11 Commemoration,” but the salsa music is set to resume shortly afterwards.
This is all well and good, as commemorating the anniversary of 9/11 should not be tied ceremonies at the pieces of ground in Lower Manhattan, Washington, D.C. or a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It should not be about playing Taps or waving flags; citizens would do the greatest honor to the victims by pursuing the truth as to what really happened that day, demanding answers to the discrepancies, omissions and falsehoods put forth by the 9/11 Commission. Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel held a press conference regarding evidence of explosive material in Buildings 1, 2 and 7 of the WTC, although mainstream media was massed in Gainesville, Florida and missed it.
Although I hate to contribute to a publicity-hungry pastor’s fifteen minutes of fame, the irony of General Petraeus’ condemnation of “International Burn the Qur’an Day” merits a mention. This is the same guy who orders drone attacks destroying mosques, schools and homes in which Muslim men, women and children are incinerated, let alone copies of the Qur’an which they undoubtedly kept.
In the midst of anger and frustration at the ignorance festering within my own country, fasting throughout the month of Ramadan has increased my patience, self-discipline and inner peace. Friends and family wondered why a Christian would elect to partake in such a difficult fast, one that is not mandated by our religion. Some thought I had converted.
My reasons for fasting are simple: Jesus fasted; he also advised that some forms of healing only come with prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29). I also wanted to be in solidarity with those facing hard times in Gaza, Pakistan and so many other places who may not get to break their fasts at sunset. I fasted to support my Muslim brothers and sisters here at home in a sometimes hostile society rife with hatred and misunderstanding. It is my sincere desire to reflect this newfound patience and peace to my community and to the rest of the world.
August 25, 2010
What Christian Zionists Don't Know About Old Testament Prophecy
Old Testament prophecy and history are interconnected because the ancient prophecies were fulfilled while the books that eventually became the Bible were still being written: fulfillment became history. However, Christian Zionists believe Old Testament prophets foretold the establishment of modern-day Israel and the rebuilding of a Third Jewish Temple, discarding all semblance of historical context.
It may be argued that Zionism, as a political and secular movement, never relied on scriptural land grants as the basis for a Jewish homeland. However, the symbiotic relationship between Christian and political Zionism has already been explored and proven beginning with William Hechler’s unholy alliance with Theodor Herzl. http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16204
Israel’s wars of expansion illustrate a sense of divine entitlement rather than a mere desire to create a refuge for the world’s Jewry: the annexation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, seizure of Syria’s Golan Heights, Lebanon’s Chebaa Farms and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula (later returned under duress) and for the past two decades, the United States serving as a proxy to destroy and occupy Iraq. In all the madness, one can sense a certain religious fanaticism reminiscent of the doctrine of Manifest Destiny that led early settlers in the United States to perpetuate atrocities against Native Americans in order to fulfill an imaginary divine decree that the fledgling nation would stretch from sea to sea.
While the Bible outlined boundaries for the ancient Israelites, found in Joshua 1:4: “From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun (Mediterranean), shall be your coast,” Zionists use these parameters as a present-day ordinance for the creation of a “Greater Israel,” including not only Palestine, but parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. This was evidenced in a 1952 speech by then Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan:
“…our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire.”
To Christian Zionists, the establishment and expansion of such an Israeli empire is imperative in order to precipitate the return of Jesus Christ to earth, or the Second Coming. They believe that all Jews must be gathered in Palestine in order to fulfill prophecy; furthermore that a “Third Temple” must be constructed where Al-Aqsa Mosque—Islam’s third holiest shrine—now stands.
Chronologically, Joel’s writings are the oldest, dating back to the 9th Century BC. The book bearing his name foretells the manifestation of the Holy Spirit at the Jewish feast of Pentecost in Acts 2. The next set of prophecies was written in the 8th century BC: the Books of Isaiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah all contain warnings of Israel’s destruction, which occurred when the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC. Babylonians defeated the Southern Kingdom (Judah) in 597 BC, marking the beginning of the exile. Amos 9:11 states:
“In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up thee breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old.”
At the time Amos prophesied, Babylonian captivity was well over 100 years away, as well as Jerusalem’s subsequent restoration. Amos 9:11 is quoted by James in Acts 15:16-17 when he addresses the church council, indicating the fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy in the person of Jesus Christ, not a literal “Third Temple.”
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Zephaniah all wrote during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC. When they foretell the return to Jerusalem, they are referring to the end of the Babylonian captivity, not the eventual creation of a modern political Israel.
In his essay, “Zionists and the Bible,” Christian theologian Alfred Guillaume sums it up:
“These prophecies were fulfilled. The Jews returned to Judea, rebuilt Jerusalem’s walls and rebuilt the Temple. After fluctuating fortunes, they secured a brief period of political independence and expansion under the Maccabees. Thus, the prophecies of the Return have been fulfilled already and cannot be fulfilled again. The Old Testament’s canonical literature contains no prophecy of a second return after the return from the Babylonian Exile, because after the Exile, all Jews who wished to do so returned to the Holy Land, though a great many more preferred to remain where they were….”
Those still insisting that there will be another Temple need only read John 2:19: “Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’” Here Christ is clearly referring to himself as the temple which will be “raised up,” or resurrected. During his ministry, Christ also points to various stories found in the Old Testament in order to refute the “Chosen Race” doctrine:
“And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias (Elijah), when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus (Elisha) the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” (Luke 4: 24-27)
Jesus gives us many more such teachings and parables throughout the New Testament, which will be examined in an upcoming article.
It may be argued that Zionism, as a political and secular movement, never relied on scriptural land grants as the basis for a Jewish homeland. However, the symbiotic relationship between Christian and political Zionism has already been explored and proven beginning with William Hechler’s unholy alliance with Theodor Herzl. http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16204
Israel’s wars of expansion illustrate a sense of divine entitlement rather than a mere desire to create a refuge for the world’s Jewry: the annexation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, seizure of Syria’s Golan Heights, Lebanon’s Chebaa Farms and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula (later returned under duress) and for the past two decades, the United States serving as a proxy to destroy and occupy Iraq. In all the madness, one can sense a certain religious fanaticism reminiscent of the doctrine of Manifest Destiny that led early settlers in the United States to perpetuate atrocities against Native Americans in order to fulfill an imaginary divine decree that the fledgling nation would stretch from sea to sea.
While the Bible outlined boundaries for the ancient Israelites, found in Joshua 1:4: “From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun (Mediterranean), shall be your coast,” Zionists use these parameters as a present-day ordinance for the creation of a “Greater Israel,” including not only Palestine, but parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. This was evidenced in a 1952 speech by then Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan:
“…our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire.”
To Christian Zionists, the establishment and expansion of such an Israeli empire is imperative in order to precipitate the return of Jesus Christ to earth, or the Second Coming. They believe that all Jews must be gathered in Palestine in order to fulfill prophecy; furthermore that a “Third Temple” must be constructed where Al-Aqsa Mosque—Islam’s third holiest shrine—now stands.
Chronologically, Joel’s writings are the oldest, dating back to the 9th Century BC. The book bearing his name foretells the manifestation of the Holy Spirit at the Jewish feast of Pentecost in Acts 2. The next set of prophecies was written in the 8th century BC: the Books of Isaiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah all contain warnings of Israel’s destruction, which occurred when the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC. Babylonians defeated the Southern Kingdom (Judah) in 597 BC, marking the beginning of the exile. Amos 9:11 states:
“In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up thee breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old.”
At the time Amos prophesied, Babylonian captivity was well over 100 years away, as well as Jerusalem’s subsequent restoration. Amos 9:11 is quoted by James in Acts 15:16-17 when he addresses the church council, indicating the fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy in the person of Jesus Christ, not a literal “Third Temple.”
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Zephaniah all wrote during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC. When they foretell the return to Jerusalem, they are referring to the end of the Babylonian captivity, not the eventual creation of a modern political Israel.
In his essay, “Zionists and the Bible,” Christian theologian Alfred Guillaume sums it up:
“These prophecies were fulfilled. The Jews returned to Judea, rebuilt Jerusalem’s walls and rebuilt the Temple. After fluctuating fortunes, they secured a brief period of political independence and expansion under the Maccabees. Thus, the prophecies of the Return have been fulfilled already and cannot be fulfilled again. The Old Testament’s canonical literature contains no prophecy of a second return after the return from the Babylonian Exile, because after the Exile, all Jews who wished to do so returned to the Holy Land, though a great many more preferred to remain where they were….”
Those still insisting that there will be another Temple need only read John 2:19: “Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’” Here Christ is clearly referring to himself as the temple which will be “raised up,” or resurrected. During his ministry, Christ also points to various stories found in the Old Testament in order to refute the “Chosen Race” doctrine:
“And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias (Elijah), when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus (Elisha) the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” (Luke 4: 24-27)
Jesus gives us many more such teachings and parables throughout the New Testament, which will be examined in an upcoming article.
August 20, 2010
What Christian Zionists Don't Know about Old Testament History
I have been comforted by the divine wisdom and promise found in the Bible countless times throughout my life, yet it troubles me how this sacred book has been manipulated by so many into a how-to manual of theft and destruction. Often I have been questioned by non-Christian friends regarding biblical passages commonly abused by Christian Zionists—those who believe that Jews are God’s Chosen and must be implanted in Palestine in order to precipitate the Second Coming of Jesus Christ—“Does the Bible really say that?”
My answer is always a resounding “no.” While it is possible to take certain passages out of context and ignore the historical perspective in which they were written in order to manufacture a case for a modern-day nation called Israel, it is neither accurate nor theologically sound. Yet as many as 70 million people in the United States espouse the doctrine of Christian Zionism which endorses racism, ethnic cleansing and wholesale slaughter as manifested in the Israeli occupation of Palestine. This heresy is twofold: Zionist Christians have manipulated both biblical prophecy and the Bible’s historical content to support their murderous agenda.
It is imperative that true followers of Christ actively fight back against this lethal false doctrine that has caused far more death and destruction than any so-called Islamic extremism by first examining history from a biblical perspective. It is very important not to confuse the term Biblical Literalist with Christian Zionist. I probably take the Bible more literally than anyone I know and in fact, the most effective way to rescue otherwise benign individuals from the dangerous heresy of Christian Zionism is through a strict literal interpretation of the Bible.
Beginning with the Book of Genesis, God establishes a covenant with Abram (Abraham) whom modern-day Jews, Christians and Muslims all revere as a patriarch and a prophet. In the Covenant, God promised Canaan (Palestine) to Abram and his descendants (Genesis 17:8).
Later, in Genesis 17:19-21, God specifically establishes His covenant with Abraham’s son Isaac. Unfortunately this is an early point of contention between Christianity and Islam, as Muslims believe it was Ishmael (Ismail PBUH) whom Abraham was ordered to sacrifice in a test by God while Christians believe it was Isaac. Yet even in the Bible, God does not exclude Ishmael and his descendants from the original promise to Abraham of all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates Rivers. Christian theologian Alfred Guillaume (1888-1965) addresses this point:
“It is generally supposed that these promises were made to the Jews alone. However, this is not what the Bible says. The words ‘to thy seed’ inevitably include Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, who can claim descent from Abraham through his first son Ishmael. Ishmael was the reputed father of many Arab tribes…”
The name Israel is first heard in Genesis 32 when God renames Jacob, the son of Isaac. From this name are derived the terms “Children of Israel,” “Israelites,” and “Twelve Tribes of Israel.” Christian Zionists base Jewish claims to Palestine on the ridiculous notion that they are directly and purely descended from the biblical Israelites, as members of a Jewish “race” rather than adherents to the religion of Judaism. Ironically, anyone who converts to Judaism has legal rights to immigrate to the Jewish State regardless of heritage.
Intermarriage was prevalent early on, beginning with Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah, whose father was Syrian. Hence Arab blood was already present in the Israelites’ lineage. There are numerous other instances of intermarriage throughout the Old Testament, including Moses, whose father-in-law is identified as a Midianite, of an Arab tribe. Ruth, whose story is told in the Old Testament book bearing her name, was not Jewish but Moabite. In the first chapter of Matthew, Ruth is listed as a direct ancestor of Jesus Christ. Jacob’s youngest son, Joseph, married Asenath, daughter of Potipherah who was an Egyptian priest. She bore him two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41: 50). Jacob (Israel) later adopted Manasseh and Ephraim hence the two of the Twelve Tribes of Israel bear their names.
The Twelve Tribes of Israel were to divide the aforementioned land. The Levites, to whom Moses and Aaron belonged, were chosen as a caste of priests, thus not entitled to any land. Ironically, those with the surname Cohen claim to be descended from the Levites, not knowing if this were indeed true, they would have to relinquish rights to any land in Palestine! Likewise, the tribes of Gad, Reuben and half of Manasseh elected to settle east of the Jordan River.
When Israel split in the 6th Century B.C., the Northern Kingdom (which retained the name Israel) was comprised of ten tribes. The remaining two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, formed the Southern Kingdom (Judah). From 734-732 B.C. the kingdoms were at war with each other; the Assyrians routed the Northern Kingdom ten years later. The Babylonians conquered Judah in 597 B.C., the beginning of a seventy-year exile. The majority of those who eventually returned from the Babylonian captivity were from the tribe of Judah, from where the term “Jew” is derived, first appearing in the Second Book of Kings 16:6.
Another name found in the Bible is Ashkenaz, a son of Gomer. From this word comes Ashkenazim, referring to Jews of European heritage. However, Gomer was descended from Japheth (I Chronicles 1:6) and not Shem; therefore the name itself defines them as non-Semitic people.
Biblical origins of names become very important when confronting Zionist Christians, as evidenced in this inane statement from Craig Winn, author of such inflammatory titles as Prophet of Doom:
“The name ‘Palestinian’ was derived from the Roman Latinized name of the Philistines. The Assyrians murdered the last of the Philistines in 585 B.C. There are therefore, no Palestinians alive today. There haven’t been for over 2,500 years.”
In reality, the Philistines were only one of seven Canaanite nations and inhabited the area immediately around Gaza. Canaanites were descended from Ham, not Shem (Genesis 10), thus were not Semitic and cannot be related to modern day Palestinian Arabs who are true Semites. One of the many biblical prophecies warped by Zionist Christians is found in Zechariah 14:21b “…and in that day there shall be no more Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.” They use this passage to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, when in fact Palestinians are not Canaanites.
An upcoming article will be devoted entirely to other biblical prophecies that Zionist Christians have taken out of context and twisted to fit their homicidal master plan.
My answer is always a resounding “no.” While it is possible to take certain passages out of context and ignore the historical perspective in which they were written in order to manufacture a case for a modern-day nation called Israel, it is neither accurate nor theologically sound. Yet as many as 70 million people in the United States espouse the doctrine of Christian Zionism which endorses racism, ethnic cleansing and wholesale slaughter as manifested in the Israeli occupation of Palestine. This heresy is twofold: Zionist Christians have manipulated both biblical prophecy and the Bible’s historical content to support their murderous agenda.
It is imperative that true followers of Christ actively fight back against this lethal false doctrine that has caused far more death and destruction than any so-called Islamic extremism by first examining history from a biblical perspective. It is very important not to confuse the term Biblical Literalist with Christian Zionist. I probably take the Bible more literally than anyone I know and in fact, the most effective way to rescue otherwise benign individuals from the dangerous heresy of Christian Zionism is through a strict literal interpretation of the Bible.
Beginning with the Book of Genesis, God establishes a covenant with Abram (Abraham) whom modern-day Jews, Christians and Muslims all revere as a patriarch and a prophet. In the Covenant, God promised Canaan (Palestine) to Abram and his descendants (Genesis 17:8).
Later, in Genesis 17:19-21, God specifically establishes His covenant with Abraham’s son Isaac. Unfortunately this is an early point of contention between Christianity and Islam, as Muslims believe it was Ishmael (Ismail PBUH) whom Abraham was ordered to sacrifice in a test by God while Christians believe it was Isaac. Yet even in the Bible, God does not exclude Ishmael and his descendants from the original promise to Abraham of all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates Rivers. Christian theologian Alfred Guillaume (1888-1965) addresses this point:
“It is generally supposed that these promises were made to the Jews alone. However, this is not what the Bible says. The words ‘to thy seed’ inevitably include Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, who can claim descent from Abraham through his first son Ishmael. Ishmael was the reputed father of many Arab tribes…”
The name Israel is first heard in Genesis 32 when God renames Jacob, the son of Isaac. From this name are derived the terms “Children of Israel,” “Israelites,” and “Twelve Tribes of Israel.” Christian Zionists base Jewish claims to Palestine on the ridiculous notion that they are directly and purely descended from the biblical Israelites, as members of a Jewish “race” rather than adherents to the religion of Judaism. Ironically, anyone who converts to Judaism has legal rights to immigrate to the Jewish State regardless of heritage.
Intermarriage was prevalent early on, beginning with Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah, whose father was Syrian. Hence Arab blood was already present in the Israelites’ lineage. There are numerous other instances of intermarriage throughout the Old Testament, including Moses, whose father-in-law is identified as a Midianite, of an Arab tribe. Ruth, whose story is told in the Old Testament book bearing her name, was not Jewish but Moabite. In the first chapter of Matthew, Ruth is listed as a direct ancestor of Jesus Christ. Jacob’s youngest son, Joseph, married Asenath, daughter of Potipherah who was an Egyptian priest. She bore him two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41: 50). Jacob (Israel) later adopted Manasseh and Ephraim hence the two of the Twelve Tribes of Israel bear their names.
The Twelve Tribes of Israel were to divide the aforementioned land. The Levites, to whom Moses and Aaron belonged, were chosen as a caste of priests, thus not entitled to any land. Ironically, those with the surname Cohen claim to be descended from the Levites, not knowing if this were indeed true, they would have to relinquish rights to any land in Palestine! Likewise, the tribes of Gad, Reuben and half of Manasseh elected to settle east of the Jordan River.
When Israel split in the 6th Century B.C., the Northern Kingdom (which retained the name Israel) was comprised of ten tribes. The remaining two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, formed the Southern Kingdom (Judah). From 734-732 B.C. the kingdoms were at war with each other; the Assyrians routed the Northern Kingdom ten years later. The Babylonians conquered Judah in 597 B.C., the beginning of a seventy-year exile. The majority of those who eventually returned from the Babylonian captivity were from the tribe of Judah, from where the term “Jew” is derived, first appearing in the Second Book of Kings 16:6.
Another name found in the Bible is Ashkenaz, a son of Gomer. From this word comes Ashkenazim, referring to Jews of European heritage. However, Gomer was descended from Japheth (I Chronicles 1:6) and not Shem; therefore the name itself defines them as non-Semitic people.
Biblical origins of names become very important when confronting Zionist Christians, as evidenced in this inane statement from Craig Winn, author of such inflammatory titles as Prophet of Doom:
“The name ‘Palestinian’ was derived from the Roman Latinized name of the Philistines. The Assyrians murdered the last of the Philistines in 585 B.C. There are therefore, no Palestinians alive today. There haven’t been for over 2,500 years.”
In reality, the Philistines were only one of seven Canaanite nations and inhabited the area immediately around Gaza. Canaanites were descended from Ham, not Shem (Genesis 10), thus were not Semitic and cannot be related to modern day Palestinian Arabs who are true Semites. One of the many biblical prophecies warped by Zionist Christians is found in Zechariah 14:21b “…and in that day there shall be no more Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.” They use this passage to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, when in fact Palestinians are not Canaanites.
An upcoming article will be devoted entirely to other biblical prophecies that Zionist Christians have taken out of context and twisted to fit their homicidal master plan.
August 15, 2010
The Roots of Christian Zionism
It is common knowledge that many so-called Christians throw unconditional, unyielding support behind the Jewish state. Known as Christian Zionists, or more recently “Israel-firsters”—indicating their degree of loyalty over and above the interests of their own country—it is estimated they are over 50 million strong in the United States alone. By stripping biblical passages out of their proper context and ignoring historical perspective, Christian Zionist leaders have convinced the masses that Jesus Christ will return when all Jews are gathered in Palestine, even if it means the systemic destruction of the Palestinian people.
Questions remain how such a blatantly un-biblical doctrine hijacked an entire segment of the Christian community; moreover, how the doctrine came to be so widely accepted not only in churches but in the halls of political power.
It has been argued that Christian Zionism originated as a spin-off of secular Zionism; that Christians were co-opted by political Zionists in order to gain support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Ironically, Palestine was sixth on the list for such a homeland at Theodor Herzl’s First Zionist Congress in 1897, behind locales including Argentina, Uganda and Turkey. It was in fact the Christian Zionists who were orchestrating the takeover of Palestine from the beginning.
The Politics of Christian Zionism 1891-1948 by Paul C. Merkley provides startling evidence that the poisoned theology of Christian Zionism predates Herzl, long considered the father of Zionism. In fact, Herzl received a tremendous amount of support from William Hechler, the son of Anglican missionaries and author of an 1893 pamphlet entitled “The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine According to Prophecy.” It was Hechler who arranged meetings between Herzl and Kaiser Wilhelm II, promoting the Zionist ambition to usurp Palestine among world leaders.
Early support for Zionism among United States policymakers was manifested through a handful of misguided religious nuts who manipulated leaders by flattering their sordid egotistical fantasies. According to Merkley, President Harry S. Truman compared himself to Cyrus, the Persian king who allowed Jews to return to Palestine in ancient times after the Babylonian captivity, although Zionist sympathies have run deep in America since its foundation.
The Puritans drew a parallel between themselves and the Children of Israel, escaping religious persecution in Europe just as the ancient Hebrews were led out of Egypt. America was their “Promised Land,” making way for the doctrine of Manifest Destiny (that it was God’s divine will for the new country to stretch from sea to sea) that justified the abhorrent treatment of Native Americans. By the same token, Christian Zionism justifies the killing and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to this day. Plymouth Brethren minister John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) popularized the doctrine under the name “dispensationalism,” which was further spread by the Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909. That edition contained copious footnotes instructing readers how to interpret Bible verses and prophecy centered around the re-establishment of Israel as a modern nation-state.
Thus the Zionist heresy was mass marketed to a largely ignorant populace who are convinced they do not have enough sense to read the Bible for themselves. Today, support for Israel has gained momentum through apocalyptic preaching by televangelists who make large profits for supporting Israel. They have co-opted Christian laypeople into thinking they can bring about Christ’s return, ending suffering on earth.
It would be scary enough if such ideas were confined to churches, but Zionist Christians have organized political lobbies such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI). Arguably, they have considerable influence over US foreign policy, particularly effective with neo-conservatives as witnessed during the George W. Bush administration. Numerous Christian groups encourage Jewish immigration to what is now called Israel through financial contributions while assisting ultra-orthodox Jewish groups to promote settlement expansion on Palestinian land.
Not only do Zionists distort biblical history, they spread lies about more modern events as well. Proponents of Israel will often pander the tired Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini obfuscation in an attempt to connect all Palestinians to Adolph Hitler. Husseini was imposed upon the Palestinians in 1921 by the British Mandate's first high commissioner, a British Jew named Herbert Samuel. Husseini was selected over the rival Nashashibi candidate and favored by the Zionist Commission. Husseini allied with Hitler to oppose the British, falling into the trap as so many others who have believed “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
In this manner Christian Zionists have the ability to reach outside their own cult and snag more secular (although nonetheless misguided) individuals by linking Arabs—particularly exploiting the blood connection between Husseini and late President Yasser Arafat—with the epitome of “anti-Semitic” evil. These same “Christians” are poised to use the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy to accuse Muslims of celebrating the attacks. In reality, the end of Ramadan, Eid Al-Fitr, coincides with that date this year. Meanwhile, Florida pastor Terry Jones, leader of the innocuous-sounding Dove World Outreach Center, is encouraging Christians to burn a Qur’an on September 11.
Although emboldened by all the media attention, proponents of these views are fortunately far from mainstream Christianity. The problem is that Christians who do take seriously Christ’s message of love are reluctant to gently—or not so gently—correct those hate-mongers masquerading as Christians. We must be willing to take back our faith by outspokenly refuting the heresy of Christian Zionism and its hateful manifestations both at home and abroad.
Questions remain how such a blatantly un-biblical doctrine hijacked an entire segment of the Christian community; moreover, how the doctrine came to be so widely accepted not only in churches but in the halls of political power.
It has been argued that Christian Zionism originated as a spin-off of secular Zionism; that Christians were co-opted by political Zionists in order to gain support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Ironically, Palestine was sixth on the list for such a homeland at Theodor Herzl’s First Zionist Congress in 1897, behind locales including Argentina, Uganda and Turkey. It was in fact the Christian Zionists who were orchestrating the takeover of Palestine from the beginning.
The Politics of Christian Zionism 1891-1948 by Paul C. Merkley provides startling evidence that the poisoned theology of Christian Zionism predates Herzl, long considered the father of Zionism. In fact, Herzl received a tremendous amount of support from William Hechler, the son of Anglican missionaries and author of an 1893 pamphlet entitled “The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine According to Prophecy.” It was Hechler who arranged meetings between Herzl and Kaiser Wilhelm II, promoting the Zionist ambition to usurp Palestine among world leaders.
Early support for Zionism among United States policymakers was manifested through a handful of misguided religious nuts who manipulated leaders by flattering their sordid egotistical fantasies. According to Merkley, President Harry S. Truman compared himself to Cyrus, the Persian king who allowed Jews to return to Palestine in ancient times after the Babylonian captivity, although Zionist sympathies have run deep in America since its foundation.
The Puritans drew a parallel between themselves and the Children of Israel, escaping religious persecution in Europe just as the ancient Hebrews were led out of Egypt. America was their “Promised Land,” making way for the doctrine of Manifest Destiny (that it was God’s divine will for the new country to stretch from sea to sea) that justified the abhorrent treatment of Native Americans. By the same token, Christian Zionism justifies the killing and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to this day. Plymouth Brethren minister John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) popularized the doctrine under the name “dispensationalism,” which was further spread by the Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909. That edition contained copious footnotes instructing readers how to interpret Bible verses and prophecy centered around the re-establishment of Israel as a modern nation-state.
Thus the Zionist heresy was mass marketed to a largely ignorant populace who are convinced they do not have enough sense to read the Bible for themselves. Today, support for Israel has gained momentum through apocalyptic preaching by televangelists who make large profits for supporting Israel. They have co-opted Christian laypeople into thinking they can bring about Christ’s return, ending suffering on earth.
It would be scary enough if such ideas were confined to churches, but Zionist Christians have organized political lobbies such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI). Arguably, they have considerable influence over US foreign policy, particularly effective with neo-conservatives as witnessed during the George W. Bush administration. Numerous Christian groups encourage Jewish immigration to what is now called Israel through financial contributions while assisting ultra-orthodox Jewish groups to promote settlement expansion on Palestinian land.
Not only do Zionists distort biblical history, they spread lies about more modern events as well. Proponents of Israel will often pander the tired Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini obfuscation in an attempt to connect all Palestinians to Adolph Hitler. Husseini was imposed upon the Palestinians in 1921 by the British Mandate's first high commissioner, a British Jew named Herbert Samuel. Husseini was selected over the rival Nashashibi candidate and favored by the Zionist Commission. Husseini allied with Hitler to oppose the British, falling into the trap as so many others who have believed “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
In this manner Christian Zionists have the ability to reach outside their own cult and snag more secular (although nonetheless misguided) individuals by linking Arabs—particularly exploiting the blood connection between Husseini and late President Yasser Arafat—with the epitome of “anti-Semitic” evil. These same “Christians” are poised to use the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy to accuse Muslims of celebrating the attacks. In reality, the end of Ramadan, Eid Al-Fitr, coincides with that date this year. Meanwhile, Florida pastor Terry Jones, leader of the innocuous-sounding Dove World Outreach Center, is encouraging Christians to burn a Qur’an on September 11.
Although emboldened by all the media attention, proponents of these views are fortunately far from mainstream Christianity. The problem is that Christians who do take seriously Christ’s message of love are reluctant to gently—or not so gently—correct those hate-mongers masquerading as Christians. We must be willing to take back our faith by outspokenly refuting the heresy of Christian Zionism and its hateful manifestations both at home and abroad.
July 5, 2010
Fear or Apathy, We Are All To Blame
Over the years, I have lambasted the U.S. government, particularly in the area of foreign policy. Wars, copious amounts of taxpayer dollars in aid to an apartheid state, inherent racism and hypocrisy have provided endless fodder for constant criticism.
Has that criticism been aimed at the right place? The motivations behind the aforementioned institutionalized evils are elementary: money, power and greed; however the real problem is much deeper. A government that—at least in principle—is supposed to be “for the people, by the people” must relinquish some of the responsibility for erroneous policy to the people. Whether we feel the need to acquiesce out of fear or out of apathy, we are equally culpable.
The first great enemy to humanity is fear. It is fear that ultimately leads to racism, bigotry, hatred and any number of social ills. Those in power are well aware of this, and will use any means to instill fear in their citizenry in order to manipulate them. Recently, Israeli schoolchildren underwent numerous air raid drills, supposedly in the event of an attack by Hezbollah, or maybe Iran, or just in case the resistance groups in Gaza finally develop a rocket that can hit the broadside of a barn.
Of course, a country which touts itself as a premier tourist destination cannot be under the threat of imminent attacks from Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and Gaza, yet these brainwashed youngsters will—like us—be taught not to question, only to fear and to support their government’s attacks on Palestinian civilians and humanitarian activists under the guise of self-defense.
The tragic absurdity was compounded when Israeli commandos stormed a Gaza-bound humanitarian cargo ship, murdering unarmed activists, only to make outlandish claims that they were ambushed and attacked with knives, pipes and clubs. According to the increasingly preposterous hasbara machine, the Free Gaza movement is tied to Al-Qaeda and hate-filled passengers had prepared themselves for a violent confrontation. Logic dictates that if a group of activists plans a violent confrontation against one of the most advanced and trigger-happy armies in the world, they will carry at least a couple of AK-47s rather than knives and pipes.
However, fear leaves us with the inability to reason, thus it is the most important weapon in the propagandists’ arsenal. Common sense becomes an early casualty. Traveling on internal flights within Ecuador during a recent trip served as a blissful reminder that in other places in the world, travelers do not have to dump their water and liquids in larger-than-three-ounce containers at the door, nor remove their shoes. Yet fear-mongering has convinced us that there is a bomb in every bottle of baby oil and we are poised to submit to even more indignities after the infamous alleged “underwear bomber.” It is truly amazing what people will tolerate.
The Obama administration is poised to give Israel an additional $205 million for a missile defense shield, while the state of California has announced budget cuts eliminating programs such as welfare-to-work and home health care. The vicious cycle continues: give money to Israel, cut program funding for poor and destitute Americans to keep them busy with basic survival so there is no concern for what is going on overseas.
Such apathy, like fear, is equally debilitating. Whether it is the amount of gratuitous violence in news and entertainment, or simply that we are too busy trying to find employment, pay mortgages, maintain health coverage, gas the car and put food on the table, we are losing our uniquely human ability to empathize. Our government’s endless quest for global hegemony has created these conditions—instead of focusing on our own job creation, inner cities, education and health care, foreign wars and entanglements have drained our resources, leaving our citizens to die at hospital doors and our desperate youth to gun down each other in the streets.
I ran into a former coworker at a wedding recently. Sitting together at the reception, three year-old grandson on her lap in his crisp white tuxedo, I showed her pictures of my children while listing the major life changes that had taken place in the eleven years since I had seen her. She spoke of retirement with an air of sadness not usually associated with a comfortable pension after a lifetime of hard work and then informed me quietly that her youngest son—the father of the little boy seated so solemnly in her lap—had been shot and killed in 2007.
After heartfelt yet inadequate and clichéd expressions of sympathy, I realized that I had most likely seen reports of his murder on the news, but had given it little attention: it wasn’t in my part of town and I would not have recognized the name. In other words, it didn’t affect me.
Only then did I come to the disturbing realization that I am not immune to the sickness that has infected us all to one degree or another: the apathetic tolerance that we afford such untimely loss of human life. The people in neighborhoods and situations who have to worry about getting gunned down in front of their own homes cannot be bothered with the gross oppression going on in Palestine. More ignorance and apathy allows the government to continue unabated the flow of economic and military aid to the apartheid state of Israel.
To combat these dual forces of fear and apathy, we must remember the words of the 17th Century English poet John Donne: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less…any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind…” We must afford each priceless human life the reverence it commands and refuse to succumb to the irrational scare tactics used by our government to justify mass murder.
Has that criticism been aimed at the right place? The motivations behind the aforementioned institutionalized evils are elementary: money, power and greed; however the real problem is much deeper. A government that—at least in principle—is supposed to be “for the people, by the people” must relinquish some of the responsibility for erroneous policy to the people. Whether we feel the need to acquiesce out of fear or out of apathy, we are equally culpable.
The first great enemy to humanity is fear. It is fear that ultimately leads to racism, bigotry, hatred and any number of social ills. Those in power are well aware of this, and will use any means to instill fear in their citizenry in order to manipulate them. Recently, Israeli schoolchildren underwent numerous air raid drills, supposedly in the event of an attack by Hezbollah, or maybe Iran, or just in case the resistance groups in Gaza finally develop a rocket that can hit the broadside of a barn.
Of course, a country which touts itself as a premier tourist destination cannot be under the threat of imminent attacks from Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and Gaza, yet these brainwashed youngsters will—like us—be taught not to question, only to fear and to support their government’s attacks on Palestinian civilians and humanitarian activists under the guise of self-defense.
The tragic absurdity was compounded when Israeli commandos stormed a Gaza-bound humanitarian cargo ship, murdering unarmed activists, only to make outlandish claims that they were ambushed and attacked with knives, pipes and clubs. According to the increasingly preposterous hasbara machine, the Free Gaza movement is tied to Al-Qaeda and hate-filled passengers had prepared themselves for a violent confrontation. Logic dictates that if a group of activists plans a violent confrontation against one of the most advanced and trigger-happy armies in the world, they will carry at least a couple of AK-47s rather than knives and pipes.
However, fear leaves us with the inability to reason, thus it is the most important weapon in the propagandists’ arsenal. Common sense becomes an early casualty. Traveling on internal flights within Ecuador during a recent trip served as a blissful reminder that in other places in the world, travelers do not have to dump their water and liquids in larger-than-three-ounce containers at the door, nor remove their shoes. Yet fear-mongering has convinced us that there is a bomb in every bottle of baby oil and we are poised to submit to even more indignities after the infamous alleged “underwear bomber.” It is truly amazing what people will tolerate.
The Obama administration is poised to give Israel an additional $205 million for a missile defense shield, while the state of California has announced budget cuts eliminating programs such as welfare-to-work and home health care. The vicious cycle continues: give money to Israel, cut program funding for poor and destitute Americans to keep them busy with basic survival so there is no concern for what is going on overseas.
Such apathy, like fear, is equally debilitating. Whether it is the amount of gratuitous violence in news and entertainment, or simply that we are too busy trying to find employment, pay mortgages, maintain health coverage, gas the car and put food on the table, we are losing our uniquely human ability to empathize. Our government’s endless quest for global hegemony has created these conditions—instead of focusing on our own job creation, inner cities, education and health care, foreign wars and entanglements have drained our resources, leaving our citizens to die at hospital doors and our desperate youth to gun down each other in the streets.
I ran into a former coworker at a wedding recently. Sitting together at the reception, three year-old grandson on her lap in his crisp white tuxedo, I showed her pictures of my children while listing the major life changes that had taken place in the eleven years since I had seen her. She spoke of retirement with an air of sadness not usually associated with a comfortable pension after a lifetime of hard work and then informed me quietly that her youngest son—the father of the little boy seated so solemnly in her lap—had been shot and killed in 2007.
After heartfelt yet inadequate and clichéd expressions of sympathy, I realized that I had most likely seen reports of his murder on the news, but had given it little attention: it wasn’t in my part of town and I would not have recognized the name. In other words, it didn’t affect me.
Only then did I come to the disturbing realization that I am not immune to the sickness that has infected us all to one degree or another: the apathetic tolerance that we afford such untimely loss of human life. The people in neighborhoods and situations who have to worry about getting gunned down in front of their own homes cannot be bothered with the gross oppression going on in Palestine. More ignorance and apathy allows the government to continue unabated the flow of economic and military aid to the apartheid state of Israel.
To combat these dual forces of fear and apathy, we must remember the words of the 17th Century English poet John Donne: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less…any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind…” We must afford each priceless human life the reverence it commands and refuse to succumb to the irrational scare tactics used by our government to justify mass murder.
March 19, 2010
Questioning Holocaust Curricula: The 21st-Century Scopes Monkey
It is hard to imagine more of a mockery being made of America’s public education system than occurred in the 1925 case Tennessee vs. John Scopes. The “Scopes Monkey Trial,” as it came to be known, found substitute biology teacher John Scopes guilty of violating a state law banning the theory of evolution from being taught in public schools. The Butler law, which passed overwhelmingly in the Tennessee state legislature earlier that year, made it illegal to present "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”
The American Civil Liberties Union persuaded John Scopes to challenge the Butler law as a test case to determine its constitutionality. The guilty verdict was later thrown out by Tennessee’s Supreme Court on a technicality; hence the statute was never fully tested. It did, however, set a precedent as to the degree which government can intervene in the academic freedom of public education.
Fast forward to today. Five states: California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and New York have enacted laws requiring teaching of the Holocaust in public classrooms, while an additional ten states have issued executive regulations recommending Holocaust studies be included in their respective curricula. The Simon Wiesenthal Center—ironically, same organization poised to build a “Museum of Tolerance” on top of the historic Muslim Mamilla cemetery in Jerusalem—defines the Holocaust as "the destruction of some 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their followers in Europe between the years 1933-1945. Other individuals and groups were persecuted and suffered grievously during this period, but only the Jews were marked for complete and utter annihilation."
It is not necessary to parse words; the Holocaust refers to singular Jewish suffering, while giving a patronizing nod to other groups persecuted by the Nazis. Singular study of the Holocaust comes at the omission of any other World War II-era genocide or mass persecution: the Japanese occupation of China and other countries in the region, the releasing of the atomic demon upon millions of Japanese civilians, the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, or the millions who died at the hand of Soviet president Josef Stalin, then a US ally.
Stalin waged a campaign to erase Chechnya and Ingushetia from existence, deporting 1.4 million people from these regions in the western Soviet Union between 1941 and 1944. Most were accused of being Nazi collaborators, although evidence shows they were targeted due to a series of anti-collectivization rebellions against Soviet rule. On February 23, 1944 alone, approximately 387,000 Chechens and 91,000 Ingush were forced from their homes.
The BBC reported in 2004, that young Chechen men were taken from the front lines and sent to forced labor in Siberian gulags, their medals, decorations and papers confiscated. Civilians were rounded up and taken to Kazakhstan and other central Asian republics. According to Mohmad Musaev, head of the Chechen National Archive, Russian soldiers massacred many villagers rather than going to the expense of deporting them. Seven hundred people were burned alive and others were drowned in mountain lakes. A 2002 PBS series reported that an estimated 30 percent of Chechen deportees died en route to resettlement or within their first year of exile.
In 1957, Nikita Krushchev re-established Chechnya and Ingushetia as an autonomous republic, allowing survivors to return, only to find their homes taken over by neighboring Russians.
Most people are unaware of the Chechen genocide, while the Holocaust has two internationally recognized days: Yom Hashoah, falling in April or May in accordance with the Hebrew calendar and International Holocaust Remembrance Day, designated as January 27 by the United Nations General Assembly, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The same U.N. resolution rejects denial of the Holocaust and condemns discrimination and violence based on religion or ethnicity.
If “discrimination and violence based on religion or ethnicity,” is to be condemned, then why such silence regarding the Chechen genocide, or al-Nakba, the catastrophe during which 750,000 Palestinians were driven out of their land to establish the modern Jewish State?
Aside from the fact that the victims in these cases were predominantly Muslim, the answer lies in the proximity of Holocaust Remembrance Day to Israeli “Independence Day.” Any mention of the Palestinians killed or displaced in 1948 runs contrary to the month-long media blitz of pro-Israeli propaganda using the shield of the Holocaust to silence those critical of Israel’s policies.
Holocaust studies are only serving to mask the ongoing 62-year ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians by generating unconditional sympathy for Israel. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Every member nation of the U.N. has an obligation to honor the memory of Holocaust victims and develop educational programs as part of an international resolve to help prevent future acts of genocide.” If that is the goal, Holocaust curricula are failing miserably.
Instead of condemning oppression, Israel apologists routinely use the Holocaust to defend the cruel treatment of Palestine’s original inhabitants. Paula E. Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish history at Yale Uni¬versity, has accurately observed:
“…it (the Holocaust) reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy.”
While it may not be illegal yet, questioning the agenda behind Holocaust education in the United States earns the dreaded label “Holocaust Revisionist,” akin to the even more feared “Holocaust Denier,” first cousin to the infamous “Anti-Semite.” The climate in which the Holocaust is being shoved down the throats of our nation’s school children is comparable with 1925 Tennessee and introducing ideas contrary to the approved curriculum of Holocaust studies is the 21st Century’s Scopes Monkey. The sole purpose of this teaching is for our youth to accept Israel’s legitimacy without question, a non sequitur based on sympathy for Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. Zionist indoctrination is never logical, but thanks to our complacency, it is effective.
January 11, 2010
Letter from an Ultra-Zionist: My Exchange with Congressman John Boehner (OH-8)
I received the following letter from Congressman John Boehner (Ohio-8th District):
Dear Tammy,
Thank you for contacting me regarding our Israel. (Yes, he did use the word “our.”) It is good to hear from you.
H.Res 867 was introduced by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on October 23, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. H. Res.867 would urge the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the “Report on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” in multilateral fora. The resolution would further consider the “Report on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” or the Goldstone Report, to be biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy. The resolution further supports the Administration’s efforts to combat anti-Israel bias at the United Nations and reaffirms support for Israel and for Israel’s right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors. This resolution passed through the House on November 3, 2009 by a vote of 344 to 36, with 22 Representatives voting present. I voted for this resolution.
I am a strong supporter of Israel and always have been. This besieged nation is the oldest democracy in the Middle East and its stability and ability to defend itself are essential to a lasting peace in the region. Israel is surrounded by many countries which have never recognized its right to exist (with the exception of Egypt and Jordan). These neighbors have gone to war with Israel five times with the sole purpose of annihilating the Jewish state and have pledged time and time again to maintain this adversarial position.
My support for Israel does not mean that I ignore the tragic loss of life on both sides. I can assure you I am closely monitoring this situation. This is a matter Congress is paying a great deal of attention to, and we will continue to suppport President Obama’s efforts to encourage and facilitate peace.
Please rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on legislation addressing this issue. Thank you again for contacting me with your thoughts. Pelase don’t hesitate to inform me of your concerns in the future. To sign up for email updates, I invite you to visit my website at http://johnboehner.house.gov/Forms/Form/?ID=89.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner
I replied with the following:
Congressman Boehner:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Palestine.
Your support of HR 867, effectively dismissing the Goldstone Report as “biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy” is appalling. Judge Richard Goldstone serves as a trustee of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is a self-proclaimed Zionist. His report concluded both Israel and Hamas committed grave breaches of international law. Therefore, claims of bias are baseless, showing how far the House of Representatives will go to whitewash Israeli war crimes.
If you define democracy as a state with an elected government, then Israel may qualify. In the broader sense--the one where democratic ideals include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people, regardless of race or religion--then Israel falls painfully short.
Israel is currently holding over 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in its jails, including women and minors. Ha’aretz, a leading Israeli newspaper, published the report of a European fact-finding mission to the prisons. It was discovered that 88 percent of the inmates were being held without formal charges, trial or hearing. Is this your idea of a democracy?
In a true democracy, freedom of religion is extended to all citizens. Israel has often denied Christian and Muslim pilgrims alike from worshipping in their respective holy sites. Muslim boys and men aged 15-40 have at times been barred from Friday prayers by Israeli authorities arbitrarily.
Moreover, it is historical fallacy to cite Arab countries as the aggressors in Israel’s wars. Prior to 1948, the Irgun and Stern gangs waged a terror campaign against British forces in Palestine, as well as targeting Palestinian civilians. The King David Hotel bombing killed 91 British personnel, injuring 45. These same gangs, led by Menachem Begin (who would later serve as Israel’s Prime Minister) massacred over 100 Palestinian men, women and children in the village of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. Small wonder that when Israel was established the following month, Arab neighbors attempted to thwart the total depopulation and subsequent obliteration of some 500 Palestinian villages, courtesy of the new Israeli army.
In October 1956, Moshe Dayan launched combined air and land assaults into Egypt’s Sinai peninsula.
In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. It was during the six-day course of this war that Israel also attacked the USS Liberty, an American ship. Thirty-four American sailors died and an additional 172 were wounded. Israel claimed the Liberty was mistaken for the Egyptian El Quseir, a ludicrous excuse as El Quseir was 180 feet shorter and very differently configured. The Liberty had her name clearly written in English, while the Egyptian ship would have displayed Arabic script. Surviving sailors testified that it was a deliberate attack, unless you wish to doubt the words of the American servicemen you claim to so vehemently support. As an intelligence gathering vessel, Liberty was likely to intercept real time evidence of the massacres committed by Israel in the Golan Heights, enough motive to destroy the American ship.
The Yom Kippur War in 1973 stemmed from Egypt’s desire to regain the Sinai Peninsula lost in the 1967 conflict, as Syria tried to recapture the Golan Heights.
Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
It is apparent the only thing you are monitoring is the flow of money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) into your coffer. Your position itself is not surprising; however, I was shocked by your audacity to spend 42 taxpayer cents on mailing me pro-Israel propaganda. Let me make it clear that I am not buying.
Sincerely,
Tammy
Dear Tammy,
Thank you for contacting me regarding our Israel. (Yes, he did use the word “our.”) It is good to hear from you.
H.Res 867 was introduced by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on October 23, 2009 and referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. H. Res.867 would urge the President and the Secretary of State to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the “Report on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” in multilateral fora. The resolution would further consider the “Report on the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict” or the Goldstone Report, to be biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy. The resolution further supports the Administration’s efforts to combat anti-Israel bias at the United Nations and reaffirms support for Israel and for Israel’s right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors. This resolution passed through the House on November 3, 2009 by a vote of 344 to 36, with 22 Representatives voting present. I voted for this resolution.
I am a strong supporter of Israel and always have been. This besieged nation is the oldest democracy in the Middle East and its stability and ability to defend itself are essential to a lasting peace in the region. Israel is surrounded by many countries which have never recognized its right to exist (with the exception of Egypt and Jordan). These neighbors have gone to war with Israel five times with the sole purpose of annihilating the Jewish state and have pledged time and time again to maintain this adversarial position.
My support for Israel does not mean that I ignore the tragic loss of life on both sides. I can assure you I am closely monitoring this situation. This is a matter Congress is paying a great deal of attention to, and we will continue to suppport President Obama’s efforts to encourage and facilitate peace.
Please rest assured I will keep your thoughts in mind should I have the opportunity to vote on legislation addressing this issue. Thank you again for contacting me with your thoughts. Pelase don’t hesitate to inform me of your concerns in the future. To sign up for email updates, I invite you to visit my website at http://johnboehner.house.gov/Forms/Form/?ID=89.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner
I replied with the following:
Congressman Boehner:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Palestine.
Your support of HR 867, effectively dismissing the Goldstone Report as “biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy” is appalling. Judge Richard Goldstone serves as a trustee of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is a self-proclaimed Zionist. His report concluded both Israel and Hamas committed grave breaches of international law. Therefore, claims of bias are baseless, showing how far the House of Representatives will go to whitewash Israeli war crimes.
If you define democracy as a state with an elected government, then Israel may qualify. In the broader sense--the one where democratic ideals include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people, regardless of race or religion--then Israel falls painfully short.
Israel is currently holding over 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in its jails, including women and minors. Ha’aretz, a leading Israeli newspaper, published the report of a European fact-finding mission to the prisons. It was discovered that 88 percent of the inmates were being held without formal charges, trial or hearing. Is this your idea of a democracy?
In a true democracy, freedom of religion is extended to all citizens. Israel has often denied Christian and Muslim pilgrims alike from worshipping in their respective holy sites. Muslim boys and men aged 15-40 have at times been barred from Friday prayers by Israeli authorities arbitrarily.
Moreover, it is historical fallacy to cite Arab countries as the aggressors in Israel’s wars. Prior to 1948, the Irgun and Stern gangs waged a terror campaign against British forces in Palestine, as well as targeting Palestinian civilians. The King David Hotel bombing killed 91 British personnel, injuring 45. These same gangs, led by Menachem Begin (who would later serve as Israel’s Prime Minister) massacred over 100 Palestinian men, women and children in the village of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. Small wonder that when Israel was established the following month, Arab neighbors attempted to thwart the total depopulation and subsequent obliteration of some 500 Palestinian villages, courtesy of the new Israeli army.
In October 1956, Moshe Dayan launched combined air and land assaults into Egypt’s Sinai peninsula.
In 1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike into Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. It was during the six-day course of this war that Israel also attacked the USS Liberty, an American ship. Thirty-four American sailors died and an additional 172 were wounded. Israel claimed the Liberty was mistaken for the Egyptian El Quseir, a ludicrous excuse as El Quseir was 180 feet shorter and very differently configured. The Liberty had her name clearly written in English, while the Egyptian ship would have displayed Arabic script. Surviving sailors testified that it was a deliberate attack, unless you wish to doubt the words of the American servicemen you claim to so vehemently support. As an intelligence gathering vessel, Liberty was likely to intercept real time evidence of the massacres committed by Israel in the Golan Heights, enough motive to destroy the American ship.
The Yom Kippur War in 1973 stemmed from Egypt’s desire to regain the Sinai Peninsula lost in the 1967 conflict, as Syria tried to recapture the Golan Heights.
Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Lebanon in 1982.
It is apparent the only thing you are monitoring is the flow of money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) into your coffer. Your position itself is not surprising; however, I was shocked by your audacity to spend 42 taxpayer cents on mailing me pro-Israel propaganda. Let me make it clear that I am not buying.
Sincerely,
Tammy
August 10, 2009
The King-Crane Commission: Required Reading Buried Under 100 Years of Zionist Propaganda
“Down with American Imperialists.” This sign, or one of its variations, can be seen at protests and demonstratons throughout the world. U.S. policies have given credence to it, fueling legitimate hatred in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and others victimized by America’s lust for oil and support of the Israeli military juggernaut. Yet less than 100 years ago, the United States was admired in the global arena as a bastion of justice and freedom. Furthermore, Zionism—the belief that all Jews are entitled to a “homeland” in Palestine—was condemned in an official document.
The King-Crane Commission is relatively unknown, buried under a century of Zionist propaganda and attempts to discredit Dr. Henry Churchill King and Charles R. Crane as Nazi sympathizers. On the contrary, Dr. King was one of the best known educators of his time and served as the director of religious work for the YMCA in France. Mr. Crane was selected as part of a special diplomatic mission to Russia and was U.S. Ambassador to Chinafrom 1920-1921. In 1919, after World War I and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, President Woodrow Wilson apppointed King and Crane to head the Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey.
King and Crane’s mission was to record the wishes of the people in the former Ottoman territories regarding their desired form of government and the degree to which outside intervention would be accepted. President Woodrow Wilson’s July 4, 1918 address provided the backdrop for their objective:
“The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.”
It was in this spirit that King and Crane had embarked on their 42-day tour of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Asia Minor. The commission conducted conferences throughout the region, gathering opinions on such topics as territorial limits, independence, form of government, choice of mandate and Zionism.
The King and Crane Commission examined responses from religious, political and social/economic organizations and found overwhelming support among the Muslim population in Syria for an American mandate, as opposed to Britain or France, should it be determined that the fledgling government needed external assistance. The reasoning behind this preference was summarized in the final report as “…the nearly universal recognition of the fact that America sought no additional territory…” Article 4 of the General Syrian Congress, convened that same summer in Damascus, supported their finding:
“…And desiring that our country should not fall a prey to colonization and believing that the American Nation is farthest from any thought of colonization and has no political ambition in our country, we will seek the technical and economic assistance from the United States of America…”
While there was some disagreement in the territories as to the choice of mandate, there was nearly universal opposition to Zionism. The General Syrian Congress unanimously passed articles opposing partitioning Palestine from the rest of Syria. Leaders at that time grasped all too well the strategy of “divide and conquer”; they also understood the Zionist ambitions of setting aside Palestine as future Jewish state.
Prior to their journey, King and Crane had been lobbied by pro-Zionist groups and were, by their own admisstion, “pre-disposed in its favor.” However, during conferences with local Jewish representatives, it became apparent that their goal was the “practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine by various forms of purchase.”
Further investigation revealed something far more sinister than acquiring the land by mere “purchase.” Statements made by British officials increased the commissioners’ misgivings about the entire Zionist project. In their final recommendations, King and Crane wrote:
“No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program…Decisions requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary. But they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interest of a serious injustice.”
King and Crane also took into consideration the status of holy sites in Palestine: “The places which are most sacred to Christians—those having to do with Jesus—and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them.” The Commissioners went on to reason that it was neither logical nor prudent to place these most holy sites in the control of a Jewish authority.
Finally, King and Crane concluded that the implementation of the Zionist plan would be contrary to the aforementioned principle outlined by President Wilson, whereby nations have a right to self-determination free from external pressure. Nine-tenths of the population surveyed, including Muslim and Christian groups, were against Zionism. Their final recommendation read “…This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.”
It is nothing short of tragic that in the 90 years since the King-Crane Commission, subsequent American leaders have abandoned the principles which led President Wilson to embark on that diplomatic effort in the first place. The common sense and mutually beneficial policy of non-intervention was rejected in favor of big oil and strategic interests. The opportunity to forge an allegiance with emerging governments eager for freedom and self-determination was squandered in favor of the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and genocide, from Deir Yassin to Lebanon to Gaza. And America will continue to pay the price.
The entire King-Crane Commission Report can be read at: http://www.atour.com/government/un/20040205g.html
The King-Crane Commission is relatively unknown, buried under a century of Zionist propaganda and attempts to discredit Dr. Henry Churchill King and Charles R. Crane as Nazi sympathizers. On the contrary, Dr. King was one of the best known educators of his time and served as the director of religious work for the YMCA in France. Mr. Crane was selected as part of a special diplomatic mission to Russia and was U.S. Ambassador to Chinafrom 1920-1921. In 1919, after World War I and the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, President Woodrow Wilson apppointed King and Crane to head the Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey.
King and Crane’s mission was to record the wishes of the people in the former Ottoman territories regarding their desired form of government and the degree to which outside intervention would be accepted. President Woodrow Wilson’s July 4, 1918 address provided the backdrop for their objective:
“The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of the free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.”
It was in this spirit that King and Crane had embarked on their 42-day tour of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Asia Minor. The commission conducted conferences throughout the region, gathering opinions on such topics as territorial limits, independence, form of government, choice of mandate and Zionism.
The King and Crane Commission examined responses from religious, political and social/economic organizations and found overwhelming support among the Muslim population in Syria for an American mandate, as opposed to Britain or France, should it be determined that the fledgling government needed external assistance. The reasoning behind this preference was summarized in the final report as “…the nearly universal recognition of the fact that America sought no additional territory…” Article 4 of the General Syrian Congress, convened that same summer in Damascus, supported their finding:
“…And desiring that our country should not fall a prey to colonization and believing that the American Nation is farthest from any thought of colonization and has no political ambition in our country, we will seek the technical and economic assistance from the United States of America…”
While there was some disagreement in the territories as to the choice of mandate, there was nearly universal opposition to Zionism. The General Syrian Congress unanimously passed articles opposing partitioning Palestine from the rest of Syria. Leaders at that time grasped all too well the strategy of “divide and conquer”; they also understood the Zionist ambitions of setting aside Palestine as future Jewish state.
Prior to their journey, King and Crane had been lobbied by pro-Zionist groups and were, by their own admisstion, “pre-disposed in its favor.” However, during conferences with local Jewish representatives, it became apparent that their goal was the “practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine by various forms of purchase.”
Further investigation revealed something far more sinister than acquiring the land by mere “purchase.” Statements made by British officials increased the commissioners’ misgivings about the entire Zionist project. In their final recommendations, King and Crane wrote:
“No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program…Decisions requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary. But they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interest of a serious injustice.”
King and Crane also took into consideration the status of holy sites in Palestine: “The places which are most sacred to Christians—those having to do with Jesus—and which are also sacred to Moslems, are not only not sacred to Jews, but abhorrent to them.” The Commissioners went on to reason that it was neither logical nor prudent to place these most holy sites in the control of a Jewish authority.
Finally, King and Crane concluded that the implementation of the Zionist plan would be contrary to the aforementioned principle outlined by President Wilson, whereby nations have a right to self-determination free from external pressure. Nine-tenths of the population surveyed, including Muslim and Christian groups, were against Zionism. Their final recommendation read “…This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.”
It is nothing short of tragic that in the 90 years since the King-Crane Commission, subsequent American leaders have abandoned the principles which led President Wilson to embark on that diplomatic effort in the first place. The common sense and mutually beneficial policy of non-intervention was rejected in favor of big oil and strategic interests. The opportunity to forge an allegiance with emerging governments eager for freedom and self-determination was squandered in favor of the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and genocide, from Deir Yassin to Lebanon to Gaza. And America will continue to pay the price.
The entire King-Crane Commission Report can be read at: http://www.atour.com/government/un/20040205g.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)