A Yad L'Achim special: Eight hareidi-religious Jews in disguise rescued a Jewish girl from her Moslem father's home in the PA-controlled city of Tul Karem, east of Netanya.
Accounts differ as to how precisely the rescue took place, but it was clearly planned thoroughly in advance. The story began several years ago when an Arab man from Tul Karem met a Jewish girl from Ashdod, and it was "love at first sight," according to the Arab. The Jewess has a different version, however; she says he first fooled her into believing he was Jewish - and neglected to mention that he was already married with children. In fact, when the two later married and moved to Tul Karem, the first wife and five children lived nearby, without her knowledge.
The Jewish woman said her husband forbade her to go outside and beat her, and also later beat her daughter, born five years ago.
The story is similar to that told by hundreds of women who marry Moslems and live in Arab villages in Judea and Samaria. See the five-part Arutz-7 series by Mayaan Jaffe of two years ago, including:
'I Was Totally Alone'
'The Verbal Abuse Was Worst of All'
When Israeli Women Marry Arab Men
'He Was Taking Over My Mind'
'I Was Silent and I Was Alone'
After a while, the woman went to visit her mother in Ashdod, taking her daughter with her. A few days later, she informed her Moslem husband that she was not returning. The man was willing to accept his second wife's departure, but not that of his daughter - and he traveled to Ashdod and snatched her back to Tul Karem. He later claimed that back in Tul Karem, she "flowered," and that she had complained of being beaten by her grandmother "and not being allowed to stay up past 8 PM."
The mother then called Yad L'Achim, an organization that actively combats Christian missionaries and helps Jewish women suffering in Moslem villages. One account says that the religious men came into the town dressed as Arabs and asked directions for the man's house, while others say they were dressed as IDF soldiers and arrived under the guise of a terrorist-arresting operation. In any event, they entered the house, took the man and the 5-year-old girl, sped out of town, and immediately afterwards, released the father.
Meanwhile, another car was bringing the mother and grandmother to meet them. A Yad L'Achim operative who took part in the rescue was quoted in the Maariv newspaper as describing the emotional reunion: "The little girl had been sitting curled up in the car, then she got out, barefoot and with pajamas, and when she saw her mother, they embraced and fell together on the road, together with the grandmother."
The reunited mother and daughter are now in an undisclosed location, planning the legal battle to allow them to stay together. The father, for his part, has filed a complaint with the police of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
Yad L'Achim (lit., Hand to Brothers) reports that it has saved "hundreds of Jewish women" in this manner in the course of the past year. Chairman Rabbi Shalom Dov Lifshitz said, "Hundreds of Jewish children and youths are rolling about in Arab villages, not knowing a thing about their Jewishness."
In the Jewish year 5765, which ended last Rosh HaShanah, the organization rescued 58 such children and 34 women in 47 rescues. The story that generally repeats itself is that the women regret having married Arabs, but their husbands refuse to allow them to return to their original homes.
"The children we saved would never have cried out 'Shma Yisrael,' would not have known they were Jewish, and certainly would have had no way of growing up as Jews," Yad L'Achim sources say.
A spokeswoman for the group said that the rescue was a last-resort mission, "after we turned to all the relevant authorities and were not answered, and after we saw that there was a definite threat upon the girl and others." She noted that two Arab women had recently turned to the group for help as well, "and we helped them happily."
Yad L'Achim also says it brought about the closure of 27 missionary centers in the past year, as well as 18 the year before.
One of the issues the group is currently dealing with involves the revelation that a missionary cult is running a nursery in a municipally-owned building in the Katamon neighborhood of Jerusalem. Yad L'Achim reports that it recently discovered that for the past three years, an educational association has been illegally subletting the building to a missionary organization, which in turns operates a nursery there, "spreading its racist, anti-Semitic teachings, with missionary objectives, without the knowledge of the parents and children."
City Councilmen Rabbis Yosef Deitsch and Yaakov Shnor have asked Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupoliansky to immediately cancel the lease.
The two discovered the missionary activity when they were looking for better quarters for two Chabad nurseries, which are currently serving 90 children in a nearby bomb shelter in very crowded conditions.
Arutz Sheva
09.30.2006
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
Bush's Jerusalem Retreat
Despite the war and contrary to previous reports that plans had been put on hold, the prime minister's office is set to allocate some NIS 20 million to complete the construction of its new offices comprising the prime minister's official residence.
On completion of the building, Israel will join the list of countries that maintains official homes for entertaining state officials, as is customary in the US, Japan, France and numerous other countries.
Israel currently hosts its high profile guests at ordinary hotels in Jerusalem. This created several problems for Jerusalemites who often got caught up in long traffic jams when such VIP's, including the prime minister himself were required to drive through the streets of the capital.
The lack of an official state residence also incurred high costs in security. Moreover, many of the official events were conducted out in the open in bad weather conditions. Hosting VIP's in a closed and guarded complex will solve the problem for Jerusalemites and state visitors alike.
According to Raanan Dinur, the Director General at the Prime Minister’s office, the building will be completed within four years after being approved by the planning committee.
Functional and Ceremonial
The new building is set to be constructed on the National Boulevard in Jerusalem where many of the new government offices are located.
The new prime minister's office was designed by architect Ram Carmi, the recipient of the Israel Prize for architecture. Sources at the prime minister's office say the building will be modest but not ascetic. It will be both functional and ceremonial.
The building is set to comprise the prime minister's office, recreation rooms for ministers, a regal ceremonial hall, an extensive reception area, large lobby, a banqueting hall, a press hall, communication center, cafeteria, fitness room, a kitchen on each floor and underground parking for hundreds of vehicles.
The new building will cover an area of thousands of square meters in the form of a round egg with large glass triangles protruding from it.
Y Net News
09.29.2006
On completion of the building, Israel will join the list of countries that maintains official homes for entertaining state officials, as is customary in the US, Japan, France and numerous other countries.
Israel currently hosts its high profile guests at ordinary hotels in Jerusalem. This created several problems for Jerusalemites who often got caught up in long traffic jams when such VIP's, including the prime minister himself were required to drive through the streets of the capital.
The lack of an official state residence also incurred high costs in security. Moreover, many of the official events were conducted out in the open in bad weather conditions. Hosting VIP's in a closed and guarded complex will solve the problem for Jerusalemites and state visitors alike.
According to Raanan Dinur, the Director General at the Prime Minister’s office, the building will be completed within four years after being approved by the planning committee.
Functional and Ceremonial
The new building is set to be constructed on the National Boulevard in Jerusalem where many of the new government offices are located.
The new prime minister's office was designed by architect Ram Carmi, the recipient of the Israel Prize for architecture. Sources at the prime minister's office say the building will be modest but not ascetic. It will be both functional and ceremonial.
The building is set to comprise the prime minister's office, recreation rooms for ministers, a regal ceremonial hall, an extensive reception area, large lobby, a banqueting hall, a press hall, communication center, cafeteria, fitness room, a kitchen on each floor and underground parking for hundreds of vehicles.
The new building will cover an area of thousands of square meters in the form of a round egg with large glass triangles protruding from it.
Y Net News
09.29.2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Pentagon: Suicide Bombers Follow Quran
With suicide bombings spreading from Iraq to Afghanistan, the Pentagon has tasked intelligence analysts to pinpoint what's driving Muslim after Muslim to do the unthinkable.
Their preliminary finding is politically explosive: it's their "holy book" the Quran after all, according to intelligence briefings obtained by WND.
In public, the U.S. government has made an effort to avoid linking the terrorist threat to Islam and the Quran while dismissing suicide terrorists as crazed heretics who pervert Islamic teachings.
"The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder," the White House maintains in its recently released "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" report.
But internal Pentagon briefings show intelligence analysts have reached a wholly different conclusion after studying Islamic scripture and the backgrounds of suicide terrorists. They've found that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, "rational actors" on the Islamic stage.
In Islam, it is not how one lives one's life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to the briefings. There are great advantages to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah.
"Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor," concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers."
Suicide for Allah a 'win-win'
"His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.
"And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."
The briefing – produced by a little-known Pentagon intelligence unit called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA – cites a number of passages from the Quran dealing with jihad, or "holy" warfare, martyrdom and Paradise, where "beautiful mansions" and "maidens" await martyr heroes. In preparation for attacks, suicide terrorists typically recite passages from six surahs, or chapters, of the Quran: Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).
CIFA staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at U.S. military installations at home and abroad.
The Pentagon unit is especially concerned about a new wave of suicide bombings hitting Afghanistan.
Suicide bombings have killed more than 200 people in Afghanistan this year, up from single digits two years ago. On Tuesday, a suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest and killed 18 outside an Afghan government compound. Last week, a suicide bomber riding a bike killed at least four NATO soldiers. And earlier this month, a suicide car bomber rammed into a U.S. military convoy near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, killing 16 people, including two American soldiers.
500 suicide bombers in reserve
The U.S. command in Afghanistan now warns that a suicide bombing cell is operating inside the Afghan capital. Meanwhile, the Taliban's top military commander told ABC News he has 500 suicide bombers at his disposal.
"We have so many of them that it is difficult to accommodate and arm and equip them," Mullah Dadullah Akhund said. "Some of them have been waiting for a year or more for their turn to be sent to the battlefield."
The emergence of a suicide cell in Kabul troubles military analysts because suicide attacks are the most effective weapon Muslim terrorists can use against the West. The Rand Corp. predicts they'll pose a serious and constant threat to the U.S. for years to come.
The U.S. intelligence community is growing increasingly worried, as well.
"Most jihadist groups will use suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement asymmetric warfare strategy," warns the just-declassified executive summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on the global terror threat. "Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics."
Many scholars and media pundits, however, insist Muslim suicide bombers are not driven by religion.
"Beneath the religious rhetoric with which [such terror] is perpetrated, it occurs largely in the service of secular aims," claims Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago. "Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism."
He says U.S. foreign policy is more a factor than faith.
"Though it speaks of Americans as infidels, al-Qaida is less concerned with converting us to Islam than removing us from Arab and Muslim lands," Pape said.
But what about the recent video by Adam Gadahn, the American al-Qaida, warning fellow Americans to convert to Islam before al-Qaida attacks again?
"He never mentions virgins or the benefits Islamic martyrs receive in Heaven," Pape asserted.
In fact, Gadahn notes 36 minutes into his speech that Allah reserves the highest rewards – "honors and delights" – for martyrs in Paradise.
"[He] promised the martyr in his path the reward over and above the reward of the believer," Gadahn said. "He has promised them honors and delights too numerous to go into here."
The 9/11 hijackers and the London bombers made martyrdom videos. In their last testaments, they recite the Quran while talking of their "love of death" and "sacrificing life for Allah." Seven martyrdom videotapes also were recovered by British authorities in the foiled transatlantic sky terror plot.
Before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers shaved and doused themselves with flower water in preparation for their weddings with the beautiful virgins in Paradise. "Know that the women of Paradise are waiting, calling out 'Come hither, friend of Allah,'" according to a four-page letter circulated among them titled "THE LAST NIGHT." "They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing."
But are the virgins scriptural or apocryphal? French documentarian Pierre Rehov, who interviewed the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it, says it's not a myth or fantasy of heretics.
He says there's no doubt the Quran "promises virgins" to Muslim men who die while fighting infidels in jihad, and it's a key motivating factor behind suicide terrorism.
"It's obviously connected to religion," said Rehov, who features his interviews with Muslims in a recently released film, "Suicide Killers." "They really believe they are going to get the virgins."
He says would-be Muslim suicide bombers he's interviewed have shown him passages in the Quran "in which it's absolutely written that they're going to get the girls in the afterlife."
Muslim clerics do not disavow the virgins-for-martyrs reward as a perverted interpretation of the Quran.
And even Muslim leaders in the West condone suicide bombings. British scholar Azzam Tamimi recently told 8,000 Muslims in Manchester, England, that dying while fighting "George Bush and Tony Blair" is "just" and "the greatest act of martyrdom." Earlier, he said it's "the straight way to pleasing Allah."
And the founder of an allegedly mainstream Muslim group in Washington – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – also has given his blessing to suicide bombings.
Addressing a youth session at the 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine's annual convention in Chicago, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam," according to a transcript provided by terror expert Steve Emerson's Investigative Project.
"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," Ahmad asserted. "They kill themselves for Islam."
Osama bin Laden has encouraged "Muslims brothers" to defeat the U.S. and U.K. with suicide attacks.
"I tell you to act upon the orders of Allah," he said in 2003, "be united against Bush and Blair and defeat them through suicide attacks so that you may be successful before Allah."
WND
o9,26.2006
Their preliminary finding is politically explosive: it's their "holy book" the Quran after all, according to intelligence briefings obtained by WND.
In public, the U.S. government has made an effort to avoid linking the terrorist threat to Islam and the Quran while dismissing suicide terrorists as crazed heretics who pervert Islamic teachings.
"The terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for violence and murder," the White House maintains in its recently released "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" report.
But internal Pentagon briefings show intelligence analysts have reached a wholly different conclusion after studying Islamic scripture and the backgrounds of suicide terrorists. They've found that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, "rational actors" on the Islamic stage.
In Islam, it is not how one lives one's life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to the briefings. There are great advantages to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah.
"Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor," concludes a recent Pentagon briefing paper titled, "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers."
Suicide for Allah a 'win-win'
"His actions provide a win-win scenario for himself, his family, his faith and his God," the document explains. "The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise. He earns a degree of financial security and a place for his family in Paradise. He defends his faith and takes his place in a long line of martyrs to be memorialized as a valorous fighter.
"And finally, because of the manner of his death, he is assured that he will find favor with Allah," the briefing adds. "Against these considerations, the selfless sacrifice by the individual Muslim to destroy Islam's enemies becomes a suitable, feasible and acceptable course of action."
The briefing – produced by a little-known Pentagon intelligence unit called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA – cites a number of passages from the Quran dealing with jihad, or "holy" warfare, martyrdom and Paradise, where "beautiful mansions" and "maidens" await martyr heroes. In preparation for attacks, suicide terrorists typically recite passages from six surahs, or chapters, of the Quran: Baqura (Surah 2), Al Imran (3), Anfal (8), Tawba (9), Rahman (55) and Asr (103).
CIFA staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at U.S. military installations at home and abroad.
The Pentagon unit is especially concerned about a new wave of suicide bombings hitting Afghanistan.
Suicide bombings have killed more than 200 people in Afghanistan this year, up from single digits two years ago. On Tuesday, a suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest and killed 18 outside an Afghan government compound. Last week, a suicide bomber riding a bike killed at least four NATO soldiers. And earlier this month, a suicide car bomber rammed into a U.S. military convoy near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, killing 16 people, including two American soldiers.
500 suicide bombers in reserve
The U.S. command in Afghanistan now warns that a suicide bombing cell is operating inside the Afghan capital. Meanwhile, the Taliban's top military commander told ABC News he has 500 suicide bombers at his disposal.
"We have so many of them that it is difficult to accommodate and arm and equip them," Mullah Dadullah Akhund said. "Some of them have been waiting for a year or more for their turn to be sent to the battlefield."
The emergence of a suicide cell in Kabul troubles military analysts because suicide attacks are the most effective weapon Muslim terrorists can use against the West. The Rand Corp. predicts they'll pose a serious and constant threat to the U.S. for years to come.
The U.S. intelligence community is growing increasingly worried, as well.
"Most jihadist groups will use suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to implement asymmetric warfare strategy," warns the just-declassified executive summary of the National Intelligence Estimate on the global terror threat. "Fighters with experience in Iraq are a potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics."
Many scholars and media pundits, however, insist Muslim suicide bombers are not driven by religion.
"Beneath the religious rhetoric with which [such terror] is perpetrated, it occurs largely in the service of secular aims," claims Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago. "Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation rather than a product of Islamic fundamentalism."
He says U.S. foreign policy is more a factor than faith.
"Though it speaks of Americans as infidels, al-Qaida is less concerned with converting us to Islam than removing us from Arab and Muslim lands," Pape said.
But what about the recent video by Adam Gadahn, the American al-Qaida, warning fellow Americans to convert to Islam before al-Qaida attacks again?
"He never mentions virgins or the benefits Islamic martyrs receive in Heaven," Pape asserted.
In fact, Gadahn notes 36 minutes into his speech that Allah reserves the highest rewards – "honors and delights" – for martyrs in Paradise.
"[He] promised the martyr in his path the reward over and above the reward of the believer," Gadahn said. "He has promised them honors and delights too numerous to go into here."
The 9/11 hijackers and the London bombers made martyrdom videos. In their last testaments, they recite the Quran while talking of their "love of death" and "sacrificing life for Allah." Seven martyrdom videotapes also were recovered by British authorities in the foiled transatlantic sky terror plot.
Before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers shaved and doused themselves with flower water in preparation for their weddings with the beautiful virgins in Paradise. "Know that the women of Paradise are waiting, calling out 'Come hither, friend of Allah,'" according to a four-page letter circulated among them titled "THE LAST NIGHT." "They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing."
But are the virgins scriptural or apocryphal? French documentarian Pierre Rehov, who interviewed the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it, says it's not a myth or fantasy of heretics.
He says there's no doubt the Quran "promises virgins" to Muslim men who die while fighting infidels in jihad, and it's a key motivating factor behind suicide terrorism.
"It's obviously connected to religion," said Rehov, who features his interviews with Muslims in a recently released film, "Suicide Killers." "They really believe they are going to get the virgins."
He says would-be Muslim suicide bombers he's interviewed have shown him passages in the Quran "in which it's absolutely written that they're going to get the girls in the afterlife."
Muslim clerics do not disavow the virgins-for-martyrs reward as a perverted interpretation of the Quran.
And even Muslim leaders in the West condone suicide bombings. British scholar Azzam Tamimi recently told 8,000 Muslims in Manchester, England, that dying while fighting "George Bush and Tony Blair" is "just" and "the greatest act of martyrdom." Earlier, he said it's "the straight way to pleasing Allah."
And the founder of an allegedly mainstream Muslim group in Washington – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – also has given his blessing to suicide bombings.
Addressing a youth session at the 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine's annual convention in Chicago, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam," according to a transcript provided by terror expert Steve Emerson's Investigative Project.
"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," Ahmad asserted. "They kill themselves for Islam."
Osama bin Laden has encouraged "Muslims brothers" to defeat the U.S. and U.K. with suicide attacks.
"I tell you to act upon the orders of Allah," he said in 2003, "be united against Bush and Blair and defeat them through suicide attacks so that you may be successful before Allah."
WND
o9,26.2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
UN Force In Lebanon-Defined By What It Cannot Do
The United Nations force created to police southern Lebanon faces not only a threatening al Qaeda presence cheek by jowl, but endless handicaps in performing its mandated functions.
The New York Times correspondent reports: One month after a UN Security Council resolution ended a 34-day war… the international force members say “they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars, homes or businesses or detain suspects. If they see a truck transporting missiles, for example (in violation of the UN arms embargo), they cannot stop it… because under their interpretation of the Security Council resolution (1701) that deployed them, they must first be authorized to take such action by the Lebanese army.”
And whereas the Security Council allocated 15,000 troops to expanded UNIFIL, only 5,000 are deployed.
According to the NYT, the UN commanders repeat as a mantra that their job is to respect Lebanese sovereignty by supporting the Lebanese army. “They will only do what the Lebanese authorities ask.”
DEBKAfile adds: More than 40% of the Lebanese army consists of Shiites. Their loyalty goes first to Hizballah or their Shiite commanders rather than the Lebanese government.
Israeli officials and commanders have their own mantra which is that there is no Hizballah activity on the ground. The last Israeli forces can therefore pull out of South Lebanon by the end of the month. DEBKAfile notes that the Olmert government continues to cover up the failure of its war objectives by glossing over its aftermath. The truth is that Hizballah activities are intense but do not figure in the reports of UNIFIL’s European contingents, which have their own agenda.
This agenda has whittled down most elements of the mission assigned the UN force by Resolution 1701, which was approved in the first place to prevent Hizballah from continuing its attacks on Israel and destabilizing the area.
As for the demand to disarm Hizballah, the paper quotes local Shiites as making it clear “they will fight anybody who tries to take Hizballah’s weapons away. For the forces to remain welcome they must demonstrate they are there to protect the Lebanese from Israel – not to police the Lebanese on behalf of Israel.”
DEBKAfile adds: Hizballah would not need to fight the international force. Al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri stated in his last videotape this month that UNIFIL in Lebanon is a target for terrorist attack. Hizballah’s hands can therefore stay clean. US Intelligence Director John Negroponte reported last week that Qaeda’s expansion into Lebanon, exploiting the conflict there, is being taken seriously. The chasm between the Sunni Muslim al Qaeda and Lebanon’s Shiite Hizballah is no bar to collaboration.
However, from the Israeli side of the border, yellow-clad, Hizballah flag-waving demonstrators are photographed day by day, throwing rocks at Israeli vehicles and moving into the former locations of the destroyed Hizballah positions. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that just a month after the ceasefire went into effect, Hizballah’s arsenals are filling up again as trucks head south from central and northern Lebanon unimpeded by Israeli or international troops.
Israel has still not appointed a new head of the IDF’s Northern command to replace the war commander Maj.-Gen Udi Adam who stepped down last week.
As for the international force, its “robust” policing operations have more or less been relegated to the archives of the UN Security Council.
Debka
09.26.2006
The New York Times correspondent reports: One month after a UN Security Council resolution ended a 34-day war… the international force members say “they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars, homes or businesses or detain suspects. If they see a truck transporting missiles, for example (in violation of the UN arms embargo), they cannot stop it… because under their interpretation of the Security Council resolution (1701) that deployed them, they must first be authorized to take such action by the Lebanese army.”
And whereas the Security Council allocated 15,000 troops to expanded UNIFIL, only 5,000 are deployed.
According to the NYT, the UN commanders repeat as a mantra that their job is to respect Lebanese sovereignty by supporting the Lebanese army. “They will only do what the Lebanese authorities ask.”
DEBKAfile adds: More than 40% of the Lebanese army consists of Shiites. Their loyalty goes first to Hizballah or their Shiite commanders rather than the Lebanese government.
Israeli officials and commanders have their own mantra which is that there is no Hizballah activity on the ground. The last Israeli forces can therefore pull out of South Lebanon by the end of the month. DEBKAfile notes that the Olmert government continues to cover up the failure of its war objectives by glossing over its aftermath. The truth is that Hizballah activities are intense but do not figure in the reports of UNIFIL’s European contingents, which have their own agenda.
This agenda has whittled down most elements of the mission assigned the UN force by Resolution 1701, which was approved in the first place to prevent Hizballah from continuing its attacks on Israel and destabilizing the area.
As for the demand to disarm Hizballah, the paper quotes local Shiites as making it clear “they will fight anybody who tries to take Hizballah’s weapons away. For the forces to remain welcome they must demonstrate they are there to protect the Lebanese from Israel – not to police the Lebanese on behalf of Israel.”
DEBKAfile adds: Hizballah would not need to fight the international force. Al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri stated in his last videotape this month that UNIFIL in Lebanon is a target for terrorist attack. Hizballah’s hands can therefore stay clean. US Intelligence Director John Negroponte reported last week that Qaeda’s expansion into Lebanon, exploiting the conflict there, is being taken seriously. The chasm between the Sunni Muslim al Qaeda and Lebanon’s Shiite Hizballah is no bar to collaboration.
However, from the Israeli side of the border, yellow-clad, Hizballah flag-waving demonstrators are photographed day by day, throwing rocks at Israeli vehicles and moving into the former locations of the destroyed Hizballah positions. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that just a month after the ceasefire went into effect, Hizballah’s arsenals are filling up again as trucks head south from central and northern Lebanon unimpeded by Israeli or international troops.
Israel has still not appointed a new head of the IDF’s Northern command to replace the war commander Maj.-Gen Udi Adam who stepped down last week.
As for the international force, its “robust” policing operations have more or less been relegated to the archives of the UN Security Council.
Debka
09.26.2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Israeli Company Develops Bug-Resistant Bananas
If you eat five bananas a week, there's a good chance that one of them has its genetic origins in Israel.
Driving north of Nahariya towards the Lebanese border, you pass fields and fields of banana crops at nearby Achziv as well as on Kibbutz Rosh Hanikra. It's at the latter kibbutz where biotech company Rahan Meristem (1998) LTD, a world leader in banana biotechnology, has its offices and laboratories.
"We're the largest producer of banana tissue cultured plants in the world - producing about 10 million a year. They're sold all around the world. We calculated that approximately 20% of the bananas that are marketed throughout the western world originated or were selected at Rahan," said Dr. Eli Khayat, head of research and development at Rahan and a professor of plant biology at Hebrew University and the Technion.
"Most of our research is on bananas - trying to improve the quality of the crop - using molecular genetics to breed bananas that ripen slower and have a longer shelf life," he told ISRAEL21c. "These are parameters which are important to both the grower and the consumer. Our goal is to breed plants, and given that bananas are seedless, the only means to produce elite clones is by genetic engineering."
With a total production of approximately 60 million tons per year, banana and plantains (bananas which are grown for cooking) have become a major crop worldwide, exported from tropical countries to almost every part of the globe. But as a result of its natural sterility, most banana varieties have yet to be genetically improved via biotechnological tools.
Now in a new breakthrough development with far-reaching implications, Khayat and his team have successfully completed a field trial that validates its latest accomplishment - the complete resistance of banana plants to a wide range of pathogenic nematodes - tiny microscopic worms that damage plants from their root.
Nematodes are considered one of the most destructive pathogens attacking bananas in all zones of production. Vegetative propagation, using infested corms or suckers, has disseminated this pest throughout the world. Yet, most effective nematicides have been banned in large parts of the world because of their polluting effect on the environment. As a result, nematode resistance is considered to be a highly attractive attribute that is estimated to reduce growers' expenses by hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
According to Khayat, the accomplishment has taken six years of research and testing.
"The technology involved was developed jointly by Rahan, Bar Ilan University and Hazera, an Israeli seed company. The result is transgenic bananas, bananas that have been genetically modified. They are completely resistant to nematodes, by use of a special technology called RNAi," he told ISRAEL21c.
"We recently conducted field trials, growing plants in an area heavily infested with nematodes, and the plants showed complete resistance. They weren't affected at all. The nematodes couldn't reproduce on the plants."
Founded in 1974 by members of the kibbutz, Rahan Meristem was the first operating commercial tissue culture laboratory in Israel. It was established as an extension of an existing well-recognized fruit trees nursery in Israel.
Initially, Rahan's workers developed new procedures for large scale, in vitro, clonal propagation of over 200 plant genera including ornamental, industrial, fruit and vegetable crops.
By the mid 1980s the company focused on a smaller variety of plants, and in vitro propagated banana plants became the leading product. Combined with the high level of pre-existing expertise of banana agrotechnology on Kibbutz Rosh Hanikra, Rahan became a center of research and consultation for the banana industry throughout the world.
A formal R&D department was established in 1991 in order to provide technical support to the different branches of the company and develop new products and technologies, as well as other technical services. Khayat joined the company in 1992 when he returned to Israel from a post as associate professor at Rutgers.
When Khayat talks about molecular genetics and how it relates to bananas, it sounds like the Israeli kibbutz of yesterday - with oranges, dancing, and tractors, has turned into a futuristic science fiction mystery.
"We're producing and breeding banana plantlets from tissue culture. They're banana clones. Bananas are seedless so the only way to improve them is by selection, a process we work on at our premises on the kibbutz. The selected clones are propagated by means of tissue culture. You can amplify a single clone to as many as you want," Khayat explained.
When the topic is cloning and genetic engineering, Khayat knows that he's treading in controversial territory, with large movements around the world opposed to genetically engineered food. But he provides thoughtful explanations as to why he thinks Rahan is on the right path.
"I think the opposition derives from a general view about genetically engineered plants as being unknown and a mystery. It's the same as the feelings about vaccines at the beginning of the 20th century - the view that it will cause something worse that what it's protecting against," he said.
"Genetic engineering is much safer than insecticides to both the environment and to humans, but politically, it's a problem with environmental groups. For example, in general the fields where bananas are grown are treated with nematicides to avoid infestation by nematodes. The volume of insecticide could not only kill humans, but even elephants. They are very nasty chemicals, and the damage to the environment as a result is very heavy."
"With transgenic plants, especially bananas due to the fact that they can't cross-fertilize and don't have seeds, there's no dissipation of the genetic material anyway - it's contained within the plant. So there's no danger to humans or to the environment. The plants can grow in areas that weren't treated with insecticides."
Khayat pointed out that in Costa Rica, where much of the population works in the banana industry, there was a large occurrence of male sterility due to nematicides. He added that over time, many countries have accepted genetically engineered food products as a fact on the ground.
"In the US, it's a standard practice. In Europe, by and large, there is still objection, but it's slowly breaking down. Now in Spain and Germany, the import of transgenic seeds is allowed, but it's still case by case."
Rahan's nematode-resistant technology must now pass through a regulatory process in the US which is very expensive, and Khayat acknowledges that Rahan, which employs 130, will not be able to carry this out alone.
As a result, the company is currently looking for strategic partners in the US who will take over the process. The company is also looking for partners in the banana industry, such as Dole, Chiquita and Del Monte, who might be interested in developing Rahan's technology. Khayat admits that negotiations with one of these two banana giants is now underway.
Israel 21st Century
09.25.2006
Driving north of Nahariya towards the Lebanese border, you pass fields and fields of banana crops at nearby Achziv as well as on Kibbutz Rosh Hanikra. It's at the latter kibbutz where biotech company Rahan Meristem (1998) LTD, a world leader in banana biotechnology, has its offices and laboratories.
"We're the largest producer of banana tissue cultured plants in the world - producing about 10 million a year. They're sold all around the world. We calculated that approximately 20% of the bananas that are marketed throughout the western world originated or were selected at Rahan," said Dr. Eli Khayat, head of research and development at Rahan and a professor of plant biology at Hebrew University and the Technion.
"Most of our research is on bananas - trying to improve the quality of the crop - using molecular genetics to breed bananas that ripen slower and have a longer shelf life," he told ISRAEL21c. "These are parameters which are important to both the grower and the consumer. Our goal is to breed plants, and given that bananas are seedless, the only means to produce elite clones is by genetic engineering."
With a total production of approximately 60 million tons per year, banana and plantains (bananas which are grown for cooking) have become a major crop worldwide, exported from tropical countries to almost every part of the globe. But as a result of its natural sterility, most banana varieties have yet to be genetically improved via biotechnological tools.
Now in a new breakthrough development with far-reaching implications, Khayat and his team have successfully completed a field trial that validates its latest accomplishment - the complete resistance of banana plants to a wide range of pathogenic nematodes - tiny microscopic worms that damage plants from their root.
Nematodes are considered one of the most destructive pathogens attacking bananas in all zones of production. Vegetative propagation, using infested corms or suckers, has disseminated this pest throughout the world. Yet, most effective nematicides have been banned in large parts of the world because of their polluting effect on the environment. As a result, nematode resistance is considered to be a highly attractive attribute that is estimated to reduce growers' expenses by hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
According to Khayat, the accomplishment has taken six years of research and testing.
"The technology involved was developed jointly by Rahan, Bar Ilan University and Hazera, an Israeli seed company. The result is transgenic bananas, bananas that have been genetically modified. They are completely resistant to nematodes, by use of a special technology called RNAi," he told ISRAEL21c.
"We recently conducted field trials, growing plants in an area heavily infested with nematodes, and the plants showed complete resistance. They weren't affected at all. The nematodes couldn't reproduce on the plants."
Founded in 1974 by members of the kibbutz, Rahan Meristem was the first operating commercial tissue culture laboratory in Israel. It was established as an extension of an existing well-recognized fruit trees nursery in Israel.
Initially, Rahan's workers developed new procedures for large scale, in vitro, clonal propagation of over 200 plant genera including ornamental, industrial, fruit and vegetable crops.
By the mid 1980s the company focused on a smaller variety of plants, and in vitro propagated banana plants became the leading product. Combined with the high level of pre-existing expertise of banana agrotechnology on Kibbutz Rosh Hanikra, Rahan became a center of research and consultation for the banana industry throughout the world.
A formal R&D department was established in 1991 in order to provide technical support to the different branches of the company and develop new products and technologies, as well as other technical services. Khayat joined the company in 1992 when he returned to Israel from a post as associate professor at Rutgers.
When Khayat talks about molecular genetics and how it relates to bananas, it sounds like the Israeli kibbutz of yesterday - with oranges, dancing, and tractors, has turned into a futuristic science fiction mystery.
"We're producing and breeding banana plantlets from tissue culture. They're banana clones. Bananas are seedless so the only way to improve them is by selection, a process we work on at our premises on the kibbutz. The selected clones are propagated by means of tissue culture. You can amplify a single clone to as many as you want," Khayat explained.
When the topic is cloning and genetic engineering, Khayat knows that he's treading in controversial territory, with large movements around the world opposed to genetically engineered food. But he provides thoughtful explanations as to why he thinks Rahan is on the right path.
"I think the opposition derives from a general view about genetically engineered plants as being unknown and a mystery. It's the same as the feelings about vaccines at the beginning of the 20th century - the view that it will cause something worse that what it's protecting against," he said.
"Genetic engineering is much safer than insecticides to both the environment and to humans, but politically, it's a problem with environmental groups. For example, in general the fields where bananas are grown are treated with nematicides to avoid infestation by nematodes. The volume of insecticide could not only kill humans, but even elephants. They are very nasty chemicals, and the damage to the environment as a result is very heavy."
"With transgenic plants, especially bananas due to the fact that they can't cross-fertilize and don't have seeds, there's no dissipation of the genetic material anyway - it's contained within the plant. So there's no danger to humans or to the environment. The plants can grow in areas that weren't treated with insecticides."
Khayat pointed out that in Costa Rica, where much of the population works in the banana industry, there was a large occurrence of male sterility due to nematicides. He added that over time, many countries have accepted genetically engineered food products as a fact on the ground.
"In the US, it's a standard practice. In Europe, by and large, there is still objection, but it's slowly breaking down. Now in Spain and Germany, the import of transgenic seeds is allowed, but it's still case by case."
Rahan's nematode-resistant technology must now pass through a regulatory process in the US which is very expensive, and Khayat acknowledges that Rahan, which employs 130, will not be able to carry this out alone.
As a result, the company is currently looking for strategic partners in the US who will take over the process. The company is also looking for partners in the banana industry, such as Dole, Chiquita and Del Monte, who might be interested in developing Rahan's technology. Khayat admits that negotiations with one of these two banana giants is now underway.
Israel 21st Century
09.25.2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
Al-Qaida Could Use Non-Arabs To Attack Israel
Shin Bet and other intelligence units have been put on special alert after Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a Hezb'allah strongman and Osama Bin Laden's deputy, said Israel was on Al-Qaida's list of upcoming targets. Intelligence sources said Al-Qaida could try to execute a surprise attack using non-Arabs.
Zawahiri is believed to be taking over the leadership of Al-Qaida, due to Bin Laden's illness. Zawahiri and Bin Laden have apparently disagreed over whether Al-Qaida's next target should be in a Western state or in the Middle East. Bin Laden wanted to act in the United States and Europe while Zawahiri, who is of Egyptian origin, wished to achieve goals in the Middle East; namely, Israel and the Arab states that cooperate with it.
Zawahiri pushed to set up Al-Qaida cells in Sinai, taking advantage of the Bedouin economic plight to carry out terror attacks against Egyptian targets and Israeli tourists. He initiated terror acts in Jordan causing dozens of fatalities and was behind the idea to intercept an aircraft carrying Israeli tourists to East Africa and attack the hotel where Israelis were staying in 2002.
About two weeks ago, on the anniversary of September 11, Zawahiri warned in a video recording that Israel and the Gulf states could be Al-Qaida's next targets of attack. Such attacks would be aimed at destroying the Western economy. Israel increased its preparations for a preemptive strike following his warning.
Israel assumes that Al-Qaida will try to recruit non-Arabs to act against Israel, as it tried to enlist Africans for the attacks in East Africa. Israel knew of this activity, but had difficulty cooperating with the Americans to thwart it. However, Israel's cooperation with European intelligence brought about the arrest of Al-Qaida people in East Africa.
The most commonly cited surprise attack in Israel was the bombing of Mike's Place in Tel Aviv by two Britons of Pakistani origin who were sent by Al-Qaida.
The two, who smuggled explosives into Israel, moved freely between Israel and the territories with their British passports. About a month ago, British authorities exposed British-born Al-Qaida activists of Pakistani origin, who were planning to crash passenger airplanes over the ocean with liquid explosives.
Another possibility Al-Qaida is believed to be considering is infiltrating Israel via Lebanon.
Israel today faces two main fundamentalist groups - Sunni Al-Qaida and Shi'ite Hezb'allah.
Hezbollah is set on harming Israel, but it is hardly likely at this stage to allow Al-Qaida to act independently in Lebanon without supervision.
Haaretz
09.25.2006
Zawahiri is believed to be taking over the leadership of Al-Qaida, due to Bin Laden's illness. Zawahiri and Bin Laden have apparently disagreed over whether Al-Qaida's next target should be in a Western state or in the Middle East. Bin Laden wanted to act in the United States and Europe while Zawahiri, who is of Egyptian origin, wished to achieve goals in the Middle East; namely, Israel and the Arab states that cooperate with it.
Zawahiri pushed to set up Al-Qaida cells in Sinai, taking advantage of the Bedouin economic plight to carry out terror attacks against Egyptian targets and Israeli tourists. He initiated terror acts in Jordan causing dozens of fatalities and was behind the idea to intercept an aircraft carrying Israeli tourists to East Africa and attack the hotel where Israelis were staying in 2002.
About two weeks ago, on the anniversary of September 11, Zawahiri warned in a video recording that Israel and the Gulf states could be Al-Qaida's next targets of attack. Such attacks would be aimed at destroying the Western economy. Israel increased its preparations for a preemptive strike following his warning.
Israel assumes that Al-Qaida will try to recruit non-Arabs to act against Israel, as it tried to enlist Africans for the attacks in East Africa. Israel knew of this activity, but had difficulty cooperating with the Americans to thwart it. However, Israel's cooperation with European intelligence brought about the arrest of Al-Qaida people in East Africa.
The most commonly cited surprise attack in Israel was the bombing of Mike's Place in Tel Aviv by two Britons of Pakistani origin who were sent by Al-Qaida.
The two, who smuggled explosives into Israel, moved freely between Israel and the territories with their British passports. About a month ago, British authorities exposed British-born Al-Qaida activists of Pakistani origin, who were planning to crash passenger airplanes over the ocean with liquid explosives.
Another possibility Al-Qaida is believed to be considering is infiltrating Israel via Lebanon.
Israel today faces two main fundamentalist groups - Sunni Al-Qaida and Shi'ite Hezb'allah.
Hezbollah is set on harming Israel, but it is hardly likely at this stage to allow Al-Qaida to act independently in Lebanon without supervision.
Haaretz
09.25.2006
Sunday, September 24, 2006
The Religion of Peace
With all the fuss being made about the Pope's comments about Islam, it wouldn't hurt to take a look at Islam's fruits, rather than just its protests to the contrary.
The Pope recently quoted a 14th century emperor who criticized Islam for its practice of forced conversions. Islamic apologists deny Islam teaches anything of the kind.
It is on this basis that they have launched the current wave of violent protests against any suggestion that Islam is a violent religion.
Members of a Palestinian terrorist group kidnapped two Fox news journalists recently. The two were put before a video camera while in captivity and given a choice. They could be filmed converting to Islam. Or they could be filmed being beheaded on camera.
One of them described a big knife that was set just in front of them off camera. Both Fox reporters chose Option One and converted to Islam.
Centanni and his cameraman, Olaf Wigg, were filmed wearing Islamic robes. They read from scripts from which they announced they had become observant Muslims and asking Bush and Blair to do likewise.
"Islam is not just meant for some people. It is the true religion for all people at all times," said Mr Centanni. "I changed my name to Khaled. I have embraced Islam and say the word Allah."
It was only afterwards that Centanni admitted his conversion was not heartfelt. But neither, evidently was his denial.
He told Fox News in a post-release interview: “We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint. . .” but then he added, “"Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what was going on."
There is one thing that we've learned from the journalists' ordeal about what IS going on is revealing. The West has been trying to convince itself that Islam is just another religion, like Unitarians or Buddhists. Or Christians.
But Jesus didn't tell Christians to force people to come to Him at the point of a gun. Or under the threat of a sword.
Jesus promised that the power of conversion would come through His Holy Spirit.
Jesus told the Apostles, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8)
Compare that to Islam's version of the Great Commission: Said Mohammed to his apostles; “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.”
Jesus send His followers out to live according to His example, which He said would draw men to what they could clearly see to be the truth.
Mohammed told his followers to fight all men until they convert to Islam's version of the truth. Osama bin Laden quoted Islam's great commission during the post 9/11 Afghan campaign: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.”
Part of the reason that we are in for a generational war is that America has not yet recognized the enemy. America still believes that Osama's Islam is a distortion of what is, at its heart, a religion of peace.
Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig saw the religion of peace in action. Mohammed himself gave the great commission to Islam to fight ALL men until they do what Centanni and Wiig did.
And until we see, as they did, the big knife laying off-camera, America will fight this war as if it were only against al-Qaeda.
And Osama will continue to franchise out his jihad without anybody knowing who the enemy is until it is too late. And this war will go on for a generation.
Or even longer.
By: Hal Lindsey
The Pope recently quoted a 14th century emperor who criticized Islam for its practice of forced conversions. Islamic apologists deny Islam teaches anything of the kind.
It is on this basis that they have launched the current wave of violent protests against any suggestion that Islam is a violent religion.
Members of a Palestinian terrorist group kidnapped two Fox news journalists recently. The two were put before a video camera while in captivity and given a choice. They could be filmed converting to Islam. Or they could be filmed being beheaded on camera.
One of them described a big knife that was set just in front of them off camera. Both Fox reporters chose Option One and converted to Islam.
Centanni and his cameraman, Olaf Wigg, were filmed wearing Islamic robes. They read from scripts from which they announced they had become observant Muslims and asking Bush and Blair to do likewise.
"Islam is not just meant for some people. It is the true religion for all people at all times," said Mr Centanni. "I changed my name to Khaled. I have embraced Islam and say the word Allah."
It was only afterwards that Centanni admitted his conversion was not heartfelt. But neither, evidently was his denial.
He told Fox News in a post-release interview: “We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint. . .” but then he added, “"Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what was going on."
There is one thing that we've learned from the journalists' ordeal about what IS going on is revealing. The West has been trying to convince itself that Islam is just another religion, like Unitarians or Buddhists. Or Christians.
But Jesus didn't tell Christians to force people to come to Him at the point of a gun. Or under the threat of a sword.
Jesus promised that the power of conversion would come through His Holy Spirit.
Jesus told the Apostles, “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8)
Compare that to Islam's version of the Great Commission: Said Mohammed to his apostles; “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.”
Jesus send His followers out to live according to His example, which He said would draw men to what they could clearly see to be the truth.
Mohammed told his followers to fight all men until they convert to Islam's version of the truth. Osama bin Laden quoted Islam's great commission during the post 9/11 Afghan campaign: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.”
Part of the reason that we are in for a generational war is that America has not yet recognized the enemy. America still believes that Osama's Islam is a distortion of what is, at its heart, a religion of peace.
Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig saw the religion of peace in action. Mohammed himself gave the great commission to Islam to fight ALL men until they do what Centanni and Wiig did.
And until we see, as they did, the big knife laying off-camera, America will fight this war as if it were only against al-Qaeda.
And Osama will continue to franchise out his jihad without anybody knowing who the enemy is until it is too late. And this war will go on for a generation.
Or even longer.
By: Hal Lindsey
Saturday, September 23, 2006
The Age of Irrationality
American thinker, Founding Father and celebrated deist Thomas Paine wrote a book late in the 18th century called "The Age of Reason." Paine's book was the American version of a movement taking place at about the same time in Europe that was dubbed, "the Age of Enlightenment."
What characterized this era of Western thinking was an examination of both religious belief and piety.
In Europe, prominent Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume questioned and attacked the existing institutions of both Church and State.
To set the stage, Europe had been ravaged by religious wars; when peace in the political situation had been restored, after the Peace of Westphalia and the English Civil War, an intellectual upheaval overturned the accepted belief that mysticism and individual revelation are the primary sources of knowledge and wisdom.
It was during the 18th century's "Age of Reason" and 19th century's "Age of Enlightenment" the philosophies of liberalism and atheism were explored and codified, out of which grew the philsophy of modernism that dominated much of the thinking during the 20th century.
From this point on, thinkers and writers were held to be free to pursue the truth in whatever form, without the threat of sanction for violating established ideas.
With the end of the Second World War and the rise of post-modernity, these same features came to be regarded as liabilities - excessive specialization, failure to heed traditional wisdom or provide for unintended consequences.
By the end of the 20th century, the natural progression of these philosophies resulted in much of the Western world entering what many call the post-Christian era.
Now, in the 21st century, a new philosophy is taking over the West. For want of a better name, one might call it the 'post-rational' era.
The previously mentioned philosophies gave great credibility to reason and logic. As the 21st century opens, these bedrock principles of rational thought are being thrown out the window in favor of what can best be described as wishful thinking.
We wish that Islam is a religion of peace and love, and therefore, no preponderence of evidence to the contrary is enough to shake that dream.
We wish the United Nations was an effective tool of international diplomacy and peace, and therefore, the preponderance of evidence that it disinterested in the former and incapable of the latter will be entertained.
In America, we wish that our culture reflected the purest principles of Christianity, and therefore, no argument to the contrary is convincing.
Let's explore the three examples I just outlined in a bit more detail.
President Bush, together with the rest of the Western world's leadership, are adamant in their contention that Islam is a religion of peace and love that was hijacked by a minority of fundamentalist extremists.
They repeat that each time that the West comes under Islamic attack, as if by saying it, it will become true. This isn't rational thinking, this is wishful thinking.
Last week, the Pope quoted a 13th century emperor's assessment of Islam, and was immediately excoriated for 'claiming' that Islam is a violent religion. In the first, the Pope didn't make the claim. He quoted somebody else who made that claim. And rationally, since the claim was made 700 years ago, it was referring to Islam in the 13th century.
No matter. Modern Islam, enraged at the thought that a guy who lived 700 years ago thought Islam was a violent religion, responded by unleashing a violent series of world-wide demonstrations and actions against symbols of Christianity.
The rhetoric from the Islamic world turned reason and rationality on its head. The head of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a statement saying that "anybody who calls Islam intolerant brings violence upon himself."
That statement is so irrational that it sounds like something from Saturday Night Live. "Don't call me violent or I will kill you."
In protest at being called violent, Islamists burned Christian churches. A 61 year old nun was gunned down to protest the concept of Islamic violence. In dozens of world-wide demonstrations, the Pope was burned in effigy. Islamic groups issued death threats against the Pope. Others threatened to storm the Vatican and kill everyone inside.
In response, the Pope apologized profusely, with his secretary issuing a statement saying that Benedict’s position on Islam was unquestionably in line with the Vatican’s traditional teaching that the Rome “esteems Muslims, who adore the only God.”
To say that the god of Islam that sponsored the global rioting is the same God that told His followers to 'turn the other cheek' is more than just heresy, it is totally irrational.
The Western world murmured appreciatively at the pope's apology, while global Islam protested that it 'didn't go far enough.'
In Cuba, more than half the members of the United Nations met to call the United Nations a tool of the Western powers and demanded the United States be singularly be stripped of its veto power, with Secretary General Kofi Annan nodding in agreement.
The Non-Aligned Movement issued its unanimous support for Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and promised to go to war with any nation that tried to stand in its way.
In response, the United States, which provides the UN with both its headquarters in New York and a quarter of its operating budget, is sending President Bush to give a speech extolling the United Nations for its diplomatic contributions to the world.
President Bush's address is to be followed by a rebuttal address by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who peppers every speech with threats to wipe Israel from the map of the Middle East.
Last week, I wrote a column objecting to the Democratic Party's efforts to claim Christianity as the moral basis for its support of political policies like abortion on demand, gay rights and opposition to letting children pray in public places.
In it, I listed a dozen Scriptures that prove life in the womb is sacred to God, that God opposes homosexual conduct, and that Jesus Christ commanded the Church to advance the teachings of Christianity.
I also wrote, "Don't email me to tell me some Republicans are no better. Declaring yourselves to the lesser of two evils is incompatible with the argument that one can be a good Christian and a good Democrat. It isn't about Republicans. It is about Jesus Christ."
Every single email objecting to my column listed the evils of the Republicans.
I also wrote, "I challenge my next group of critics; before you write to call me names, address the issues that I raise here."
Every single response was a litany of name-calling. Not one single respondent addressed a single, solitary point that I addressed in the column. One, in an exchange that began by calling me an American Taliban and then progressed through the evils wrought by the Republicans, eventually got around to claiming my entire column was just a defense of Republicans.
After I replied by quoting the relevant parts of my column that predicted exactly that response and pointed out that he had not addressed a single issue I actually wrote, responded by saying, "My question to you is; where in the Bible does it say anything about abortion, gay rights are school prayer? Nowhere."
When I pointed out that I listed a dozen verses addressing those exact issues, all in the original column, flashed me back with, "If the democrats are trying to co-opt Jesus as part of their political strategy they are wrong also."
At last, a point of common agreement. To get there, I had to resend the whole column, a paragraph at a time, to rebutt each charge I never made.
Every reply I got dripped with irrational hatred for the Republicans without any addressing a single point of the column, which they were apparently prepared to let stand as written while claiming the whole column was wrong.
In the 21st century, it is evidently rational to oppose a war that US troops are trying to win while claiming to support those troops by hoping they lose.
It is rational to address the specific criticisms of one political party by pointing out the (different) failings of the other party and pretending that constitutes answers the first set of specifics.
It is rational to apologize for calling someone violent because they responded by turning violent.
It is rational to want to strengthen the United Nations in response to UN efforts to sublimate your influence at the Security Council.
The Age of Reason has been replaced with the Age of Irrationality.
The Bible says, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." (2nd Timothy 3:1) In the same passage, Paul writes, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (3:12)
And anybody who openly admits that believes that to be a true prophecy is deemed 'irrational'.
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor - 09.23.2006
What characterized this era of Western thinking was an examination of both religious belief and piety.
In Europe, prominent Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume questioned and attacked the existing institutions of both Church and State.
To set the stage, Europe had been ravaged by religious wars; when peace in the political situation had been restored, after the Peace of Westphalia and the English Civil War, an intellectual upheaval overturned the accepted belief that mysticism and individual revelation are the primary sources of knowledge and wisdom.
It was during the 18th century's "Age of Reason" and 19th century's "Age of Enlightenment" the philosophies of liberalism and atheism were explored and codified, out of which grew the philsophy of modernism that dominated much of the thinking during the 20th century.
From this point on, thinkers and writers were held to be free to pursue the truth in whatever form, without the threat of sanction for violating established ideas.
With the end of the Second World War and the rise of post-modernity, these same features came to be regarded as liabilities - excessive specialization, failure to heed traditional wisdom or provide for unintended consequences.
By the end of the 20th century, the natural progression of these philosophies resulted in much of the Western world entering what many call the post-Christian era.
Now, in the 21st century, a new philosophy is taking over the West. For want of a better name, one might call it the 'post-rational' era.
The previously mentioned philosophies gave great credibility to reason and logic. As the 21st century opens, these bedrock principles of rational thought are being thrown out the window in favor of what can best be described as wishful thinking.
We wish that Islam is a religion of peace and love, and therefore, no preponderence of evidence to the contrary is enough to shake that dream.
We wish the United Nations was an effective tool of international diplomacy and peace, and therefore, the preponderance of evidence that it disinterested in the former and incapable of the latter will be entertained.
In America, we wish that our culture reflected the purest principles of Christianity, and therefore, no argument to the contrary is convincing.
Let's explore the three examples I just outlined in a bit more detail.
President Bush, together with the rest of the Western world's leadership, are adamant in their contention that Islam is a religion of peace and love that was hijacked by a minority of fundamentalist extremists.
They repeat that each time that the West comes under Islamic attack, as if by saying it, it will become true. This isn't rational thinking, this is wishful thinking.
Last week, the Pope quoted a 13th century emperor's assessment of Islam, and was immediately excoriated for 'claiming' that Islam is a violent religion. In the first, the Pope didn't make the claim. He quoted somebody else who made that claim. And rationally, since the claim was made 700 years ago, it was referring to Islam in the 13th century.
No matter. Modern Islam, enraged at the thought that a guy who lived 700 years ago thought Islam was a violent religion, responded by unleashing a violent series of world-wide demonstrations and actions against symbols of Christianity.
The rhetoric from the Islamic world turned reason and rationality on its head. The head of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a statement saying that "anybody who calls Islam intolerant brings violence upon himself."
That statement is so irrational that it sounds like something from Saturday Night Live. "Don't call me violent or I will kill you."
In protest at being called violent, Islamists burned Christian churches. A 61 year old nun was gunned down to protest the concept of Islamic violence. In dozens of world-wide demonstrations, the Pope was burned in effigy. Islamic groups issued death threats against the Pope. Others threatened to storm the Vatican and kill everyone inside.
In response, the Pope apologized profusely, with his secretary issuing a statement saying that Benedict’s position on Islam was unquestionably in line with the Vatican’s traditional teaching that the Rome “esteems Muslims, who adore the only God.”
To say that the god of Islam that sponsored the global rioting is the same God that told His followers to 'turn the other cheek' is more than just heresy, it is totally irrational.
The Western world murmured appreciatively at the pope's apology, while global Islam protested that it 'didn't go far enough.'
In Cuba, more than half the members of the United Nations met to call the United Nations a tool of the Western powers and demanded the United States be singularly be stripped of its veto power, with Secretary General Kofi Annan nodding in agreement.
The Non-Aligned Movement issued its unanimous support for Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and promised to go to war with any nation that tried to stand in its way.
In response, the United States, which provides the UN with both its headquarters in New York and a quarter of its operating budget, is sending President Bush to give a speech extolling the United Nations for its diplomatic contributions to the world.
President Bush's address is to be followed by a rebuttal address by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who peppers every speech with threats to wipe Israel from the map of the Middle East.
Last week, I wrote a column objecting to the Democratic Party's efforts to claim Christianity as the moral basis for its support of political policies like abortion on demand, gay rights and opposition to letting children pray in public places.
In it, I listed a dozen Scriptures that prove life in the womb is sacred to God, that God opposes homosexual conduct, and that Jesus Christ commanded the Church to advance the teachings of Christianity.
I also wrote, "Don't email me to tell me some Republicans are no better. Declaring yourselves to the lesser of two evils is incompatible with the argument that one can be a good Christian and a good Democrat. It isn't about Republicans. It is about Jesus Christ."
Every single email objecting to my column listed the evils of the Republicans.
I also wrote, "I challenge my next group of critics; before you write to call me names, address the issues that I raise here."
Every single response was a litany of name-calling. Not one single respondent addressed a single, solitary point that I addressed in the column. One, in an exchange that began by calling me an American Taliban and then progressed through the evils wrought by the Republicans, eventually got around to claiming my entire column was just a defense of Republicans.
After I replied by quoting the relevant parts of my column that predicted exactly that response and pointed out that he had not addressed a single issue I actually wrote, responded by saying, "My question to you is; where in the Bible does it say anything about abortion, gay rights are school prayer? Nowhere."
When I pointed out that I listed a dozen verses addressing those exact issues, all in the original column, flashed me back with, "If the democrats are trying to co-opt Jesus as part of their political strategy they are wrong also."
At last, a point of common agreement. To get there, I had to resend the whole column, a paragraph at a time, to rebutt each charge I never made.
Every reply I got dripped with irrational hatred for the Republicans without any addressing a single point of the column, which they were apparently prepared to let stand as written while claiming the whole column was wrong.
In the 21st century, it is evidently rational to oppose a war that US troops are trying to win while claiming to support those troops by hoping they lose.
It is rational to address the specific criticisms of one political party by pointing out the (different) failings of the other party and pretending that constitutes answers the first set of specifics.
It is rational to apologize for calling someone violent because they responded by turning violent.
It is rational to want to strengthen the United Nations in response to UN efforts to sublimate your influence at the Security Council.
The Age of Reason has been replaced with the Age of Irrationality.
The Bible says, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come." (2nd Timothy 3:1) In the same passage, Paul writes, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (3:12)
And anybody who openly admits that believes that to be a true prophecy is deemed 'irrational'.
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor - 09.23.2006
Friday, September 22, 2006
The Pope's Message For Jewry
Pope Benedict XVI has become political Islam's newest excuse for rioting. Mobs from Rawalpindi to Ramallah are burning him in effigy. Muslim leaders from Gaza to Indonesia to Qatar, to Turkey to Washington and London are attacking the pope and demanding that he apologize to Islam for what they consider to be a heinous attack against their religion by the leader of the Catholic Church.
To recap what has been exhaustively reported in recent days, the pontiff's "crime" against Islam occurred in the course of a scholarly lecture at the University of Regensburg in his native Germany earlier in the month. Benedict quoted from a dialogue between Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian scholar of Islam circa 1391 where the emperor criticized harshly the Islamic practice of forcibly converting non-Muslims to Islam.
In the pope's words, the Byzantine emperor, "addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
"The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of G-d and the nature of the soul. 'G-d,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to G-d's nature.'"
As Benedict explained, the harsh judgment that the Byzantine emperor rendered on Islam stemmed directly from his Christian understanding of G-d as a reasonable deity. That is, according to Benedict, the reason a Christian leader was able to judge Islam, and so conduct a meaningful inter-cultural discussion of the merits of Islam and Christianity, was because he had a clear understanding of how his religion construed the G-d-created world and conceived of man's relationship to G-d.
Expanding on this theme, the pope told his audience that European civilization itself is a fusion of Christian faith and Greek philosophy of reason. Europe's current cultural drift, he argued, stems from the cultural separation, which began with the Reformation and went on through the Enlightenment between faith and reason. By relegating faith to a sub-culture that has no place in discussions of practical human endeavors, he said, Europeans have rendered themselves incapable of understanding who they are and of defending themselves and their values in a manner that the Byzantine emperor, in the pre-scientific era was able to do so stalwartly.
It could be said that the Islamic world's hysterical and violent reaction to Benedict's use of the 600-year-old dialogue only serves to reinforce the Byzantine emperor's impression that Islam does not perceive G-d as being a reasoning deity. But limiting an analysis of Benedict's lecture to the Muslim world's hysterical reaction it would ignore the pope's central point. Benedict's overarching message in that lecture was that to survive, a culture must be willing to embrace its identity, for if it does not, it won't even be capable of understanding why it should survive.
While Benedict's specific message was to his fellow Christians, the Jewish people should take heed of his general message for ourselves. Today, the Jewish people, in Israel and throughout the world find ourselves under attack from all quarters. The rise of anti-Semitism globally, and particularly in the Islamic world, finds us in a period of grave self-doubt. Like the Europeans, our ability to defend ourselves against the swelling ranks of our haters, is dependent our ability as a people and as individual Jews to embrace our identity as Jews.
Commenting on the nature of this surge of Jew hatred, the great (non-Jewish) Canadian pundit, Mark Steyn wrote last month in the National Review, "The oldest hatred didn't get that way without the ability to adapt. Jews are hated for what they are — so, at any moment in history, whatever they are is what they're hated for. For centuries in Europe, they were hated for being rootless-cosmopolitan types. Now there are no rootless European Jews to hate, so they're hated for being an illegitimate Middle Eastern nation-state. If the Zionist Entity were destroyed and the survivors forced to become perpetual cruise-line stewards plying the Caribbean, they'd be hated for that, too."
It is crucial that all of us internalize the message that these lines convey. For in recent years, rather than recognize the prejudice of our detractors, we have devoted ourselves to attempting to understand and so justify the hatred they heap upon us.
We tell ourselves we are hated because we are too strong — or because we are too weak. We are hated because we are too religious — or we are hated because we are not religious enough. We are hated because we insist on defending Israel — or we are hated because we are willing to compromise on Israel.
Yet, as Steyn wisely notes, we are not hated because of what we do, we are hated because we are Jews. In light of this, the best way to defend ourselves, the best way to safeguard our freedom and our heritage is to embrace and celebrate our identity as Jews. As Elie Wiesel once explained to me, the key to defending ourselves is to never allow our haters to tell us who we are. "Hatred only defines only the haters," he said.
And indeed, when we look at the manner in which Jews in Israel and throughout the world are being attacked today, we see that the attacks are based not on Jewish actions but on the fact that we are Jews. So it is that in the midst of yet another wave of violent attacks by Muslims against Jews in Norway last month, Norway's Jewish community warned its members not to wear yarmulkes or Stars of David in public.
So it is that in Hamas's charter, the movement which now controls the Palestinian Authority calls not for compromise with Israel but for all Jews to be expelled from the Land of Israel or forcibly converted to Islam in the course of the global jihad.
So it is that attacks against Jewish supporters of Israel in the West target not the substance of their arguments, but their right as Jews to lobby for Israel in their countries of citizenship.
"We Jews," Wiesel explained, "have always defined ourselves as the Children of Abraham, Issac and Jacob." Indeed, at Mt. Sinai, in our acceptance of the Ten Commandments, the Jewish people became the first nation in history to self-consciously define itself. And each subsequent generation of Jews has remade that choice. Jews do not exist, as Jean Paul Sarte ignorantly argued, because anti-Semites exist. The leader of the existentialist movement should have understood; anti-Semites exist because anti-Semites choose to exist.
As Steyn notes, today hatred against Jews is anchored on Israel. Provoked by this new form of Jew hatred, some Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora see Israel as a burden. This is a self-inflicted tragedy. For if we look at Israel, we see that far from being a burden, our Jewish State is one of the most stunning successes of Jewish history.
Today, Israel is the home of the largest Jewish community in the world. More Jews live in Israel today than at any time in our history. And the state in which we live is one of the most vibrant, optimistic, "happening" countries in the world. We have the highest birthrate in the Western world. Rates of entrepreneurship are among the highest in the world.
We are one of the most highly educated societies in the world. Over the past fifteen years, more than a dozen colleges have been established in Israel and last year the government decided to allow two of these colleges to join Israel's nine research universities as full-fledged, independent research universities.
Israelis are among the most patriotic citizens in the world. Our patriotism is expressed in the high level of volunteerism in all age groups. In the recent war, tens of thousands of reservists willingly left their families and jobs to take up arms to defend the country and hundreds of thousands of Israelis volunteered to help our one million brothers and sisters whose homes were targeted by rockets, missiles and mortars.
Jewish life blossoms in Israel as it has nowhere else in our history. The rates of literacy in Jewish learning in Israel are higher than they have ever been anywhere in our history. Israel is the home of some half dozen generations of Jews whose mother tongue is the language of the Bible and the Talmud.
Israel's success stems from its serving as a vehicle that allows us to express our heritage in all facets of society. And our Jewish heritage is one of the most precious heritages known to man.
The Jewish people gave humanity the concepts of G-d, liberty and law. Our understanding of the fallibility of mankind has prevented us from being tempted by false prophets who promise us heaven on Earth, and has allowed us to take practical steps towards improving our lot and our world.
All of the ideals that Israel represents both spiritually and physically have for millennia formed the foundations for human progress and freedom throughout the world. Our willingness to retain our loyalty to our identity and our heritage has been the key to our survival throughout the ages in the face of countless foes who sought to destroy us both spiritually and physically.
Rosh Hashana marks the beginning of the Ten Days of Repentance that precede Yom Kippur. To properly atone for our sins and correct our mistakes, we must understand who we are and what we represent and what we can and should aspire to as Jews. To do this, we must reject the notion that our haters can tell us who we are. To do this we must embrace our Jewish identity and uphold our commitment to our collective destiny.
The fact that hatred of Jews has endured for so long says nothing about the nature of the Jewish people. What does speak volumes about the nature of the Jewish people is that our fortunes throughout the ages have been directly related to our ability to spurn our enemies' distorted portraits of the Jewish people and our willingness to endure and progress as Jews in the midst of that hatred.
Pope Benedict is able to discuss Islam because, secure in his Christian identity, he has a clear basis for judging the goodness or unreasonableness of Muslim values and behavior. Whether we agree with his judgments or not, through his willingness to judge, Benedict capably defends and advances his faith.
When we embrace our moral and intellectual identity as Jews, we are similarly capable of meeting the challenges of our times. It is my prayer that in 5767, the Jewish people will rally around our heritage, history and culture and so pave the way for a secure, peaceful and moral future for our people and our world.
Jewish World Review
09.22.2006
To recap what has been exhaustively reported in recent days, the pontiff's "crime" against Islam occurred in the course of a scholarly lecture at the University of Regensburg in his native Germany earlier in the month. Benedict quoted from a dialogue between Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a Persian scholar of Islam circa 1391 where the emperor criticized harshly the Islamic practice of forcibly converting non-Muslims to Islam.
In the pope's words, the Byzantine emperor, "addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'
"The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of G-d and the nature of the soul. 'G-d,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to G-d's nature.'"
As Benedict explained, the harsh judgment that the Byzantine emperor rendered on Islam stemmed directly from his Christian understanding of G-d as a reasonable deity. That is, according to Benedict, the reason a Christian leader was able to judge Islam, and so conduct a meaningful inter-cultural discussion of the merits of Islam and Christianity, was because he had a clear understanding of how his religion construed the G-d-created world and conceived of man's relationship to G-d.
Expanding on this theme, the pope told his audience that European civilization itself is a fusion of Christian faith and Greek philosophy of reason. Europe's current cultural drift, he argued, stems from the cultural separation, which began with the Reformation and went on through the Enlightenment between faith and reason. By relegating faith to a sub-culture that has no place in discussions of practical human endeavors, he said, Europeans have rendered themselves incapable of understanding who they are and of defending themselves and their values in a manner that the Byzantine emperor, in the pre-scientific era was able to do so stalwartly.
It could be said that the Islamic world's hysterical and violent reaction to Benedict's use of the 600-year-old dialogue only serves to reinforce the Byzantine emperor's impression that Islam does not perceive G-d as being a reasoning deity. But limiting an analysis of Benedict's lecture to the Muslim world's hysterical reaction it would ignore the pope's central point. Benedict's overarching message in that lecture was that to survive, a culture must be willing to embrace its identity, for if it does not, it won't even be capable of understanding why it should survive.
While Benedict's specific message was to his fellow Christians, the Jewish people should take heed of his general message for ourselves. Today, the Jewish people, in Israel and throughout the world find ourselves under attack from all quarters. The rise of anti-Semitism globally, and particularly in the Islamic world, finds us in a period of grave self-doubt. Like the Europeans, our ability to defend ourselves against the swelling ranks of our haters, is dependent our ability as a people and as individual Jews to embrace our identity as Jews.
Commenting on the nature of this surge of Jew hatred, the great (non-Jewish) Canadian pundit, Mark Steyn wrote last month in the National Review, "The oldest hatred didn't get that way without the ability to adapt. Jews are hated for what they are — so, at any moment in history, whatever they are is what they're hated for. For centuries in Europe, they were hated for being rootless-cosmopolitan types. Now there are no rootless European Jews to hate, so they're hated for being an illegitimate Middle Eastern nation-state. If the Zionist Entity were destroyed and the survivors forced to become perpetual cruise-line stewards plying the Caribbean, they'd be hated for that, too."
It is crucial that all of us internalize the message that these lines convey. For in recent years, rather than recognize the prejudice of our detractors, we have devoted ourselves to attempting to understand and so justify the hatred they heap upon us.
We tell ourselves we are hated because we are too strong — or because we are too weak. We are hated because we are too religious — or we are hated because we are not religious enough. We are hated because we insist on defending Israel — or we are hated because we are willing to compromise on Israel.
Yet, as Steyn wisely notes, we are not hated because of what we do, we are hated because we are Jews. In light of this, the best way to defend ourselves, the best way to safeguard our freedom and our heritage is to embrace and celebrate our identity as Jews. As Elie Wiesel once explained to me, the key to defending ourselves is to never allow our haters to tell us who we are. "Hatred only defines only the haters," he said.
And indeed, when we look at the manner in which Jews in Israel and throughout the world are being attacked today, we see that the attacks are based not on Jewish actions but on the fact that we are Jews. So it is that in the midst of yet another wave of violent attacks by Muslims against Jews in Norway last month, Norway's Jewish community warned its members not to wear yarmulkes or Stars of David in public.
So it is that in Hamas's charter, the movement which now controls the Palestinian Authority calls not for compromise with Israel but for all Jews to be expelled from the Land of Israel or forcibly converted to Islam in the course of the global jihad.
So it is that attacks against Jewish supporters of Israel in the West target not the substance of their arguments, but their right as Jews to lobby for Israel in their countries of citizenship.
"We Jews," Wiesel explained, "have always defined ourselves as the Children of Abraham, Issac and Jacob." Indeed, at Mt. Sinai, in our acceptance of the Ten Commandments, the Jewish people became the first nation in history to self-consciously define itself. And each subsequent generation of Jews has remade that choice. Jews do not exist, as Jean Paul Sarte ignorantly argued, because anti-Semites exist. The leader of the existentialist movement should have understood; anti-Semites exist because anti-Semites choose to exist.
As Steyn notes, today hatred against Jews is anchored on Israel. Provoked by this new form of Jew hatred, some Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora see Israel as a burden. This is a self-inflicted tragedy. For if we look at Israel, we see that far from being a burden, our Jewish State is one of the most stunning successes of Jewish history.
Today, Israel is the home of the largest Jewish community in the world. More Jews live in Israel today than at any time in our history. And the state in which we live is one of the most vibrant, optimistic, "happening" countries in the world. We have the highest birthrate in the Western world. Rates of entrepreneurship are among the highest in the world.
We are one of the most highly educated societies in the world. Over the past fifteen years, more than a dozen colleges have been established in Israel and last year the government decided to allow two of these colleges to join Israel's nine research universities as full-fledged, independent research universities.
Israelis are among the most patriotic citizens in the world. Our patriotism is expressed in the high level of volunteerism in all age groups. In the recent war, tens of thousands of reservists willingly left their families and jobs to take up arms to defend the country and hundreds of thousands of Israelis volunteered to help our one million brothers and sisters whose homes were targeted by rockets, missiles and mortars.
Jewish life blossoms in Israel as it has nowhere else in our history. The rates of literacy in Jewish learning in Israel are higher than they have ever been anywhere in our history. Israel is the home of some half dozen generations of Jews whose mother tongue is the language of the Bible and the Talmud.
Israel's success stems from its serving as a vehicle that allows us to express our heritage in all facets of society. And our Jewish heritage is one of the most precious heritages known to man.
The Jewish people gave humanity the concepts of G-d, liberty and law. Our understanding of the fallibility of mankind has prevented us from being tempted by false prophets who promise us heaven on Earth, and has allowed us to take practical steps towards improving our lot and our world.
All of the ideals that Israel represents both spiritually and physically have for millennia formed the foundations for human progress and freedom throughout the world. Our willingness to retain our loyalty to our identity and our heritage has been the key to our survival throughout the ages in the face of countless foes who sought to destroy us both spiritually and physically.
Rosh Hashana marks the beginning of the Ten Days of Repentance that precede Yom Kippur. To properly atone for our sins and correct our mistakes, we must understand who we are and what we represent and what we can and should aspire to as Jews. To do this, we must reject the notion that our haters can tell us who we are. To do this we must embrace our Jewish identity and uphold our commitment to our collective destiny.
The fact that hatred of Jews has endured for so long says nothing about the nature of the Jewish people. What does speak volumes about the nature of the Jewish people is that our fortunes throughout the ages have been directly related to our ability to spurn our enemies' distorted portraits of the Jewish people and our willingness to endure and progress as Jews in the midst of that hatred.
Pope Benedict is able to discuss Islam because, secure in his Christian identity, he has a clear basis for judging the goodness or unreasonableness of Muslim values and behavior. Whether we agree with his judgments or not, through his willingness to judge, Benedict capably defends and advances his faith.
When we embrace our moral and intellectual identity as Jews, we are similarly capable of meeting the challenges of our times. It is my prayer that in 5767, the Jewish people will rally around our heritage, history and culture and so pave the way for a secure, peaceful and moral future for our people and our world.
Jewish World Review
09.22.2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
The New 'Christian' Democrats
I get emails all the time from Democrats who jump all over me, telling me that they are life-long Christians and saying 'how dare I suggest that being a Christian and being a Democrat are mutually exclusive?' Did I say that? (I believe it, but I don't remember saying so. No matter. I am saying so now.)
I suppose it is possible to be a Christian AND a Democrat, but I don't believe it is possible for anyone to be sincere about either and make a credible claim to be both.
How can one be a sincere Christian and support the ACLU's efforts to ban God from public schools, for example. How can one support the appointment of judicial candidates based solely on the criteria that they have a philosophical agreement with Roe v. Wade while still claiming to be a Christian? It doesn't make any sense to me.
It is incomprehensible to me that the Democrats can oppose a candidate based on his personal philosophy and then deny that is the criteria they are using, at the same time SAYING that is the criteria they are basing their opposition on?
The Democrats oppose virtually every single major teaching of Christianity, but take great offense at any suggestion that they are not just as devout in their Christianity as 'the other guys.'
One of the first arguments offered is that Republicans 'aren't any better.' To prove it, they trot out endless examples of poor Christian witness among Republicans. I am not sure how that is relevant, but it does fit into the overall worldview of the US Democratic party.
If you can't defend yourself, attack the other guy. They don't actually see it themselves, but all they are really doing when they do that is presenting themselves as the lesser of two evils.
I can understand their doing that politically, but when they attempt to establish themselves as good Christians by arguing they are less evil than bad Christians, it makes me wonder if they can tell the difference.
USAToday published a story about a new Democratic initiative to capture votes in the next election by using Jesus Christ as a campaign spokesman.
"The Democratic Party, saddled with a secular image that has hurt it in elections, is getting religion. Some Democrats have been mentioning God more often since the party lost the 2004 presidential election. To encourage that trend, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman David Wilhelm, an Ohio investment banker and churchgoing Methodist, is launching a website today that is aimed at persuading more devout Christians to vote Democratic."
Call me a cynic, but I am cynical. Evidently, so is the author of the USAToday column.
Notes Martin Kasindorf, "Howard Dean was asked in January, 2004, to name his favorite book in the New Testament. "The Book of Job," he answered. It's in the Old Testament."
The article continues. . . "John Green, a University of Akron professor who studies religion's role in politics, said Democrats "wouldn't have had to move very many religious people to have won the (2004) election. There is a sense that an opportunity was missed, that many of their leaders just didn't get it, and that the time has come to educate them. . . [David] Wilhelm says: "In the next presidential election, a winning Democratic nominee is going to have to prove that he can navigate the shoals of the faith issue. That doesn't mean you have to go around spouting biblical verses. You should have the ability to speak from your heart on those values that come from religious traditions."
Ahem. Which values that come from religious traditions? Gay marriage? Abortion rights? Criminalizing school prayer? Removing crosses from public lands?
In a poll released Aug. 24, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says, "The Democratic Party continues to face a serious 'God problem.' "
The nationwide survey showed 47% perceived the Republican Party as friendly to religion, but only 26% saw Democrats that way. (That 26% must be the ones that write to me.)
Frankly, I don't see the Democrats as unfriendly to 'religion'. I see them as unfriendly to Christianity. 'Religion' is man's way of making HIMSELF acceptable to God. Christianity is God's way of making man acceptable unto Himself.
There is both a distinction and a difference.
Under the title, "To Believe that Jesus Rode a Donkey", Democrat Jesse Lava writes in the Huffington Post;
"The truth is millions of us Christians are Democrats not in spite of our faith, but precisely because of it -- and millions more would be open to the Democratic Party if it engaged them on their level, presenting political ideas in the context of religious values."
Note that Lava switched horses in mid-stream, jumping from Christianity to 'religious values' as if they are one and the same.
The 'Jesus Rode a Donkey' title implies that, 'Jesus is a Democrat.' Meanwhile, Islam claims that Jesus is a Muslim. Does it strike you as odd, as it does me, that the only ones in America who are NOT allowed to claim Jesus are Christians?
(Try telling somebody about salvation through Jesus Christ alone while standing on federal property. Let me know what happens.)
The point I am making is not 'Republicans good, Democrats bad.' If you think it is, you must be a Democrat. Let me sort it out for you.
The point I am making is 'Democrats bad'. Clear enough?
To co-opt Jesus Christ as a political spokesman while opposing everything the Bible teaches is not just bad. It is disgusting.
Jesus is a Democrat? The same Jesus Who inspired the Bible? The same Jesus John 1:1 calls "the Word"? What sayeth the Word?
The Bible teaches the sanctity of life -- from the womb.
"I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly." (Psalm 22:10)
"Did not He that made me in the womb make him? and did not One fashion us in the womb?" (Job 31:15)
"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is His reward." (Psalms 127:3)
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
"For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke 1:44)
The Bible teaches about gay marriage:
"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them."
"And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. . . Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. " (Genesis 2:22,24)
"And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female . . " Matthew 19:4)
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6)
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:27)
The Bible teaches of the Great Commission: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Matthew 28:19)
How does that square with the Democratic principle that forbids little children to pray in public schools?
Am I bashing Democrats? Only if what I am saying is not true. But telling the truth, if the truth is unflattering, is considered 'bashing' -- just as quoting the Koran is considered 'anti-Muslim' -- unless those quotes selected paint Islam in a favorable light.
I challenge my next group of critics; before you write to call me names, address the issues that I raise here.
Don't email me to tell me some Republicans are no better.
Declaring yourselves to be the lesser of two evils is incompatible with the argument that one can be a good Christian and a good Democrat. It isn't about Republicans. It is about Jesus Christ.
Correct me on the issues. Am I misunderstanding the Democratic platform on abortion, gay rights, judicial appointments, the ACLU and separation of church and state issues?
Am I misunderstanding the teachings of Scripture on those issues? Am I wrong in my distinction between religion and Christianity? If I am wrong, I really want to know.
What I don't want to know is that you are right because the other guy isn't any better.
I am not a partisan. I am a Christian. I am not defending the Republican party. I am opposing the co-opting of my Lord and Savior as a cheap partisan symbol and a political spokesman for an anti-Christian agenda dressed up as a form of Christianity but rooted in a sliding scale of principles.
It is possible to be a saved Christian and be a Democrat. Being a Christian means trusting in the Shed Blood of Christ for one's personal salvation. But it is NOT possible to be a good Democrat without opposing the central teachings of Christianity.
If you are going to claim Him, claim Him as your personal Savior. Don't try to claim Him as your political savior. It cheapens Him -- and it cheapens you.
God promises; "If My people, which are called by My Name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2nd Chronicles 7:14)
God uses the conditional; 'if'. That means there is an opposite promise as well. If 'His people' don't, then He won't, either.
Since I live here, that makes it personal.
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor - 09.21.2006
I suppose it is possible to be a Christian AND a Democrat, but I don't believe it is possible for anyone to be sincere about either and make a credible claim to be both.
How can one be a sincere Christian and support the ACLU's efforts to ban God from public schools, for example. How can one support the appointment of judicial candidates based solely on the criteria that they have a philosophical agreement with Roe v. Wade while still claiming to be a Christian? It doesn't make any sense to me.
It is incomprehensible to me that the Democrats can oppose a candidate based on his personal philosophy and then deny that is the criteria they are using, at the same time SAYING that is the criteria they are basing their opposition on?
The Democrats oppose virtually every single major teaching of Christianity, but take great offense at any suggestion that they are not just as devout in their Christianity as 'the other guys.'
One of the first arguments offered is that Republicans 'aren't any better.' To prove it, they trot out endless examples of poor Christian witness among Republicans. I am not sure how that is relevant, but it does fit into the overall worldview of the US Democratic party.
If you can't defend yourself, attack the other guy. They don't actually see it themselves, but all they are really doing when they do that is presenting themselves as the lesser of two evils.
I can understand their doing that politically, but when they attempt to establish themselves as good Christians by arguing they are less evil than bad Christians, it makes me wonder if they can tell the difference.
USAToday published a story about a new Democratic initiative to capture votes in the next election by using Jesus Christ as a campaign spokesman.
"The Democratic Party, saddled with a secular image that has hurt it in elections, is getting religion. Some Democrats have been mentioning God more often since the party lost the 2004 presidential election. To encourage that trend, former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman David Wilhelm, an Ohio investment banker and churchgoing Methodist, is launching a website today that is aimed at persuading more devout Christians to vote Democratic."
Call me a cynic, but I am cynical. Evidently, so is the author of the USAToday column.
Notes Martin Kasindorf, "Howard Dean was asked in January, 2004, to name his favorite book in the New Testament. "The Book of Job," he answered. It's in the Old Testament."
The article continues. . . "John Green, a University of Akron professor who studies religion's role in politics, said Democrats "wouldn't have had to move very many religious people to have won the (2004) election. There is a sense that an opportunity was missed, that many of their leaders just didn't get it, and that the time has come to educate them. . . [David] Wilhelm says: "In the next presidential election, a winning Democratic nominee is going to have to prove that he can navigate the shoals of the faith issue. That doesn't mean you have to go around spouting biblical verses. You should have the ability to speak from your heart on those values that come from religious traditions."
Ahem. Which values that come from religious traditions? Gay marriage? Abortion rights? Criminalizing school prayer? Removing crosses from public lands?
In a poll released Aug. 24, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says, "The Democratic Party continues to face a serious 'God problem.' "
The nationwide survey showed 47% perceived the Republican Party as friendly to religion, but only 26% saw Democrats that way. (That 26% must be the ones that write to me.)
Frankly, I don't see the Democrats as unfriendly to 'religion'. I see them as unfriendly to Christianity. 'Religion' is man's way of making HIMSELF acceptable to God. Christianity is God's way of making man acceptable unto Himself.
There is both a distinction and a difference.
Under the title, "To Believe that Jesus Rode a Donkey", Democrat Jesse Lava writes in the Huffington Post;
"The truth is millions of us Christians are Democrats not in spite of our faith, but precisely because of it -- and millions more would be open to the Democratic Party if it engaged them on their level, presenting political ideas in the context of religious values."
Note that Lava switched horses in mid-stream, jumping from Christianity to 'religious values' as if they are one and the same.
The 'Jesus Rode a Donkey' title implies that, 'Jesus is a Democrat.' Meanwhile, Islam claims that Jesus is a Muslim. Does it strike you as odd, as it does me, that the only ones in America who are NOT allowed to claim Jesus are Christians?
(Try telling somebody about salvation through Jesus Christ alone while standing on federal property. Let me know what happens.)
The point I am making is not 'Republicans good, Democrats bad.' If you think it is, you must be a Democrat. Let me sort it out for you.
The point I am making is 'Democrats bad'. Clear enough?
To co-opt Jesus Christ as a political spokesman while opposing everything the Bible teaches is not just bad. It is disgusting.
Jesus is a Democrat? The same Jesus Who inspired the Bible? The same Jesus John 1:1 calls "the Word"? What sayeth the Word?
The Bible teaches the sanctity of life -- from the womb.
"I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly." (Psalm 22:10)
"Did not He that made me in the womb make him? and did not One fashion us in the womb?" (Job 31:15)
"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is His reward." (Psalms 127:3)
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
"For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke 1:44)
The Bible teaches about gay marriage:
"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them."
"And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. . . Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. " (Genesis 2:22,24)
"And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female . . " Matthew 19:4)
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6)
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:27)
The Bible teaches of the Great Commission: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Matthew 28:19)
How does that square with the Democratic principle that forbids little children to pray in public schools?
Am I bashing Democrats? Only if what I am saying is not true. But telling the truth, if the truth is unflattering, is considered 'bashing' -- just as quoting the Koran is considered 'anti-Muslim' -- unless those quotes selected paint Islam in a favorable light.
I challenge my next group of critics; before you write to call me names, address the issues that I raise here.
Don't email me to tell me some Republicans are no better.
Declaring yourselves to be the lesser of two evils is incompatible with the argument that one can be a good Christian and a good Democrat. It isn't about Republicans. It is about Jesus Christ.
Correct me on the issues. Am I misunderstanding the Democratic platform on abortion, gay rights, judicial appointments, the ACLU and separation of church and state issues?
Am I misunderstanding the teachings of Scripture on those issues? Am I wrong in my distinction between religion and Christianity? If I am wrong, I really want to know.
What I don't want to know is that you are right because the other guy isn't any better.
I am not a partisan. I am a Christian. I am not defending the Republican party. I am opposing the co-opting of my Lord and Savior as a cheap partisan symbol and a political spokesman for an anti-Christian agenda dressed up as a form of Christianity but rooted in a sliding scale of principles.
It is possible to be a saved Christian and be a Democrat. Being a Christian means trusting in the Shed Blood of Christ for one's personal salvation. But it is NOT possible to be a good Democrat without opposing the central teachings of Christianity.
If you are going to claim Him, claim Him as your personal Savior. Don't try to claim Him as your political savior. It cheapens Him -- and it cheapens you.
God promises; "If My people, which are called by My Name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (2nd Chronicles 7:14)
God uses the conditional; 'if'. That means there is an opposite promise as well. If 'His people' don't, then He won't, either.
Since I live here, that makes it personal.
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor - 09.21.2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Shame March Gets Green Light
A homosexual organization in Jerusalem is determined to ensure that a twice-cancelled public parading of perverse sexual lifestyles through the streets of the sacred city will take place after all.
The fact that the "Gay" shame event will offend millions of Jews and Christians has only served to intensify the efforts of the "Open House," which successfully persuaded Israel's High Court of Justice to rule that the march will now be held on Friday, November 10.
On that day, the tens of thousands of Jerusalemites who normally use Friday to prepare for Shabbat will have to ensure that they and their children are off the streets if they do not wish to be exposed to half-naked men kissing each other, and gyrating women embracing, in the city Israel's God chose to call His own.
By given the event its blessing, the High Court has helped promote and protect a lifestyle that holds untold numbers of people prisoner. And it has aided and abetted those who have made their goal the perversion and imprisonment of our youth.
Jerusalem Newswire
09.19.2006
The fact that the "Gay" shame event will offend millions of Jews and Christians has only served to intensify the efforts of the "Open House," which successfully persuaded Israel's High Court of Justice to rule that the march will now be held on Friday, November 10.
On that day, the tens of thousands of Jerusalemites who normally use Friday to prepare for Shabbat will have to ensure that they and their children are off the streets if they do not wish to be exposed to half-naked men kissing each other, and gyrating women embracing, in the city Israel's God chose to call His own.
By given the event its blessing, the High Court has helped promote and protect a lifestyle that holds untold numbers of people prisoner. And it has aided and abetted those who have made their goal the perversion and imprisonment of our youth.
Jerusalem Newswire
09.19.2006
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Red Cross For Terrorists-What For Captive Israelis?
Attorneys for three Hizb'allah terrorists caught during the recent war in southern Lebanon argued in Nazareth District Court Monday that their clients should receive prisoner of war (POW) status.
The three were indicted on charges of killing IDF soldiers with an anti-tank missile during a kidnapping operation July 12 which resulted in the capture of IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. The attack ignited the recent 34-day war with Hizbullah terrorists in southern Lebanon.
Attorneys Smadar Ben Nathan and Itay Hermlin – representing the three guerrillas –contended that their clients were not bound by the laws of Israel and should be granted the status of prisoners of war (POW).
Hermlin also argued that “”Hizb'allah must be defeated on the battleground and not in criminal court.” He charged that the legal process was, in effect, illegal.
The three terrorists, Mahmoud Ali Suleiman, Mohammed Sarur and Mahar Qurani, were charged with a long list of additional crimes.
Red Cross Visits Hizbullah Hostages, Blocked From Seeing IDF Captives
Meanwhile, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported that they visited the three captured Hizbullah terrorist guerrillas who were being held in Israel, but not the IDF prisoners of war held by terrorists in the north and south.
The organization made no mention of any efforts to gain access to Regev and Goldwasser who are being held by Hizb'allah terrorists in an undisclosed location.
Since the cease-fire established under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, Hizb'allah has resisted efforts by the Red Cross and international figures - such as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and American civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Neither has the ICRC made contact with IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit, a prisoner of Hamas terrorists who rejected a Red Cross appeal to permit its representatives to visit him to ascertain his condition.
Hamas officials stated they could not permit the request while “tens of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons are not permitted to visit with their families.” Palestinian Authority prisoners in Israeli jails are visited every week by their families.
The whereabouts and condition of all three of the IDF troops, assuming they are alive, are not known. Nevertheless, Israel has allowed the Red Cross to visit the terrorists, who "are in good health" according to ICRC officials quoted by the Beirut Daily Star.
The ICRC mission statement includes a mandate by the Geneva Conventions which includes tasking the ICRC with visiting prisoners of war. The Geneva Conventions are binding instruments of international law, applicable worldwide, according to the ICRC website.
Arutz Sheva
09.19.2006
The three were indicted on charges of killing IDF soldiers with an anti-tank missile during a kidnapping operation July 12 which resulted in the capture of IDF reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. The attack ignited the recent 34-day war with Hizbullah terrorists in southern Lebanon.
Attorneys Smadar Ben Nathan and Itay Hermlin – representing the three guerrillas –contended that their clients were not bound by the laws of Israel and should be granted the status of prisoners of war (POW).
Hermlin also argued that “”Hizb'allah must be defeated on the battleground and not in criminal court.” He charged that the legal process was, in effect, illegal.
The three terrorists, Mahmoud Ali Suleiman, Mohammed Sarur and Mahar Qurani, were charged with a long list of additional crimes.
Red Cross Visits Hizbullah Hostages, Blocked From Seeing IDF Captives
Meanwhile, the International Committee of the Red Cross reported that they visited the three captured Hizbullah terrorist guerrillas who were being held in Israel, but not the IDF prisoners of war held by terrorists in the north and south.
The organization made no mention of any efforts to gain access to Regev and Goldwasser who are being held by Hizb'allah terrorists in an undisclosed location.
Since the cease-fire established under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, Hizb'allah has resisted efforts by the Red Cross and international figures - such as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and American civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Neither has the ICRC made contact with IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit, a prisoner of Hamas terrorists who rejected a Red Cross appeal to permit its representatives to visit him to ascertain his condition.
Hamas officials stated they could not permit the request while “tens of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons are not permitted to visit with their families.” Palestinian Authority prisoners in Israeli jails are visited every week by their families.
The whereabouts and condition of all three of the IDF troops, assuming they are alive, are not known. Nevertheless, Israel has allowed the Red Cross to visit the terrorists, who "are in good health" according to ICRC officials quoted by the Beirut Daily Star.
The ICRC mission statement includes a mandate by the Geneva Conventions which includes tasking the ICRC with visiting prisoners of war. The Geneva Conventions are binding instruments of international law, applicable worldwide, according to the ICRC website.
Arutz Sheva
09.19.2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Why Are Muslims So Defensive?
Most parents know that when a child gets overly defensive, he is usually guilty of the wrongdoing he is being accused of. The same is certainly true with adults, as well as whole people groups.
Take for instance the Muslim world’s wild overreaction first to the publication of a political cartoon featuring the Prophet Mohammed, then to Pope Benedict XVI’s attempt to emphasize the incompatibility of violence and faith in a university lecture during which he quoted a Byzantine emperor who denounced Mohammed’s calls for jihad.
(Of particular note are the “Palestinians,” who have apparently grown so used to their violent ways being excused that they are openly attacking Christian churches in response to the pope’s remarks.)
If Islam really is tolerant and advocates peace, then why do its practitioners react in such ways over what are in reality very minor provocations? The media and Muslim clerics in this part of the world make a regular habit of denouncing and bad mouthing Jews and Christians, but the result is never widespread Jewish or Christian violence against Muslims.
If you want people to believe that you are tolerant and non-violent, then it is best to not respond to accusations of violence with violence. To do so incidcates that you are in fact guilty.
Zionist
09.18.2006
Take for instance the Muslim world’s wild overreaction first to the publication of a political cartoon featuring the Prophet Mohammed, then to Pope Benedict XVI’s attempt to emphasize the incompatibility of violence and faith in a university lecture during which he quoted a Byzantine emperor who denounced Mohammed’s calls for jihad.
(Of particular note are the “Palestinians,” who have apparently grown so used to their violent ways being excused that they are openly attacking Christian churches in response to the pope’s remarks.)
If Islam really is tolerant and advocates peace, then why do its practitioners react in such ways over what are in reality very minor provocations? The media and Muslim clerics in this part of the world make a regular habit of denouncing and bad mouthing Jews and Christians, but the result is never widespread Jewish or Christian violence against Muslims.
If you want people to believe that you are tolerant and non-violent, then it is best to not respond to accusations of violence with violence. To do so incidcates that you are in fact guilty.
Zionist
09.18.2006
Sunday, September 17, 2006
The Free World's Achilles Heel
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair is Israel's best friend in Europe. And he's not a very good friend.
Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, Blair was instrumental in convincing US President George W. Bush to view the Palestinian jihad against Israel as a conflict completely separate from the global jihad. His success in convincing Bush of this distinction turned the anti-Semitic - not to mention strategically disastrous — view that terrorists who kill Israelis should be treated differently from terrorists who kill anyone else, into one of the cognitive foundations of the US war on Islamic terror. This foundation was first enunciated at Bush's address Sept. 20 before the joint session of Congress where he identified "every terrorist with global reach" — that is every terrorist that isn't part of the Palestinian Authority — as enemies of the US.
Later, Blair was a principal force behind Bush's move to abandon the guidelines for dealing with the Palestinians that he enunciated in his speech on June 24, 2002. In that address, Bush stipulated that the Palestinians needed to transform themselves from a society that supported terror into one that combated terror in order to receive US support for Palestinian statehood. Shortly after the fall of Baghdad to Coalition forces in April 2003, Blair convinced Bush to accept the Road Map plan for Palestinian statehood. The Road Map, which effectively locks in US support for Palestinian statehood irrespective of Palestinian terrorism and radicalism, represented a practical abandonment of the positions that Bush set out in his June 24, 2002 address.
During his visit to the region this week, keeping with his studied habit, Blair ignored the fact that the Iranian-backed Hamas government was elected to lead the Palestinian Authority by a large majority of Palestinians. He ignored the fact that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's has voiced support for the abduction and continued captivity of IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit and for the continuation of the terror war against Israel. He ignored the fact that rather than working to overthrow the Hamas government, Abbas has begged Hamas to allow Fatah to join their government. To this end, Abbas has accepted Hamas's policy guidelines that reject recognizing Israel's right to exist and commit all Palestinians to unite in their war against Israel. Ignoring all these inconvenient facts, Blair called on the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government to renew negotiations with Abbas on the basis of the Road Map.
And yet, for all this, Tony Blair is Israel's best friend in Europe today. He is Israel's best friend because, as opposed to all his colleagues in both Britain and the EU, Blair at least recognizes that the global jihad is a threat to the free world and that the cost of not fighting the forces of jihad will be the loss of our freedom.
Soon Israel's closest European friend will exit the world stage after being effectively sacked by his own Labor party last week. British political commentators say that chances are slim that Blair will manage to hold the reins of power as a lame duck for the next twelve months as he pledged. More likely, he will leave 10 Downing Street in a matter of months.
The two men most likely to succeed Blair — Chancellor Gordon Brown and Tory leader David Cameron — will be more similar in their attitudes towards Israel and the US to French President Jacques Chirac than to Blair. This is the case first and foremost because that is what the British people expect of them.
British antipathy towards the US and Israel was clearly exposed in an opinion poll published on Sept. 6 in the Times of London. The poll showed that 73 percent of Britons believe that Blair's foreign policy, and especially his "support for the invasion of Iraq and refusal to demand an immediate cease-fire by Israel in the recent war against Hizbullah, has significantly increased the risk of terrorist attacks on Britain."
More than 62 percent said that to "reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on Britain, the government should change its foreign policy, in particular by distancing itself from America, being more critical of Israel and declaring a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq."
The day after the poll was published, Blair announced that he would leave office in a year. Also on Sept. 7, a committee of British Members of Parliament released a report on anti-Semitism in Britain. The all-party committee found that that since the Palestinian jihad against Israel began in 2000, anti-Semitism in Britain has become a mainstream phenomenon. Attacks against Jews in Britain were at an all time high over the summer.
In their anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, the British, of course, are no different from their Continental brethren. And the situation in Europe is alarming. Writing in Frontpage magazine this week, Islamic expert Andrew Boston reported that in November 2005, Stephen Steinlight, the former director of education at the US Holocaust Memorial Council told a conference in Washington that on average, Muslim attacks against Jews in Paris occur twelve time a day. According to Steinlight, with this frequency of attacks, French anti-Semitic violence is approaching the level of anti-Semitic violence in Germany during the days of the Weimar Republic.
These attacks against Jews in Europe are accompanied by ever increasing official hostility towards Israel on the part of European governments. On the second day of the war with Hizbullah Chirac felt comfortable alleging that "Israel's military offensive against Lebanon is totally disproportionate." Chirac then acidly asked, "Is destroying Lebanon the ultimate goal?"
Chirac's remarks opened the floodgates of anti-Israel propaganda throughout Europe. They were followed by the barring of El Al cargo planes carrying weapons shipments from the US from landing in European airports. That prohibition still stands.
From the moment Chirac launched this unsubstantiated diplomatic assault against Israel, his government began acting as the agent of the Lebanese government, which itself was acting throughout the war as Hizbullah's mouthpiece. So from the second day of the war, the groundwork had already been laid for UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which treats Israel and Hizbullah as equals and lets both Syria and Iran off the hook for their central roles in Hizbullah's illegal war against Israel.
Through their behavior towards both Israel and the US, Europe's leaders have made clear that they will do just about anything to please the Muslim world. Even though Iran has made absolutely clear that it refuses to end its uranium enrichment activities, or even suspend them, the Europeans continue to insist on negotiating with the mullahs and refuse to take even the smallest concrete step against Iran in the UN Security Council. As to the Palestinians, the Europeans have made no attempt to hide their eagerness to renew their monthly transfers of tens of millions of euros to the Palestinian Authority in the wake of Hamas's agreement to let Fatah join its jihadist government. And in Lebanon, together with the UN, the Europeans have defined the rules of engagement for the UNIFIL forces in a manner that on the one hand protects Hizbullah, and on the other hand, prevents Israel from defending itself. Above and beyond all else, these policies show clearly that the Europeans have defined ingratiating the Muslim world as their primary geopolitical interest.
Seemingly unaware of Europe's growing hostility towards Israel, the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government has succumbed to the charms of the likes of Chirac, Romano Prodi and Javier Solana and is systematically abandoning Israel's positions in favor of Europe's pro-Arab stands. During his press conference with Tony Blair, Olmert renounced his previous well-considered demand that Cpl. Shalit be released before any meeting can take place between him and Abbas.
During her visit in Washington, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni emphasized Israel's wish to renew negotiations with the Palestinians on the basis of the Road Map and the government's continued support for Abbas. This, in spite of the fact that the government Abbas is forming with Hamas will not recognize Israel's right to exist and is committed to continuing the jihad against Israel. By so acting, Olmert and Livni are lending their informal approval to the renewal of European funding of the Palestinian Authority.
Even more troubling, is the government's inaction, bordering on tacit support for the radical Left's campaign to transfer responsibility for Israel's security from the IDF to Europe. The campaign, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman enthusiastically dubbed "Land for NATO" in his column Wednesday, involves the adoption of the UNIFIL model in Gaza and Judea and Samaria. This newest messianic trend is based on the blind belief that Israel can continue giving land to the Palestinians in spite of the fact that the Palestinians are the most radical, pro-jihad society on the face of the earth, because Europe will protect Israel from them. Whether under the UN flag or the NATO flag, the new writ of leftist faith maintains that Europe can replace the IDF in defending the Jews.
Blair's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the simple fact that just as the Iranians will not cease uranium enrichment because they want to build atom bombs, so the Palestinians will reject all offers of statehood because they prefer to destroy the Jewish state is infuriating. And yet the fact remains that he is the last European leader who truly believes that Israel has an inherent right to exist and bases his policies on this belief. It is absolutely clear that in the coming years, Europe's hostility towards Israel and the Jewish people as a whole will continue to rise.
How then, is Israel to contend with Europe? As Israel's largest trading partner and export market, relations with Europe are vital to Israel's economic wellbeing. So it is clear that Israel cannot simply turn its back on the free world's Achilles heel.
At the same time, given Europe's hostility, it is similarly obvious that the direction of the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government's policies towards Europe must be reversed. Rather than enabling Europe to increase its influence in the region, Israel must take ever step possible to minimize Europe's foothold in its neighborhood.
Israel should use Blair's exit from the world stage as an opportunity to lock its doors and shutter its windows before any new European friends can enter.
Jewish World Review
09.17.2006
Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, Blair was instrumental in convincing US President George W. Bush to view the Palestinian jihad against Israel as a conflict completely separate from the global jihad. His success in convincing Bush of this distinction turned the anti-Semitic - not to mention strategically disastrous — view that terrorists who kill Israelis should be treated differently from terrorists who kill anyone else, into one of the cognitive foundations of the US war on Islamic terror. This foundation was first enunciated at Bush's address Sept. 20 before the joint session of Congress where he identified "every terrorist with global reach" — that is every terrorist that isn't part of the Palestinian Authority — as enemies of the US.
Later, Blair was a principal force behind Bush's move to abandon the guidelines for dealing with the Palestinians that he enunciated in his speech on June 24, 2002. In that address, Bush stipulated that the Palestinians needed to transform themselves from a society that supported terror into one that combated terror in order to receive US support for Palestinian statehood. Shortly after the fall of Baghdad to Coalition forces in April 2003, Blair convinced Bush to accept the Road Map plan for Palestinian statehood. The Road Map, which effectively locks in US support for Palestinian statehood irrespective of Palestinian terrorism and radicalism, represented a practical abandonment of the positions that Bush set out in his June 24, 2002 address.
During his visit to the region this week, keeping with his studied habit, Blair ignored the fact that the Iranian-backed Hamas government was elected to lead the Palestinian Authority by a large majority of Palestinians. He ignored the fact that PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's has voiced support for the abduction and continued captivity of IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit and for the continuation of the terror war against Israel. He ignored the fact that rather than working to overthrow the Hamas government, Abbas has begged Hamas to allow Fatah to join their government. To this end, Abbas has accepted Hamas's policy guidelines that reject recognizing Israel's right to exist and commit all Palestinians to unite in their war against Israel. Ignoring all these inconvenient facts, Blair called on the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government to renew negotiations with Abbas on the basis of the Road Map.
And yet, for all this, Tony Blair is Israel's best friend in Europe today. He is Israel's best friend because, as opposed to all his colleagues in both Britain and the EU, Blair at least recognizes that the global jihad is a threat to the free world and that the cost of not fighting the forces of jihad will be the loss of our freedom.
Soon Israel's closest European friend will exit the world stage after being effectively sacked by his own Labor party last week. British political commentators say that chances are slim that Blair will manage to hold the reins of power as a lame duck for the next twelve months as he pledged. More likely, he will leave 10 Downing Street in a matter of months.
The two men most likely to succeed Blair — Chancellor Gordon Brown and Tory leader David Cameron — will be more similar in their attitudes towards Israel and the US to French President Jacques Chirac than to Blair. This is the case first and foremost because that is what the British people expect of them.
British antipathy towards the US and Israel was clearly exposed in an opinion poll published on Sept. 6 in the Times of London. The poll showed that 73 percent of Britons believe that Blair's foreign policy, and especially his "support for the invasion of Iraq and refusal to demand an immediate cease-fire by Israel in the recent war against Hizbullah, has significantly increased the risk of terrorist attacks on Britain."
More than 62 percent said that to "reduce the risk of terrorist attacks on Britain, the government should change its foreign policy, in particular by distancing itself from America, being more critical of Israel and declaring a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq."
The day after the poll was published, Blair announced that he would leave office in a year. Also on Sept. 7, a committee of British Members of Parliament released a report on anti-Semitism in Britain. The all-party committee found that that since the Palestinian jihad against Israel began in 2000, anti-Semitism in Britain has become a mainstream phenomenon. Attacks against Jews in Britain were at an all time high over the summer.
In their anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, the British, of course, are no different from their Continental brethren. And the situation in Europe is alarming. Writing in Frontpage magazine this week, Islamic expert Andrew Boston reported that in November 2005, Stephen Steinlight, the former director of education at the US Holocaust Memorial Council told a conference in Washington that on average, Muslim attacks against Jews in Paris occur twelve time a day. According to Steinlight, with this frequency of attacks, French anti-Semitic violence is approaching the level of anti-Semitic violence in Germany during the days of the Weimar Republic.
These attacks against Jews in Europe are accompanied by ever increasing official hostility towards Israel on the part of European governments. On the second day of the war with Hizbullah Chirac felt comfortable alleging that "Israel's military offensive against Lebanon is totally disproportionate." Chirac then acidly asked, "Is destroying Lebanon the ultimate goal?"
Chirac's remarks opened the floodgates of anti-Israel propaganda throughout Europe. They were followed by the barring of El Al cargo planes carrying weapons shipments from the US from landing in European airports. That prohibition still stands.
From the moment Chirac launched this unsubstantiated diplomatic assault against Israel, his government began acting as the agent of the Lebanese government, which itself was acting throughout the war as Hizbullah's mouthpiece. So from the second day of the war, the groundwork had already been laid for UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which treats Israel and Hizbullah as equals and lets both Syria and Iran off the hook for their central roles in Hizbullah's illegal war against Israel.
Through their behavior towards both Israel and the US, Europe's leaders have made clear that they will do just about anything to please the Muslim world. Even though Iran has made absolutely clear that it refuses to end its uranium enrichment activities, or even suspend them, the Europeans continue to insist on negotiating with the mullahs and refuse to take even the smallest concrete step against Iran in the UN Security Council. As to the Palestinians, the Europeans have made no attempt to hide their eagerness to renew their monthly transfers of tens of millions of euros to the Palestinian Authority in the wake of Hamas's agreement to let Fatah join its jihadist government. And in Lebanon, together with the UN, the Europeans have defined the rules of engagement for the UNIFIL forces in a manner that on the one hand protects Hizbullah, and on the other hand, prevents Israel from defending itself. Above and beyond all else, these policies show clearly that the Europeans have defined ingratiating the Muslim world as their primary geopolitical interest.
Seemingly unaware of Europe's growing hostility towards Israel, the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government has succumbed to the charms of the likes of Chirac, Romano Prodi and Javier Solana and is systematically abandoning Israel's positions in favor of Europe's pro-Arab stands. During his press conference with Tony Blair, Olmert renounced his previous well-considered demand that Cpl. Shalit be released before any meeting can take place between him and Abbas.
During her visit in Washington, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni emphasized Israel's wish to renew negotiations with the Palestinians on the basis of the Road Map and the government's continued support for Abbas. This, in spite of the fact that the government Abbas is forming with Hamas will not recognize Israel's right to exist and is committed to continuing the jihad against Israel. By so acting, Olmert and Livni are lending their informal approval to the renewal of European funding of the Palestinian Authority.
Even more troubling, is the government's inaction, bordering on tacit support for the radical Left's campaign to transfer responsibility for Israel's security from the IDF to Europe. The campaign, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman enthusiastically dubbed "Land for NATO" in his column Wednesday, involves the adoption of the UNIFIL model in Gaza and Judea and Samaria. This newest messianic trend is based on the blind belief that Israel can continue giving land to the Palestinians in spite of the fact that the Palestinians are the most radical, pro-jihad society on the face of the earth, because Europe will protect Israel from them. Whether under the UN flag or the NATO flag, the new writ of leftist faith maintains that Europe can replace the IDF in defending the Jews.
Blair's stubborn refusal to acknowledge the simple fact that just as the Iranians will not cease uranium enrichment because they want to build atom bombs, so the Palestinians will reject all offers of statehood because they prefer to destroy the Jewish state is infuriating. And yet the fact remains that he is the last European leader who truly believes that Israel has an inherent right to exist and bases his policies on this belief. It is absolutely clear that in the coming years, Europe's hostility towards Israel and the Jewish people as a whole will continue to rise.
How then, is Israel to contend with Europe? As Israel's largest trading partner and export market, relations with Europe are vital to Israel's economic wellbeing. So it is clear that Israel cannot simply turn its back on the free world's Achilles heel.
At the same time, given Europe's hostility, it is similarly obvious that the direction of the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government's policies towards Europe must be reversed. Rather than enabling Europe to increase its influence in the region, Israel must take ever step possible to minimize Europe's foothold in its neighborhood.
Israel should use Blair's exit from the world stage as an opportunity to lock its doors and shutter its windows before any new European friends can enter.
Jewish World Review
09.17.2006
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Messed Up are the Peacekeepers [Excerpts]
Architects of unsuccessful wars are rightly held responsible for their actions, as Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara were for the Vietnam War and as George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld may be for the Iraq war, but there is no comparable settling of accounts for those responsible for failed peace pacts.
Former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung still has his 2000 Nobel
Peace Prize, notwithstanding North Korea's continuing development of nuclear weapons and missiles. Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres still has his 1994 prize despite the collapse of the Oslo accords. And United Nations peacekeeping forces still have their 1988 prize even though they have become better known for committing sex crimes than for keeping the peace. (The current fighting has exposed the ineffectuality of yet another set of blue helmets -- those deployed in southern Lebanon.)
Nowhere is the dismal record of peace processes clearer than in Israel's case. Over the years, the "international community" repeatedly has stepped in to prevent Israel from finishing off its enemies -- for instance, following its 1982, 1993 and 1996 incursions into Lebanon. Unrelenting pressure even led Israel in 2000 to leave Lebanon altogether. The result? Not peace, but a stronger, more dangerous adversary on Israel's border. The only real peace that Israel got, as a result of the 1978 Camp David accords, came after it had decisively defeated Egypt in two wars.
You would think that some lessons might be learned from this history. But no. Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, architect of the 1993 and 1996 Israeli pullouts, is demanding yet another cease-fire that will allow Hezbollah to keep holding Lebanon and Israel hostage. And he is joined in this demand by the great and the good across the world.
Samuel Johnson's famous epigram needs to be amended. In the 18th century, patriotism may have been the last refuge of the scoundrel. Today, it's peace activism
Boot, "Los Angeles Times," 8.02.2006
Former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung still has his 2000 Nobel
Peace Prize, notwithstanding North Korea's continuing development of nuclear weapons and missiles. Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres still has his 1994 prize despite the collapse of the Oslo accords. And United Nations peacekeeping forces still have their 1988 prize even though they have become better known for committing sex crimes than for keeping the peace. (The current fighting has exposed the ineffectuality of yet another set of blue helmets -- those deployed in southern Lebanon.)
Nowhere is the dismal record of peace processes clearer than in Israel's case. Over the years, the "international community" repeatedly has stepped in to prevent Israel from finishing off its enemies -- for instance, following its 1982, 1993 and 1996 incursions into Lebanon. Unrelenting pressure even led Israel in 2000 to leave Lebanon altogether. The result? Not peace, but a stronger, more dangerous adversary on Israel's border. The only real peace that Israel got, as a result of the 1978 Camp David accords, came after it had decisively defeated Egypt in two wars.
You would think that some lessons might be learned from this history. But no. Former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, architect of the 1993 and 1996 Israeli pullouts, is demanding yet another cease-fire that will allow Hezbollah to keep holding Lebanon and Israel hostage. And he is joined in this demand by the great and the good across the world.
Samuel Johnson's famous epigram needs to be amended. In the 18th century, patriotism may have been the last refuge of the scoundrel. Today, it's peace activism
Boot, "Los Angeles Times," 8.02.2006
Friday, September 15, 2006
The Distinction Between Israel and the Church
The Fourth Biblical Foundation upon which the pre-trib rapture is built is the fact that God has two peoples-Israel and the church. What do we mean by this distinction and how does it impact pretribulationism?
The Distinction Between Israel and the Church
"The New Testament consistently differentiates between Israel and the church," claims Arnold Fruchtenbaum.1 Fruchtenbaum supports this conclusion through a powerful twofold argument in which he first demonstrates the biblical view of Israel and secondly, by showing that the church is viewed in the New Testament as a separate entity.
Belief that God's single plan for history includes the two peoples of Israel and the church does not imply that there are thus different ways of salvation. When it comes to the issue of salvation there is only one way, since all peoples down through history descend from a single source-Adam. Christ's saving work is the only way of salvation for anyone, whether they are a member of Israel or the church.
Israel
Fruchtenbaum notes that "the term Israel is viewed theologically as referring to all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, also known as Jews, the Jewish people, Israelites, Hebrews, etc." (113). He notes that national election distinguishes Israel from those peoples who were not chosen that we know as Gentiles (113-14). Fruchtenbaum outlines four reasons for Israel's election: 1) they were "chosen on the basis of God's love . . . to be 'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation' (Ex. 19:6) . . . to represent the Gentile nations before God." 2) "God chose Israel to be the recipient of His revelation and to record it (Deut. 4:5-8; 6:6-9; Rom. 3:1-2)." 3) Israel "was to propagate the doctrine of the One God (Deut. 6:4)." 4) Israel "was to produce the Messiah (Rom. 9:5; Heb. 2:16-17; 7:13-14) (115)."
No biblically oriented christian would deny these purposes relating to Israel. The differences begins to emerge when we consider Israel in relation to the church. "Some theologians insist," notes Fruchtenbaum "that at some point the church receives the promises given to Israel and thus become the 'New Israel' (known as replacement theology). Some believe the terms church and Israel are used virtually 'interchangeably,' most citing Galatians 6:16 and some Romans 9:6." (116).
However, those commonly known as dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally and thus do not confuse the terms Israel and the church, since there is no basis in the text of any biblical passage for supporting such an approach.
Having noted important aspects of the biblical use of Israel, I will now examine the nature of the church.
The Church
Six reasons are given by Fruchtenbaum from the Bible supporting the notion that the church is a distinct work in God's household from His people Israel.
1) "The first evidence is the fact that the church was born at Pentecost, whereas Israel had existed for many centuries" (116). This is supported by "the use of the future tense in Matthew 16:18 shows that it did not exist in gospel history" (116). Since the church born at Pentecost is called the "Body of Christ" (Col. 1:18), and entrance into the body is through "Spirit baptism" (1 Cor. 12:13), in which Jew and Gentile are united through the church. It is evident that the church began on the Day of Pentecost since Acts 1:5 views Spirit baptism as future, while Acts 10 links it to the past, specifically to Pentecost.
2) "The second evidence is that certain events in the ministry of the Messiah were essential to the establishment of the church-the church does not come into being until certain events have taken place" (117). These events include the resurrection and ascension of Jesus to become head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23). "The church, with believers as the body and Christ as the head, did not exist until after Christ ascended to become its head. And it could not become a functioning entity until after the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:7-11)" (117).
3) "The third evidence is the mystery character of the church (117)." A mystery in the Bible is a hidden truth not revealed until the New Testament (Eph. 3:3-5, 9; Col. 1:26-27). Fruchtenbaum lists "four defining characteristics of the church [that] are described as a mystery. (1) The body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body is designated as a mystery in Ephesians 3:1-12. (2) The doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ-in-you concept, is called a mystery in Colossians 1:24-27 (cf. Col. 2:10-19; 3:4). (3) The church as the Bride of Christ is called a mystery in Ephesians 5:22-32. (4) The Rapture is called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. These four mysteries describe qualities that distinguish the church from Israel" (117-18).
4) "The fourth evidence that the church is distinct from Israel is the unique relationship between Jews and the Gentiles, called one new man in Ephesians 2:15" (118). During the current church age God is saving a remnant from the two previous entities (Israel and Gentiles) and combining them into a third new object-the church. This unity of Jews and Gentiles into one new man covers only the church age, from Pentecost until the rapture, after which time God will restore Israel and complete her destiny (Acts 15:14-18). 1 Corinthians 10:32 reflects just such a division when it says, "Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God."
5) "The fifth evidence for the distinction between Israel and the church is found in Galatians 6:16" (118). "It appears logical to view 'the Israel of God' (Gal. 6:16) as believing Jews in contrast to unbelieving Jews called 'Israel after the flesh' (1 Cor. 10:18)" (124).2 This passage does not support the false claim of replacement theologians who claim that Israel is supplanted by the Church. Instead, the Bible teaches that a remnant of Israel is combined with elect Gentiles during this age to make up a whole new entity the New Testament calls the church (Eph. 2).
Replacement theology tries to teach that because Gentiles believers are described as the "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:29) that this is equivalent to saying that they are Israel. This is clearly not the case. Paul's description of Gentile believers in Galatians 3:29 simply means that they participate in the spiritual (i.e., salvation) blessings that come through Israel (Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11, 14). "Those who are the spiritual seed are partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings but are never said to become partakers of the physical, material, or national promises" (126). Therefore, Israel's national promises are left in tact awaiting a yet future fulfillment.
6) "In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty time and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct" (118).3 Thus, the replacement theologian has no actual biblical basis upon which he bases his theological claim that Israel and the church have become one.
The Significance of the Distinction
If Israel and the church are not distinguished then there is no basis for seeing a future for Israel or for the church, as a new and unique people of God. If Israel and the church are merged into a single program, then the Old Testament promises for Israel will never be fulfilled and are usually seen by replacement theologians as spiritually fulfilled by the church. The merging of Israel's destiny into the church not only makes into one what the Scriptures understand as two, it removes a need for future restoration of God's original elect people in order to fulfill literally His promise that they will one day be the head and not the tail (Deut. 28:13).
The more that the believer sees a distinct plan for Israel and a distinct plan for the church, the more they realize that when the New Testament speaks to the church it is describing a separate destiny and hope for her. The church becomes more distinct in the plan of God. Israel's future includes the seven-year tribulation and then shortly before Christ's return to Jerusalem she will be converted to Jesus as her Messiah as the veil is removed and then she looks upon the one Who was pierced and is converted. On the other hand, the distinct hope (the rapture before the 70th week of Daniel) for the church is Christ's any-moment return.
Thus, a distinction between Israel and the church, as taught in the Bible, provides a basis of support for the pre-trib rapture. Those who merge the two programs cannot logically support the biblical arguments for the pre-trib position. By Thomas Ice
ENDNOTES
1 Fruchtenbaum, "Israel and the Church" in Wesley Willis, John Master, and Charles Ryrie, ed., Issues in Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 129. This article by Fruchtenbaum is a highly regarded defense of the Bible's distinction between Israel and the church and should be read by all interacting with this subject. The remaining citations of Fruchtenbaum's article will appear in brackets after a quotation in the rest of this essay.
2 For an extensive and convincing treatment of Galatians 6:16 see Fruchtenbaum's article, 120-26.
3 Fruchtenbaum lists all 73 times Israel is used in the New Testament and demonstrates that Israel always is used to refer to ethnic Jews and never is used of the church (118-20). For an exhaustive and definitive study of the word for church and how it is never merged with Israel in the New Testament, see Earl Radmacher, What the Church is All About (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 366-84, 389-93.
The Distinction Between Israel and the Church
"The New Testament consistently differentiates between Israel and the church," claims Arnold Fruchtenbaum.1 Fruchtenbaum supports this conclusion through a powerful twofold argument in which he first demonstrates the biblical view of Israel and secondly, by showing that the church is viewed in the New Testament as a separate entity.
Belief that God's single plan for history includes the two peoples of Israel and the church does not imply that there are thus different ways of salvation. When it comes to the issue of salvation there is only one way, since all peoples down through history descend from a single source-Adam. Christ's saving work is the only way of salvation for anyone, whether they are a member of Israel or the church.
Israel
Fruchtenbaum notes that "the term Israel is viewed theologically as referring to all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, also known as Jews, the Jewish people, Israelites, Hebrews, etc." (113). He notes that national election distinguishes Israel from those peoples who were not chosen that we know as Gentiles (113-14). Fruchtenbaum outlines four reasons for Israel's election: 1) they were "chosen on the basis of God's love . . . to be 'a kingdom of priests and a holy nation' (Ex. 19:6) . . . to represent the Gentile nations before God." 2) "God chose Israel to be the recipient of His revelation and to record it (Deut. 4:5-8; 6:6-9; Rom. 3:1-2)." 3) Israel "was to propagate the doctrine of the One God (Deut. 6:4)." 4) Israel "was to produce the Messiah (Rom. 9:5; Heb. 2:16-17; 7:13-14) (115)."
No biblically oriented christian would deny these purposes relating to Israel. The differences begins to emerge when we consider Israel in relation to the church. "Some theologians insist," notes Fruchtenbaum "that at some point the church receives the promises given to Israel and thus become the 'New Israel' (known as replacement theology). Some believe the terms church and Israel are used virtually 'interchangeably,' most citing Galatians 6:16 and some Romans 9:6." (116).
However, those commonly known as dispensationalists interpret the Bible literally and thus do not confuse the terms Israel and the church, since there is no basis in the text of any biblical passage for supporting such an approach.
Having noted important aspects of the biblical use of Israel, I will now examine the nature of the church.
The Church
Six reasons are given by Fruchtenbaum from the Bible supporting the notion that the church is a distinct work in God's household from His people Israel.
1) "The first evidence is the fact that the church was born at Pentecost, whereas Israel had existed for many centuries" (116). This is supported by "the use of the future tense in Matthew 16:18 shows that it did not exist in gospel history" (116). Since the church born at Pentecost is called the "Body of Christ" (Col. 1:18), and entrance into the body is through "Spirit baptism" (1 Cor. 12:13), in which Jew and Gentile are united through the church. It is evident that the church began on the Day of Pentecost since Acts 1:5 views Spirit baptism as future, while Acts 10 links it to the past, specifically to Pentecost.
2) "The second evidence is that certain events in the ministry of the Messiah were essential to the establishment of the church-the church does not come into being until certain events have taken place" (117). These events include the resurrection and ascension of Jesus to become head of the church (Eph. 1:20-23). "The church, with believers as the body and Christ as the head, did not exist until after Christ ascended to become its head. And it could not become a functioning entity until after the Holy Spirit provided the necessary spiritual gifts (Eph. 4:7-11)" (117).
3) "The third evidence is the mystery character of the church (117)." A mystery in the Bible is a hidden truth not revealed until the New Testament (Eph. 3:3-5, 9; Col. 1:26-27). Fruchtenbaum lists "four defining characteristics of the church [that] are described as a mystery. (1) The body concept of Jewish and Gentile believers united into one body is designated as a mystery in Ephesians 3:1-12. (2) The doctrine of Christ indwelling every believer, the Christ-in-you concept, is called a mystery in Colossians 1:24-27 (cf. Col. 2:10-19; 3:4). (3) The church as the Bride of Christ is called a mystery in Ephesians 5:22-32. (4) The Rapture is called a mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. These four mysteries describe qualities that distinguish the church from Israel" (117-18).
4) "The fourth evidence that the church is distinct from Israel is the unique relationship between Jews and the Gentiles, called one new man in Ephesians 2:15" (118). During the current church age God is saving a remnant from the two previous entities (Israel and Gentiles) and combining them into a third new object-the church. This unity of Jews and Gentiles into one new man covers only the church age, from Pentecost until the rapture, after which time God will restore Israel and complete her destiny (Acts 15:14-18). 1 Corinthians 10:32 reflects just such a division when it says, "Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God."
5) "The fifth evidence for the distinction between Israel and the church is found in Galatians 6:16" (118). "It appears logical to view 'the Israel of God' (Gal. 6:16) as believing Jews in contrast to unbelieving Jews called 'Israel after the flesh' (1 Cor. 10:18)" (124).2 This passage does not support the false claim of replacement theologians who claim that Israel is supplanted by the Church. Instead, the Bible teaches that a remnant of Israel is combined with elect Gentiles during this age to make up a whole new entity the New Testament calls the church (Eph. 2).
Replacement theology tries to teach that because Gentiles believers are described as the "seed of Abraham" (Gal. 3:29) that this is equivalent to saying that they are Israel. This is clearly not the case. Paul's description of Gentile believers in Galatians 3:29 simply means that they participate in the spiritual (i.e., salvation) blessings that come through Israel (Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11, 14). "Those who are the spiritual seed are partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings but are never said to become partakers of the physical, material, or national promises" (126). Therefore, Israel's national promises are left in tact awaiting a yet future fulfillment.
6) "In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty time and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct" (118).3 Thus, the replacement theologian has no actual biblical basis upon which he bases his theological claim that Israel and the church have become one.
The Significance of the Distinction
If Israel and the church are not distinguished then there is no basis for seeing a future for Israel or for the church, as a new and unique people of God. If Israel and the church are merged into a single program, then the Old Testament promises for Israel will never be fulfilled and are usually seen by replacement theologians as spiritually fulfilled by the church. The merging of Israel's destiny into the church not only makes into one what the Scriptures understand as two, it removes a need for future restoration of God's original elect people in order to fulfill literally His promise that they will one day be the head and not the tail (Deut. 28:13).
The more that the believer sees a distinct plan for Israel and a distinct plan for the church, the more they realize that when the New Testament speaks to the church it is describing a separate destiny and hope for her. The church becomes more distinct in the plan of God. Israel's future includes the seven-year tribulation and then shortly before Christ's return to Jerusalem she will be converted to Jesus as her Messiah as the veil is removed and then she looks upon the one Who was pierced and is converted. On the other hand, the distinct hope (the rapture before the 70th week of Daniel) for the church is Christ's any-moment return.
Thus, a distinction between Israel and the church, as taught in the Bible, provides a basis of support for the pre-trib rapture. Those who merge the two programs cannot logically support the biblical arguments for the pre-trib position. By Thomas Ice
ENDNOTES
1 Fruchtenbaum, "Israel and the Church" in Wesley Willis, John Master, and Charles Ryrie, ed., Issues in Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 129. This article by Fruchtenbaum is a highly regarded defense of the Bible's distinction between Israel and the church and should be read by all interacting with this subject. The remaining citations of Fruchtenbaum's article will appear in brackets after a quotation in the rest of this essay.
2 For an extensive and convincing treatment of Galatians 6:16 see Fruchtenbaum's article, 120-26.
3 Fruchtenbaum lists all 73 times Israel is used in the New Testament and demonstrates that Israel always is used to refer to ethnic Jews and never is used of the church (118-20). For an exhaustive and definitive study of the word for church and how it is never merged with Israel in the New Testament, see Earl Radmacher, What the Church is All About (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), 366-84, 389-93.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Ethiopian 'Aliya' To Remain At 300 A Month
The rate of Ethiopian aliya will not be cut as proposed by the Treasury, but will remain at 300 people a month, according to sources close to the issue.
The government will work out the financial details necessary to finalize the decision on Thursday, a highly-placed source told The Jerusalem Post. Others sources have said that there would first be an interministerial meeting on the subject before the budget is officially presented to the Knesset, but not until next week at the earliest.
The draft budget, which was approved by the cabinet Tuesday night, isn't expected to reach the legislature until after the High Holy Days.
As the budget deliberations were going on Tuesday, some 3,000 Ethiopian immigrants marched, chanted and otherwise pleaded for the government to cancel the cut, which would have reduced the number of those coming to 150 each month.
The protesters had threatened to camp out overnight and then commence a hunger strike, but agreed to return home at 10 p.m., when they were told that the government had postponed a decision on the cut and would be reevaluating the issue.
Activist Avraham Neguise said, however, that the community was far from satisfied at hearing that the change wouldn't be instituted. He said he still hadn't received official notification that the cut wouldn't be made, and added that the community was still upset that a 2005 cabinet decision to raise the number to 600 per month hadn't been implemented, not to mention previous commitments to bring the Jews remaining in Ethiopia here immediately.
"We hope this discriminatory policy will change, and we will not give up our struggle until the last Ethiopian Jews reach Israel," said Neguise, who heads a group advocating that all of the 13,000 to 18,000 Falash Mura in Ethiopia to be brought to Israel.
The Falash Mura are Ethiopians who converted to Christianity under duress and have returned to Judaism. The are brought in under the more restricted Law of Entry rather than the Law of Return, which offers citizenship to all Jews.
North American Jewry has also pushed for the Falash Mura to be brought to Israel quickly, and its leaders expressed outrage when the proposed cut was announced. The United Jewish Communities opened a $100 million fund-raising campaign to help absorb Ethiopian immigrants following the 2005 decision.
Several cabinet ministers also objected to the cut, presented as part of necessary budget trimming following the war against Hizbullah. Absorption Minister Ze'ev Boim, Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, all from Kadima; Culture and Sport Minister Ophir Paz-Pines of Labor; and Trade, Labor and Industry Minister Eli Yishai of Shas were all said to be pushing to prevent the cut.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisen, said he was addressing the issue.
"We feel very strongly the pain of the families and understand the importance of the centrality of the State of Israel to the people who want to come here," she said. "We're trying to address it, not as a budget [issue], but as something that's at the essence of the State of Israel."
Jerusalem Post
09.14.2006
The government will work out the financial details necessary to finalize the decision on Thursday, a highly-placed source told The Jerusalem Post. Others sources have said that there would first be an interministerial meeting on the subject before the budget is officially presented to the Knesset, but not until next week at the earliest.
The draft budget, which was approved by the cabinet Tuesday night, isn't expected to reach the legislature until after the High Holy Days.
As the budget deliberations were going on Tuesday, some 3,000 Ethiopian immigrants marched, chanted and otherwise pleaded for the government to cancel the cut, which would have reduced the number of those coming to 150 each month.
The protesters had threatened to camp out overnight and then commence a hunger strike, but agreed to return home at 10 p.m., when they were told that the government had postponed a decision on the cut and would be reevaluating the issue.
Activist Avraham Neguise said, however, that the community was far from satisfied at hearing that the change wouldn't be instituted. He said he still hadn't received official notification that the cut wouldn't be made, and added that the community was still upset that a 2005 cabinet decision to raise the number to 600 per month hadn't been implemented, not to mention previous commitments to bring the Jews remaining in Ethiopia here immediately.
"We hope this discriminatory policy will change, and we will not give up our struggle until the last Ethiopian Jews reach Israel," said Neguise, who heads a group advocating that all of the 13,000 to 18,000 Falash Mura in Ethiopia to be brought to Israel.
The Falash Mura are Ethiopians who converted to Christianity under duress and have returned to Judaism. The are brought in under the more restricted Law of Entry rather than the Law of Return, which offers citizenship to all Jews.
North American Jewry has also pushed for the Falash Mura to be brought to Israel quickly, and its leaders expressed outrage when the proposed cut was announced. The United Jewish Communities opened a $100 million fund-raising campaign to help absorb Ethiopian immigrants following the 2005 decision.
Several cabinet ministers also objected to the cut, presented as part of necessary budget trimming following the war against Hizbullah. Absorption Minister Ze'ev Boim, Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, all from Kadima; Culture and Sport Minister Ophir Paz-Pines of Labor; and Trade, Labor and Industry Minister Eli Yishai of Shas were all said to be pushing to prevent the cut.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisen, said he was addressing the issue.
"We feel very strongly the pain of the families and understand the importance of the centrality of the State of Israel to the people who want to come here," she said. "We're trying to address it, not as a budget [issue], but as something that's at the essence of the State of Israel."
Jerusalem Post
09.14.2006
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Israel's Galilee - World's First Pomegranate Wine
If you've been to the supermarket lately, you've probably noticed that the hottest trend in the food industry is pomegranate products.
Several years before the trend got started, a family in Israel's Upper Galilee region began working to create a tastier and healthier version of the ancient fruit, only to cross their way into yet another huge food market. Their product: the world's first pomegranate wine fit to be sold to international wine connoisseurs.
The story began ten years ago, when father and son Gaby and Avi Nachmias, the third generation of a farming family who were founding members of Moshav Kerem Ben Zimra in the Galilee, began experimenting to create a new strain of pomegranates. Understanding the fruit's excellent therapeutic qualities, their goal was to engineer a "super fruit" that would be richer in vitamins and antioxidants, sweeter, and deeper in its red color than most pomegranate types.
By 2003, after several years of growing their new strain successfully, the family tried making 2,000 bottles of pomegranate dessert wine from their crop. Everyone who tasted it loved it, the family says, and they built a production line the following year to produce dry and dessert wines in commercial quantities.
That batch was also well received, and the following year the family founded the Rimon Winery, named after the Hebrew word for pomegranate, and began producing en masse and for the local and international markets.
"In general, pomegranates don't have enough natural sugar to ferment into alcohol on its own," Leo Open, Rimon's director of international marketing, told ISRAEL21c. "In the past, some people have added alcohol to pomegranate juice to create a form of liquor, but no one has successfully made wine. Our pomegranates are the only ones in the world that have enough sugar to do so naturally."
Rimon's orchards also benefit from ideal pomegranate-growing terrain, on a plain of basalt-rich soil high above sea level, just a short distance from the Lebanese border. Starting this year, the company began featuring a product line that includes a dry wine, a dessert wine, a heavier port wine with 19% alcoholic content, and a rosé wine.
The family also produces pomegranate vinegar and a line of cosmetics made with oils extracted from the fruit. The winery's main task for now is building sales, with a strong emphasis on overseas exports.
"Earlier this year, we started exporting to the Far East in Asia, and we are now in touch with people in US, Europe, and even South America. Getting a product known is a slow process, and there is plenty of bureaucracy, and a long supply chain of importers and distributors to contend with," Open says.
"We're in the very first stages, but things are moving. We expect to be available in US markets before the end of the year."
The progress occurred despite the Israel-Hizbullah war, which saw missiles landing near the family's orchard every day. Open says the company wasn't too concerned that an attack could destroy its orchard.
"We were committed to getting through this and moving forward," he says. "The situation was tough for all businesses in the North, but we continued to make contact with distributors."
Pomegranates are one of Israel's oldest indigenous fruit species, and were mentioned in the Bible's praises of the land 3,500 years ago. The fruit has a strong place in Jewish tradition, and many have the custom of eating pomegranates on Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year.
The fruit also features prominently in ancient Greek mythology, and are commonly eaten at Greek weddings and funerals. Nowadays, the sweet and tart pomegranate has become one of the fastest growing trends in the food industry.
According to product data service Productscan, some 215 new pomegranate-flavored foods and beverages were brought to market in the first seven months of 2006, compared to
just 19 for the whole of 2002. Pomegranate flavors are finding their way to everything from natural fruit juices to chewing gum and even sausages.
The rise in popularity stems partly from growing medical
interest in the crimson fruit's health benefits. Pomegranates are
naturally high in polyphenols, powerful antioxidants that are helpful in fighting a variety of health problems ranging from cardiovascular diseases and inflammation to certain types of cancer.
Studies have even begun suggesting that the fruit may even be helpful in alleviating menopausal and post-menopausal symptoms in women (pomegranate is the only plant known to contain estrogen) and erectile dysfunction in men. Couple that with their naturally-high levels of vitamins A, B, and C, calcium, and iron, and it's no wonder the fruit is being touted as a health panacea.
And, Open notes, the antioxidant content of pomegranates is three times higher than that of red grapes.
Rimon Wineries stands to grab the coattails of the surge in international wine sales. That market has been growing strongly since the early 1990s, and Israeli wines in particular have been undergoing a 'revolution' in recent years.
Both local consumption and exports of Israeli-made wines are growing at more than 10% a year, while the rise of quality boutique wineries around the country is helping to
increasing international recognition. Pomegranate wine, which is kosher for consumption by religious Jews with none of the rabbinic stringencies of grape wines, looks to fit nicely into this niche.
The process of making pomegranate wine is similar to that of most grape wines. The winery gathers the fruit's juices into large steel tanks to ferment for about a month, and then ages them in the same types of French oak barrels used by most wine producers before the product is bottled and sold. The only point where the pomegranates need special treatment is at the beginning of production, when a specially-designed machine opens the fruits and scoops out its edible seeds, crushing them for their juice.
"Like with all wines, the fermentation process is totally natural," Open says.
That being said, pomegranate wines clearly belong to a different class than the typical reds and whites, and Rimon recognizes that the market has to treat it as such, Open says.
"We consider it a fruit wine, definitely not a liqueur, and it has to be appreciated in this way."
He adds, however, that feedback has been very good from wine experts," especially in North America.
In Israel, Rimon wines cost about the same as most fine wines, at $15.50-24.50 per bottle. Distribution costs will certainly cause a price markup when they hit US shops, but Open declines to give a price range.
In any case, Rimon shouldn't have to worry about competition for many years. "We spent a long time developing this wine," Open says. "It will be very difficult for anyone else to try to imitate it."
Israel 21st Century
09.13.2006
Several years before the trend got started, a family in Israel's Upper Galilee region began working to create a tastier and healthier version of the ancient fruit, only to cross their way into yet another huge food market. Their product: the world's first pomegranate wine fit to be sold to international wine connoisseurs.
The story began ten years ago, when father and son Gaby and Avi Nachmias, the third generation of a farming family who were founding members of Moshav Kerem Ben Zimra in the Galilee, began experimenting to create a new strain of pomegranates. Understanding the fruit's excellent therapeutic qualities, their goal was to engineer a "super fruit" that would be richer in vitamins and antioxidants, sweeter, and deeper in its red color than most pomegranate types.
By 2003, after several years of growing their new strain successfully, the family tried making 2,000 bottles of pomegranate dessert wine from their crop. Everyone who tasted it loved it, the family says, and they built a production line the following year to produce dry and dessert wines in commercial quantities.
That batch was also well received, and the following year the family founded the Rimon Winery, named after the Hebrew word for pomegranate, and began producing en masse and for the local and international markets.
"In general, pomegranates don't have enough natural sugar to ferment into alcohol on its own," Leo Open, Rimon's director of international marketing, told ISRAEL21c. "In the past, some people have added alcohol to pomegranate juice to create a form of liquor, but no one has successfully made wine. Our pomegranates are the only ones in the world that have enough sugar to do so naturally."
Rimon's orchards also benefit from ideal pomegranate-growing terrain, on a plain of basalt-rich soil high above sea level, just a short distance from the Lebanese border. Starting this year, the company began featuring a product line that includes a dry wine, a dessert wine, a heavier port wine with 19% alcoholic content, and a rosé wine.
The family also produces pomegranate vinegar and a line of cosmetics made with oils extracted from the fruit. The winery's main task for now is building sales, with a strong emphasis on overseas exports.
"Earlier this year, we started exporting to the Far East in Asia, and we are now in touch with people in US, Europe, and even South America. Getting a product known is a slow process, and there is plenty of bureaucracy, and a long supply chain of importers and distributors to contend with," Open says.
"We're in the very first stages, but things are moving. We expect to be available in US markets before the end of the year."
The progress occurred despite the Israel-Hizbullah war, which saw missiles landing near the family's orchard every day. Open says the company wasn't too concerned that an attack could destroy its orchard.
"We were committed to getting through this and moving forward," he says. "The situation was tough for all businesses in the North, but we continued to make contact with distributors."
Pomegranates are one of Israel's oldest indigenous fruit species, and were mentioned in the Bible's praises of the land 3,500 years ago. The fruit has a strong place in Jewish tradition, and many have the custom of eating pomegranates on Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year.
The fruit also features prominently in ancient Greek mythology, and are commonly eaten at Greek weddings and funerals. Nowadays, the sweet and tart pomegranate has become one of the fastest growing trends in the food industry.
According to product data service Productscan, some 215 new pomegranate-flavored foods and beverages were brought to market in the first seven months of 2006, compared to
just 19 for the whole of 2002. Pomegranate flavors are finding their way to everything from natural fruit juices to chewing gum and even sausages.
The rise in popularity stems partly from growing medical
interest in the crimson fruit's health benefits. Pomegranates are
naturally high in polyphenols, powerful antioxidants that are helpful in fighting a variety of health problems ranging from cardiovascular diseases and inflammation to certain types of cancer.
Studies have even begun suggesting that the fruit may even be helpful in alleviating menopausal and post-menopausal symptoms in women (pomegranate is the only plant known to contain estrogen) and erectile dysfunction in men. Couple that with their naturally-high levels of vitamins A, B, and C, calcium, and iron, and it's no wonder the fruit is being touted as a health panacea.
And, Open notes, the antioxidant content of pomegranates is three times higher than that of red grapes.
Rimon Wineries stands to grab the coattails of the surge in international wine sales. That market has been growing strongly since the early 1990s, and Israeli wines in particular have been undergoing a 'revolution' in recent years.
Both local consumption and exports of Israeli-made wines are growing at more than 10% a year, while the rise of quality boutique wineries around the country is helping to
increasing international recognition. Pomegranate wine, which is kosher for consumption by religious Jews with none of the rabbinic stringencies of grape wines, looks to fit nicely into this niche.
The process of making pomegranate wine is similar to that of most grape wines. The winery gathers the fruit's juices into large steel tanks to ferment for about a month, and then ages them in the same types of French oak barrels used by most wine producers before the product is bottled and sold. The only point where the pomegranates need special treatment is at the beginning of production, when a specially-designed machine opens the fruits and scoops out its edible seeds, crushing them for their juice.
"Like with all wines, the fermentation process is totally natural," Open says.
That being said, pomegranate wines clearly belong to a different class than the typical reds and whites, and Rimon recognizes that the market has to treat it as such, Open says.
"We consider it a fruit wine, definitely not a liqueur, and it has to be appreciated in this way."
He adds, however, that feedback has been very good from wine experts," especially in North America.
In Israel, Rimon wines cost about the same as most fine wines, at $15.50-24.50 per bottle. Distribution costs will certainly cause a price markup when they hit US shops, but Open declines to give a price range.
In any case, Rimon shouldn't have to worry about competition for many years. "We spent a long time developing this wine," Open says. "It will be very difficult for anyone else to try to imitate it."
Israel 21st Century
09.13.2006
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Hizb'allah Closes Lebanon's Voices Website
A Lebanese Web site sharing stories from the nation's people during the war and criticisms of Hizb'allah will shut down in the next few days. Lebanon's Voices will close due to its organizers' fear of possible future threats, according to Seth Eisenberg who has been in contact with them.
Eisenberg was a key member in establishing Israel Voice's, a Web site sharing stories from citizens in the North to the rest of the world. When an article appeared about the site, he was contacted by an interested Lebanese man in the US.
"He wanted to know if we were affiliated with the government," Eisenberg said. "I told him we are simply sharing stories with no political agenda. They wanted to get a site up on their own."
The site has written, audio and video accounts from Lebanese in the areas affected by the war. The welcoming paragraph describing the site's purpose reads: "Held hostage in their own nation against their will. A state within a state dictating its terms on a sovereign government unwilling and unable to protect its own citizens."
One of the accounts tells how a man and his family had packed to flee Tyre once the war started. As they prepared to leave, local Hizb'allah members told them to unpack and stay. The man had a gun pointed at him and was ordered to return home. He wrote he wants Hizbullah to leave and if not, to fight in another city.
Hizbullah's television station Al-Manar ran a series of stories on the Web site calling its organizers "collaborators with Israel."
Eisenberg said in a conversation with one of the founders he was told the site hadn't had any problems until the series started running and they were told their criticism of Hizbullah and cooperation with Israeli media crossed a line.
"They felt compelled to close the site to avoid any threats to their families or themselves," he said.
The site currently states it is under construction and will have more information available shortly.
Jerusalem Post
09.12.2006
Eisenberg was a key member in establishing Israel Voice's, a Web site sharing stories from citizens in the North to the rest of the world. When an article appeared about the site, he was contacted by an interested Lebanese man in the US.
"He wanted to know if we were affiliated with the government," Eisenberg said. "I told him we are simply sharing stories with no political agenda. They wanted to get a site up on their own."
The site has written, audio and video accounts from Lebanese in the areas affected by the war. The welcoming paragraph describing the site's purpose reads: "Held hostage in their own nation against their will. A state within a state dictating its terms on a sovereign government unwilling and unable to protect its own citizens."
One of the accounts tells how a man and his family had packed to flee Tyre once the war started. As they prepared to leave, local Hizb'allah members told them to unpack and stay. The man had a gun pointed at him and was ordered to return home. He wrote he wants Hizbullah to leave and if not, to fight in another city.
Hizbullah's television station Al-Manar ran a series of stories on the Web site calling its organizers "collaborators with Israel."
Eisenberg said in a conversation with one of the founders he was told the site hadn't had any problems until the series started running and they were told their criticism of Hizbullah and cooperation with Israeli media crossed a line.
"They felt compelled to close the site to avoid any threats to their families or themselves," he said.
The site currently states it is under construction and will have more information available shortly.
Jerusalem Post
09.12.2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
A Year After Gaza Pullout, Israelis Question Benefit
A year after their landmark pullout from Gaza, Israelis feel less secure than they have in decades. Islamic Hamas has taken control of the evacuated areas and the Israeli government's main mission -- staging a similar withdrawal from the West Bank -- has been indefinitely shelved.
But the pullout has defused a demographic time bomb by prolonging a Jewish majority in lands Israel controls, and proved that Israel could dismantle settlements without disintegrating into civil war, analysts say.
The Jewish state has found itself embroiled in recent wars against both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon -- underscoring the nation's deep disappointment with what was supposed to be a new era of peacemaking following the Gaza pullout.
The withdrawal was unilateral, meaning it was done in only minimal coordination with the Palestinians, and that strategy, said political analyst Yossi Alpher, has been discredited by what quickly followed. In less than two weeks, Palestinians militants were firing homemade rockets at nearby Israeli villages, and Israel made good on vows to strike back hard against any attack from Gaza.
But the benefit of the withdrawal, Alpher said, was that "we began to detach ourselves, to pull away from the interlock that the settlements had created between the two populations, which jeopardizes Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state."
The last Israeli soldier left Gaza, locking a border gate behind him, on Sept. 12, 2005 -- after Israeli police and soldiers forcibly removed 9,000 settlers from Gaza and four small communities in the northern West Bank. It was the first time Israel had ever quit territory Palestinians claim for a future state, and the operation went ahead far faster, and more peacefully, than expected.
The international community lauded Ariel Sharon, the architect of the pullback, and hopes for political dividends flourished as Muslim states began talking of peace prospects.
But the dreams quickly evaporated with the Palestinian rocket fire and, in return, Israeli artillery fire into Gaza, and later air strikes.
Then came success in Palestinian elections by Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction. And, for the past two months, a military strike against Gaza militants set off by the capture of a still-missing soldier. All this has only deepened pessimism among Israelis.
"What succeeded, for our part, is the fact that the country was able to decide to vacate settlements, and the sky didn't fall," said Yariv Oppenheimer, the top official at the Israeli group Peace Now.
"A negative outcome is the public sentiment over the continued violence and Qassam rockets," Oppenheimer said. "Instead of achieving security and calm, we as a society still face a terror threat. That is definitely one of the negative consequences of the disengagement."
Settlers, who opposed the pullout from the outset, say the attacks from Gaza and Lebanon have vindicated their resistance.
"We knew that the kind of crisis that we have witnessed in the last weeks with Hezbollah would happen," said former Gaza settler Hanna Picard, referring to Israel's 34-day war against Lebanese guerrillas. "It's obvious that Arabs were heartened by the withdrawal...They got what they wanted without doing anything. Why would they have stopped?"
The swift and heavy attacks from Gaza have shown that "getting out of territories is not necessarily conducive to greater security," said Efraim Inbar, a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv.
In fact, the withdrawal of the estimated 20,000 soldiers and the 8,500 settlers they protected have, in fact, coincided with a sharp drop in Israel's Gaza-area casualties.
In the five years before the evacuation, 144 soldiers and civilians were killed and 782 were wounded in the Gaza area, according to military figures. Since the withdrawal, two Israeli soldiers were killed, one soldier was kidnapped and 19 people were injured in attacks from Gaza.
In the last eight months before the withdrawal, 15 Israelis were killed in militant attacks from Gaza, compared to two during the same period this year.
Still, the withdrawal inevitably gave the Palestinian rocket squads more room for maneuver, and their homemade missiles have been falling closer to Ashqelon, the main Israeli city near Gaza, and its power station. The sense of insecurity was compounded this summer by the action of Hezbollah militants in Lebanon -- firing an uninterrupted stream of more than 4,000 rockets into Israel and fighting the mightiest army in the Middle East to a virtual draw.
A key argument for the Gaza withdrawal was the fear that 3.9 million Palestinians and 1.4 million Israeli Arabs would soon outnumber 5.6 million Jews and threaten to destroy either Israel's Jewish character or its democracy.
Grant equal rights, the argument goes, and Israel will be democratic but not Jewish, because of the large Arab population; maintain Jewish control by withholding equal rights, and Israel won't be a democracy.
When Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ran for election, his key platform was pulling Israel out of large chunks of the West Bank -- unilaterally, if necessary.
But Hezbollah and Hamas have left Israel reluctant to make one-sided territorial concessions.
Asked where Israel's second planned pullback was heading, Olmert acknowledged this week it was going nowhere: "What I advocated several months ago has changed," he said.
Israel Insider
09.11.2006
But the pullout has defused a demographic time bomb by prolonging a Jewish majority in lands Israel controls, and proved that Israel could dismantle settlements without disintegrating into civil war, analysts say.
The Jewish state has found itself embroiled in recent wars against both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon -- underscoring the nation's deep disappointment with what was supposed to be a new era of peacemaking following the Gaza pullout.
The withdrawal was unilateral, meaning it was done in only minimal coordination with the Palestinians, and that strategy, said political analyst Yossi Alpher, has been discredited by what quickly followed. In less than two weeks, Palestinians militants were firing homemade rockets at nearby Israeli villages, and Israel made good on vows to strike back hard against any attack from Gaza.
But the benefit of the withdrawal, Alpher said, was that "we began to detach ourselves, to pull away from the interlock that the settlements had created between the two populations, which jeopardizes Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state."
The last Israeli soldier left Gaza, locking a border gate behind him, on Sept. 12, 2005 -- after Israeli police and soldiers forcibly removed 9,000 settlers from Gaza and four small communities in the northern West Bank. It was the first time Israel had ever quit territory Palestinians claim for a future state, and the operation went ahead far faster, and more peacefully, than expected.
The international community lauded Ariel Sharon, the architect of the pullback, and hopes for political dividends flourished as Muslim states began talking of peace prospects.
But the dreams quickly evaporated with the Palestinian rocket fire and, in return, Israeli artillery fire into Gaza, and later air strikes.
Then came success in Palestinian elections by Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction. And, for the past two months, a military strike against Gaza militants set off by the capture of a still-missing soldier. All this has only deepened pessimism among Israelis.
"What succeeded, for our part, is the fact that the country was able to decide to vacate settlements, and the sky didn't fall," said Yariv Oppenheimer, the top official at the Israeli group Peace Now.
"A negative outcome is the public sentiment over the continued violence and Qassam rockets," Oppenheimer said. "Instead of achieving security and calm, we as a society still face a terror threat. That is definitely one of the negative consequences of the disengagement."
Settlers, who opposed the pullout from the outset, say the attacks from Gaza and Lebanon have vindicated their resistance.
"We knew that the kind of crisis that we have witnessed in the last weeks with Hezbollah would happen," said former Gaza settler Hanna Picard, referring to Israel's 34-day war against Lebanese guerrillas. "It's obvious that Arabs were heartened by the withdrawal...They got what they wanted without doing anything. Why would they have stopped?"
The swift and heavy attacks from Gaza have shown that "getting out of territories is not necessarily conducive to greater security," said Efraim Inbar, a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv.
In fact, the withdrawal of the estimated 20,000 soldiers and the 8,500 settlers they protected have, in fact, coincided with a sharp drop in Israel's Gaza-area casualties.
In the five years before the evacuation, 144 soldiers and civilians were killed and 782 were wounded in the Gaza area, according to military figures. Since the withdrawal, two Israeli soldiers were killed, one soldier was kidnapped and 19 people were injured in attacks from Gaza.
In the last eight months before the withdrawal, 15 Israelis were killed in militant attacks from Gaza, compared to two during the same period this year.
Still, the withdrawal inevitably gave the Palestinian rocket squads more room for maneuver, and their homemade missiles have been falling closer to Ashqelon, the main Israeli city near Gaza, and its power station. The sense of insecurity was compounded this summer by the action of Hezbollah militants in Lebanon -- firing an uninterrupted stream of more than 4,000 rockets into Israel and fighting the mightiest army in the Middle East to a virtual draw.
A key argument for the Gaza withdrawal was the fear that 3.9 million Palestinians and 1.4 million Israeli Arabs would soon outnumber 5.6 million Jews and threaten to destroy either Israel's Jewish character or its democracy.
Grant equal rights, the argument goes, and Israel will be democratic but not Jewish, because of the large Arab population; maintain Jewish control by withholding equal rights, and Israel won't be a democracy.
When Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ran for election, his key platform was pulling Israel out of large chunks of the West Bank -- unilaterally, if necessary.
But Hezbollah and Hamas have left Israel reluctant to make one-sided territorial concessions.
Asked where Israel's second planned pullback was heading, Olmert acknowledged this week it was going nowhere: "What I advocated several months ago has changed," he said.
Israel Insider
09.11.2006
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Iran Resumed Weapons Airlift To Hizb'allah Friday
Iran’s first post-blockade arms flight departed Dubai Friday, Sept. 8, to test the ground at Beirut international airport for Israeli air force or UN reactions. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the forbidden goods were unloaded and sailed through the airport unhindered. Tehran therefore determined to send two further bulk consignments in the next 48 hours aboard commercial flights from the Persian Gulf.
Our sources report the arms crates listed were on the documents as “computer equipment. Handle with care.” They were offloaded onto trucks which drove in convoy to Hizb'allah headquarters in Baalbek.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, determined to end Israel’s air blockade on Lebanon, promised solemnly that UN monitors would control incoming passengers and goods at Beirut airport. But he failed to make the Siniora government follow through on this pledge. The Lebanese prime minister immediately barred the airport to UN inspections.
The five German air monitors agreed on were only allowed to establish a checkpoint for controlling arms smuggling at a distance of one kilometer from the international airport. DEBKAfile reports they are standing idle because the trucks carrying forbidden cargoes are able leave the airfield and bypass their checkpoint by alternative routes.
At the same time, DEBKAfile’s diplomatic sources report the Israeli government and the UN are colluding to present the expanded UNIFIL project as a big success and a satisfactory formula for enabling Israeli troops to quit Lebanon and fully implementing UN resolution 1701.
In actual fact, the UN deployment by land and sea does nothing to curtail Hizballah’s recovery and rearming. Its only achievement thus far is the acceleration of Israel’s disengagement from the Lebanon scene empty-handed.
Our military sources disclose that Iran is sending Hizb'allah fresh supplies of anti-tank weapons and for the first time a large quantity of anti-air missiles. The war materiel is coming in by land, sea and air.
The promised Italian, French and Greek rival presence, on the strength of which Israel lifted its air blockade, has been pushed by the Lebanese government out to sea and restricted to a 12-km radius from the coast. The European warships can keep an eye on big freighters approaching Lebanese ports, but cannot keep track of the small vessels reaching Lebanon ports from the northern Syrian ports of Tartus and Latakia.
That is where Iranian cargo vessels have been unloading large quantities of arms for Hizb'allah outside the European fleets’ limits in the last two weeks. Furthermore, Friday, as soon as Israel was persuaded to lift its sea blockade, three Lebanese and Syrian ships crammed with arms for Hizballah departed the northern Lebanese port of Tripoli and after a short voyage hugging the Lebanese coast put into the southern Lebanese port of Sidon, where willing Hizb'allah hands unloaded their cargo.
On land, the Lebanese-Syrian border is wide open. Three or four arms truck convoys cross into Lebanon every day.
Debka
09.10.2006
Our sources report the arms crates listed were on the documents as “computer equipment. Handle with care.” They were offloaded onto trucks which drove in convoy to Hizb'allah headquarters in Baalbek.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, determined to end Israel’s air blockade on Lebanon, promised solemnly that UN monitors would control incoming passengers and goods at Beirut airport. But he failed to make the Siniora government follow through on this pledge. The Lebanese prime minister immediately barred the airport to UN inspections.
The five German air monitors agreed on were only allowed to establish a checkpoint for controlling arms smuggling at a distance of one kilometer from the international airport. DEBKAfile reports they are standing idle because the trucks carrying forbidden cargoes are able leave the airfield and bypass their checkpoint by alternative routes.
At the same time, DEBKAfile’s diplomatic sources report the Israeli government and the UN are colluding to present the expanded UNIFIL project as a big success and a satisfactory formula for enabling Israeli troops to quit Lebanon and fully implementing UN resolution 1701.
In actual fact, the UN deployment by land and sea does nothing to curtail Hizballah’s recovery and rearming. Its only achievement thus far is the acceleration of Israel’s disengagement from the Lebanon scene empty-handed.
Our military sources disclose that Iran is sending Hizb'allah fresh supplies of anti-tank weapons and for the first time a large quantity of anti-air missiles. The war materiel is coming in by land, sea and air.
The promised Italian, French and Greek rival presence, on the strength of which Israel lifted its air blockade, has been pushed by the Lebanese government out to sea and restricted to a 12-km radius from the coast. The European warships can keep an eye on big freighters approaching Lebanese ports, but cannot keep track of the small vessels reaching Lebanon ports from the northern Syrian ports of Tartus and Latakia.
That is where Iranian cargo vessels have been unloading large quantities of arms for Hizb'allah outside the European fleets’ limits in the last two weeks. Furthermore, Friday, as soon as Israel was persuaded to lift its sea blockade, three Lebanese and Syrian ships crammed with arms for Hizballah departed the northern Lebanese port of Tripoli and after a short voyage hugging the Lebanese coast put into the southern Lebanese port of Sidon, where willing Hizb'allah hands unloaded their cargo.
On land, the Lebanese-Syrian border is wide open. Three or four arms truck convoys cross into Lebanon every day.
Debka
09.10.2006
Saturday, September 09, 2006
King Kofi the Worst
Even though the UN Security Council passed a binding resolution ordering Iran to give up its nuclear program, Kofi Annan says the best course of action is to do nothing. Has Kofi found a new income source for his retirement to replace his Oil for Food slush fund?
In an interview published Tuesday, Kofi says the world should NOT isolate Iran by imposing sanctions. How is that again? The UN Security Council passed a binding resolution that gave Iran's Ahmadinejad until August 31st to give up its nuclear enrichment program or face sanctions. But after visiting Iran, Kofi told the Madrid daily El Pais, "The international community should not isolate Iran.”
I'm confused. What does “international sanctions” actually mean? If they mean a visit from the UN Secretary General, followed by his public endorsement, then every dictator in the world should stand in line to have the Security Council pass a resolution against them.
Annan told the paper that confrontation with the Security Council "will not be in Iran's favor or that of the region." Did somebody elect Kofi Annan King of the World? What is the purpose of the Security Council, if Annan can simply overrule it unilaterally? Iran insists its nuclear work is peaceful, intended only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that generate electricity.
That is so lame as to be laughable. Iran is awash in oil. It exports far more oil than it can use itself. Why would an energy independent nation like Iran require nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? It makes as much sense as buying a million dollar Formula One race car and explaining it by saying one needs it to take the kids to school. In short, it makes no sense at all.
How does Kofi Annan see it? In his interview following his meeting with Ahmadinejad, Kofi said, “The world should count on Iran, not isolate it.” Count on it for what? The only promise that Iran has made that bears even a hint of sincerity its its promise to wipe Israel from the map of the Middle East.
Kofi Annan's interference in the multiple Middle East crises is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.
A good place to start is with his anti-Israeli perspective. Unlike most legitimate international figures, Kofi Annan doesn't even pretend to disguise his hatred for the Jewish state.
Kofi paid lip service to Israel by gently reminding Ahmadinejad, (according to published news reports) "I think the tragedy of the Holocaust is an undeniable historical fact, and we should really accept that fact and teach people what happened in World War II and ensure it is never repeated.”
The next day, while Annan was still in Tehran, Iran said it would host a conference to examine what it called exaggerations about the Holocaust. Did Kofi storm out in protest? No. Did he even MENTION it again? No.
When asked why Iran should not face sanctions, Kofi muttered something about Iran's pledge to rebuild Lebanon as one good reason. He said that instead that Ahmadinejad "reaffirmed his country's support for the implementation of resolution 1701.
OF COURSE he did. Resolution 1701 prevented Israel from destroying Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a puppet of the Iranian government. Iran was BEHIND the war that caused the destruction that now needs rebuilding. Kofi Annan is aware of this. It is not possible that he is not.
Hezbollah was created by Iran in 1983. All of the rockets that were fired into Israel came from Iran. Iran's Revolutionary Guard has openly maintained a military base in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley for twenty-three years.
Kofi Annan wasn't elected king of the world. He simply ascended to the throne on his own. And with the entire Islamic world backing him, he dares anyone to attempt to dethrone him. If there were any hope that America might rise up against its new king, it was dashed by Secretary of State Rice when she endorsed the completely one-sided Resolution 1701.
King Kofi the Worst has spoken. Let all his subjects bow in submission. All hail the King! By Hal Lindsey - 9.09.2006
In an interview published Tuesday, Kofi says the world should NOT isolate Iran by imposing sanctions. How is that again? The UN Security Council passed a binding resolution that gave Iran's Ahmadinejad until August 31st to give up its nuclear enrichment program or face sanctions. But after visiting Iran, Kofi told the Madrid daily El Pais, "The international community should not isolate Iran.”
I'm confused. What does “international sanctions” actually mean? If they mean a visit from the UN Secretary General, followed by his public endorsement, then every dictator in the world should stand in line to have the Security Council pass a resolution against them.
Annan told the paper that confrontation with the Security Council "will not be in Iran's favor or that of the region." Did somebody elect Kofi Annan King of the World? What is the purpose of the Security Council, if Annan can simply overrule it unilaterally? Iran insists its nuclear work is peaceful, intended only to produce fuel for nuclear reactors that generate electricity.
That is so lame as to be laughable. Iran is awash in oil. It exports far more oil than it can use itself. Why would an energy independent nation like Iran require nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? It makes as much sense as buying a million dollar Formula One race car and explaining it by saying one needs it to take the kids to school. In short, it makes no sense at all.
How does Kofi Annan see it? In his interview following his meeting with Ahmadinejad, Kofi said, “The world should count on Iran, not isolate it.” Count on it for what? The only promise that Iran has made that bears even a hint of sincerity its its promise to wipe Israel from the map of the Middle East.
Kofi Annan's interference in the multiple Middle East crises is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.
A good place to start is with his anti-Israeli perspective. Unlike most legitimate international figures, Kofi Annan doesn't even pretend to disguise his hatred for the Jewish state.
Kofi paid lip service to Israel by gently reminding Ahmadinejad, (according to published news reports) "I think the tragedy of the Holocaust is an undeniable historical fact, and we should really accept that fact and teach people what happened in World War II and ensure it is never repeated.”
The next day, while Annan was still in Tehran, Iran said it would host a conference to examine what it called exaggerations about the Holocaust. Did Kofi storm out in protest? No. Did he even MENTION it again? No.
When asked why Iran should not face sanctions, Kofi muttered something about Iran's pledge to rebuild Lebanon as one good reason. He said that instead that Ahmadinejad "reaffirmed his country's support for the implementation of resolution 1701.
OF COURSE he did. Resolution 1701 prevented Israel from destroying Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a puppet of the Iranian government. Iran was BEHIND the war that caused the destruction that now needs rebuilding. Kofi Annan is aware of this. It is not possible that he is not.
Hezbollah was created by Iran in 1983. All of the rockets that were fired into Israel came from Iran. Iran's Revolutionary Guard has openly maintained a military base in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley for twenty-three years.
Kofi Annan wasn't elected king of the world. He simply ascended to the throne on his own. And with the entire Islamic world backing him, he dares anyone to attempt to dethrone him. If there were any hope that America might rise up against its new king, it was dashed by Secretary of State Rice when she endorsed the completely one-sided Resolution 1701.
King Kofi the Worst has spoken. Let all his subjects bow in submission. All hail the King! By Hal Lindsey - 9.09.2006
Friday, September 08, 2006
Iran's Leader Declares Intent To Speak At U.N.
Diplomats at the United Nations were sent into disarray yesterday when President Ahmadinejad of Iran declared that he intended to attend the General Assembly of the world body on September 19 and to debate his country's nuclear program with President Bush, who is due to address the Assembly that day.
However, it was far from clear whether the Iranian president was serious in his suggestion or whether he was merely tweaking the nose of his American opponents. His intention to visit New York was reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency, which quoted the Presidential Office Media Department reporting him as saying, "We are ready for a debate with the Americans at the U.N. General Assembly" and that "the American side can even take part in the debate side by side with his advisors, and as a full team, if they wish so." Mr. Ahmadinejad last visited the United Nations last year.
The speculation, however, was enough to prompt sharp questions from reporters to the press spokesman of Secretary-General Annan about whether a precedent existed for America denying a visa to a president visiting the General Assembly. The spokesman replied that he knew of no such precedent.
The prospect of Mr. Ahmadinejad striding the world stage and voicing his well-known anti-Semitic views and his belief that Israel should be destroyed in the General Assembly was enough to cause a member of the Israeli parliament, M.K. Dan Naveh, to ask the Israeli government to demand that Mr. Ahmadinejad be prevented from attending the Assembly.
New York Sun
09.08.2006
However, it was far from clear whether the Iranian president was serious in his suggestion or whether he was merely tweaking the nose of his American opponents. His intention to visit New York was reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency, which quoted the Presidential Office Media Department reporting him as saying, "We are ready for a debate with the Americans at the U.N. General Assembly" and that "the American side can even take part in the debate side by side with his advisors, and as a full team, if they wish so." Mr. Ahmadinejad last visited the United Nations last year.
The speculation, however, was enough to prompt sharp questions from reporters to the press spokesman of Secretary-General Annan about whether a precedent existed for America denying a visa to a president visiting the General Assembly. The spokesman replied that he knew of no such precedent.
The prospect of Mr. Ahmadinejad striding the world stage and voicing his well-known anti-Semitic views and his belief that Israel should be destroyed in the General Assembly was enough to cause a member of the Israeli parliament, M.K. Dan Naveh, to ask the Israeli government to demand that Mr. Ahmadinejad be prevented from attending the Assembly.
New York Sun
09.08.2006
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Anti-Semitic Hate Wave Across Britain & Australia
The month of July was one of the worst, in terms of anti-Semitism, in both England and Australia. In Canada, as well, Jewish leaders are concerned.
TheAge.com in Australia reports that anti-Semitism is on the rise across university campuses in the country. Grahame Leonard, the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, says July had the most anti-Semitic incidents - no fewer than 141 - since records began in 1945. Never before had there been more than some 90. The July attacks included phone calls, hate e-mails and graffiti, as well as violent incidents - with the big jump being on campuses in Victoria.
Recent incidents include:
* An enraged Monash University lecturer gushed expletives upon an Australasian Union of Jewish Students representative for his pro-Israel stance.
* A Young Liberal member in Monash staffing an Israel stall was grabbed by the throat and threatened, and the table was kicked over.
* Jewish students were pushed to the ground and spat upon in Sydney.
* Israel's Ambassador to Australia recently visited Melbourne University, but Socialist Alternative members disrupted the meeting and were asked to leave by, of all people, the Lebanese Students' society.
* Also at Melbourne University, security staff intervened to keep apart left-wing students and another group of students waving Israeli flags.
"There's a real feeling of threat," Deon Kamien, Victorian president of the Union of Jewish Students, was quoted as saying. "It's not something I can put in words. A lot of students who would feel very comfortable wearing a kippah or T-shirt with Hebrew words on it now feel they are being targeted as Jews - not supporters of Israel, but Jews."
In Britain, as well, The Times of London reports that attacks on Jews have soared, and that even the national government has taken notice. On Thursday, an all-party parliamentary inquiry will state that anti-Semitic violence has become endemic in Britain, both on the streets and university campuses. The report will call for urgent action from the Government, the police and educational establishments.
The Times attributes the hate wave to the war in Lebanon. "Synagogues have been daubed with graffiti," the paper writes, "Jewish leaders have had hate-mail, and ordinary people have been subjected to insults and vandalism."
Mark Gardner, of the Community Security Trust, said, "In July, when the conflict in Lebanon began, we received reports of 92 incidents, which was the third-worst month since records began in 1984." In 2000, the monthly average was between 10 and 30 incidents. He said the incidents in July were "more dispersed than usual" and "were very widespread across the country."
There have been several attacks in various Jewish neighborhoods in London of late. In one incident last month, a Jewish restaurant in Golders Green was targeted by two young men who threw chairs, punched workers and threatened to kill the owner, Ruth Cohen, with a knife. In Hampstead Garden Suburb, swastikas and the words "Allah" and "Kill all Jews" were daubed on the house and car of a local Jewish doctor.
More recently, a 12-year-old Jewish girl was stomped upon and brutally kicked on a public bus in London. Accosted and asked if she was Jewish, she replied, "I'm English." Unimpressed, four girls, accompanied by three boys, then pushed her to the floor, stomped on her face and repeatedly kicked her.
In Canada, as well, fear of increased anti-Semitism are on the rise. The Toldos Yakov Yosef-Skver Orthodox Boys School in Montreal was targeted with a Molotov cocktail this past Sabbath morning, causing 150,000 Canadian dollars' worth of damage. Local Jewish leaders said they are concerned that further violence will be directed at the community, in light of the recent war in Lebanon.
Rabbi Reuben Poupko, a member of the city's Jewish community security council, told The Hamilton Spectator, "It's a fair question to wonder whether or not the [recent] gathering of 15,000 Quebecers under the flag of Hizbullah -unfortunately further legitimized by the presence of politicians - whether that creates an atmosphere where fanatics draw the conclusion that violence against Jews is somehow acceptable."
On September 1, a Hassidic man was removed from an Air Canada Jazz flight from Montreal to New York when he began to pray. CBC Montreal reported that the plane was heading toward the runway for takeoff when he began to pray. Swaying back and forth, he attracted the attention of at least one flight attendant, who told him that his praying was making other passengers nervous. A witness later said, "The attendant actually recognized out loud that he wasn't a Muslim and that she was sorry for the situation, but they had to ask him to leave." Air Canada Jazz later said it received more than one complaint about the man's behavior, and that "the crew had to act in the interest of the majority of passengers."
Jewish leaders in Montreal criticized the move as insensitive, saying the flight attendants should have explained to the other passengers that the man was simply praying and doing no harm. B'nai Brith Canada offered to help give Air Canada crews sensitivity training, CBC reported.
Arutz Sheva
09.07.2006
TheAge.com in Australia reports that anti-Semitism is on the rise across university campuses in the country. Grahame Leonard, the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, says July had the most anti-Semitic incidents - no fewer than 141 - since records began in 1945. Never before had there been more than some 90. The July attacks included phone calls, hate e-mails and graffiti, as well as violent incidents - with the big jump being on campuses in Victoria.
Recent incidents include:
* An enraged Monash University lecturer gushed expletives upon an Australasian Union of Jewish Students representative for his pro-Israel stance.
* A Young Liberal member in Monash staffing an Israel stall was grabbed by the throat and threatened, and the table was kicked over.
* Jewish students were pushed to the ground and spat upon in Sydney.
* Israel's Ambassador to Australia recently visited Melbourne University, but Socialist Alternative members disrupted the meeting and were asked to leave by, of all people, the Lebanese Students' society.
* Also at Melbourne University, security staff intervened to keep apart left-wing students and another group of students waving Israeli flags.
"There's a real feeling of threat," Deon Kamien, Victorian president of the Union of Jewish Students, was quoted as saying. "It's not something I can put in words. A lot of students who would feel very comfortable wearing a kippah or T-shirt with Hebrew words on it now feel they are being targeted as Jews - not supporters of Israel, but Jews."
In Britain, as well, The Times of London reports that attacks on Jews have soared, and that even the national government has taken notice. On Thursday, an all-party parliamentary inquiry will state that anti-Semitic violence has become endemic in Britain, both on the streets and university campuses. The report will call for urgent action from the Government, the police and educational establishments.
The Times attributes the hate wave to the war in Lebanon. "Synagogues have been daubed with graffiti," the paper writes, "Jewish leaders have had hate-mail, and ordinary people have been subjected to insults and vandalism."
Mark Gardner, of the Community Security Trust, said, "In July, when the conflict in Lebanon began, we received reports of 92 incidents, which was the third-worst month since records began in 1984." In 2000, the monthly average was between 10 and 30 incidents. He said the incidents in July were "more dispersed than usual" and "were very widespread across the country."
There have been several attacks in various Jewish neighborhoods in London of late. In one incident last month, a Jewish restaurant in Golders Green was targeted by two young men who threw chairs, punched workers and threatened to kill the owner, Ruth Cohen, with a knife. In Hampstead Garden Suburb, swastikas and the words "Allah" and "Kill all Jews" were daubed on the house and car of a local Jewish doctor.
More recently, a 12-year-old Jewish girl was stomped upon and brutally kicked on a public bus in London. Accosted and asked if she was Jewish, she replied, "I'm English." Unimpressed, four girls, accompanied by three boys, then pushed her to the floor, stomped on her face and repeatedly kicked her.
In Canada, as well, fear of increased anti-Semitism are on the rise. The Toldos Yakov Yosef-Skver Orthodox Boys School in Montreal was targeted with a Molotov cocktail this past Sabbath morning, causing 150,000 Canadian dollars' worth of damage. Local Jewish leaders said they are concerned that further violence will be directed at the community, in light of the recent war in Lebanon.
Rabbi Reuben Poupko, a member of the city's Jewish community security council, told The Hamilton Spectator, "It's a fair question to wonder whether or not the [recent] gathering of 15,000 Quebecers under the flag of Hizbullah -unfortunately further legitimized by the presence of politicians - whether that creates an atmosphere where fanatics draw the conclusion that violence against Jews is somehow acceptable."
On September 1, a Hassidic man was removed from an Air Canada Jazz flight from Montreal to New York when he began to pray. CBC Montreal reported that the plane was heading toward the runway for takeoff when he began to pray. Swaying back and forth, he attracted the attention of at least one flight attendant, who told him that his praying was making other passengers nervous. A witness later said, "The attendant actually recognized out loud that he wasn't a Muslim and that she was sorry for the situation, but they had to ask him to leave." Air Canada Jazz later said it received more than one complaint about the man's behavior, and that "the crew had to act in the interest of the majority of passengers."
Jewish leaders in Montreal criticized the move as insensitive, saying the flight attendants should have explained to the other passengers that the man was simply praying and doing no harm. B'nai Brith Canada offered to help give Air Canada crews sensitivity training, CBC reported.
Arutz Sheva
09.07.2006
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
God of Jacob, God of Israel - Part Two
Last month we noted that the only true God, the Creator of the universe and all things therein-the God of the Bible-has linked His name with and tied His integrity to Israel. Yet many evangelicals, including well-known leaders, insist that Israel is of no significance to God any longer, having been cut off for rejecting Christ and now having been replaced by the church.
There are even groups (not only among white supremacists or cults such as Herbert W. Armstrong's die-hard followers today) who persist in the ridiculous theory that the "Ten Lost Tribes" of Israel migrated to the British Isles and that therefore all those of British descent are the true Jews today. Some go so far as to say that all of the "white races" are the true Jews-as though not only England but all of Europe and Russia was uninhabited wasteland until these remnants of the "Ten Lost Tribes" settled there.
We have proved that the ten tribes taken to Assyria (2 Ki 17:6-23) were not "lost" but make up most of those called Jews today (see 2 Chr 34,35; Q&A Nov '92, May '96). Far from Israel being cut off, hundreds of prophecies foretell Israel's importance in world affairs in the last days, the attack of all the world against her at Armageddon, her rescue by the Messiah, and her glorious final restoration in the Millennial Kingdom. Nor is there ever a reference to Israel anywhere in Scripture that could possibly be interpreted as meaning the British Isles or the British people, much less the "white races!"
Most of the more than 2,000 references to Israel or Israelites in the Bible and the thousands of prophecies (already fulfilled or yet to be fulfilled) pertain to the historical land of Israel in the Middle East, whose boundaries are clearly described (Gn 15:18-21), or to the people who lived there for nearly 2,300 years, were cast out under God's judgment, and will be brought back by God so that not one ethnic Jew will be left outside Israel (Ezk 39:27-29).
We know who the Jews are today by DNA testing. The Israeli Immigrant Liaison Bureau requires DNA tests where there is some question as to the authenticity of claimed Jewish ancestry. Such tests would draw a complete blank if applied to the average person of British descent, and prove British-Israelism to be utter folly. No other ethnic group without its own land and scattered around the world for more than 2,000 years has or could maintain its DNA identity as have the Jews.
It is not important to know who is an American, German, Arab, Greek, et al. In contrast, it is vital to know who is a Jew. Why? About 70 percent of the pages of Scripture are taken up in recounting Israel's history and prophesying her future: her continued and unrepentant rebellion against God, His reluctant and long-delayed but finally severe discipline (the worst of which is yet to come), the Jews' worldwide dispersion, their re-gathering from all over the world back into their own land in the Last Days, hundreds of prophecies concerning Israel's present key role in world affairs, of her greatest trial just ahead (Jer 30:7) when two-thirds of all Jews on earth will be killed (Zec 13:8,9), and of her final restoration under the Messiah (Zec 12-14). Unquestionably, Israel is the major subject of God's Holy Word. To be wrong about Israel is therefore to be wrong on almost everything in the Bible.
The One whom the Bible 203 times calls "the God of Israel" has sworn by an everlasting covenant that Israel (three times called the "apple" of His eye-Dt 32:10; Lam 3:18; Zec 2:8) will never cease to exist as a nation: "Therefore fear thou not...O Israel...though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I...will not leave thee altogether unpunished" (Jer 30:10,11). "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the city [Jerusalem] shall be built...it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever" (Jer 31:38-40). The language could not be clearer here and throughout God's Holy Word.
These and hundreds of other promises from God to Israel recorded in Scripture are a sharp rebuke to those such as Hank Hanegraaff, D. James Kennedy, R.C. Sproul, et al., who teach that the church has replaced Israel. "Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day...moon...and...stars by night...if those ordinances depart from before me...then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me or ever..." (Jer:31:35,36);
"While the earth remaineth...day and night shall not cease" (Gn 8:22); "Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger...and I will bring them again unto this place [Israel], and I will cause them to dwell safely: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God...so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them" (Jer 32:37-42).
Israel has failed to fulfill her calling to be an example to the world of holiness in dedication to God (Lv 20:20-24, 26; Dt 6:4,5; 7:6, etc.). While there are many believing Israelis, some even within the military, Israel today as a whole remains as wicked and godless as America and the rest of the nations. God's "chosen people," living once again in the Promised Land in fulfillment of many specific biblical prophecies, refuse to honor in their daily lives the God of their fathers who has brought them there. Even in the present distress related to Gaza and Lebanon, the vast majority of Israelis trust in their own arms and determination instead of trusting the only One who can protect them and has promised to do so.
The triumph of tiny Israel in every war and against impossible odds is admitted by many in the IDF as defying ordinary explanation. Military officers giving pep talks to new recruits often tell of amazing events they have witnessed in past wars, but rarely is God's intervention hinted at, even when no other explanation would be possible. Israel as a whole has not yet been humbled to the point of acknowledging what the Psalmist prophesied: "If it had not been the Lord who was on our side, now may Israel say...when men rose up against us: then they had swallowed us up quick.... Blessed be the Lord, who hath not given us as a prey to their teeth....Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth" (Ps 124:1,2,6,8). At Armageddon, however, this prophecy will become a reality to all who survive.
In contrast, Britain, along with America, will be among those "all nations" that God will gather and destroy at Armageddon (Jer 30:11; Jl 3:2; Zec 12:9, 14:2, etc.) for their mistreatment of Israel, and especially for dividing His land. In fact, Britain played a key role in robbing Israel of its land and giving most of it to the Arabs for oil. Both Britain and America have betrayed Israel many times, and the U.S. State Department and British Foreign Service have opposed Israel from the beginning, as we document in Judgment Day. Those facts alone prove the lie of British Israelism.
So why would God faithfully help faithless Israel? He makes it clear to Israel from the very beginning, "...because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out...from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt..." (Dt 7:8). As we noted last month, referring to her ultimate restoration and blessing (which He has promised through the Messiah), the God of Israel declares:
"Thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen...be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel...I the Lord have spoken it, and I will do it" (Ezk 36:22,32,36, etc.). In spite of Israel's present disregard of Him, "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Ex 3:15,16 and ten other places in the Bible) is fulfilling His promises to those patriarchs through their descendants-and the day is coming when all Israel who survive Armageddon will believe.
Most Jews worldwide await the Messiah's first coming, unaware that He already came and was rejected and crucified. Jesus warned the Jews, "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (Jn 5:43). Tragically, it will take Armageddon for the surviving Jews to repent, turn to the God of Israel, and embrace the One who comes in His Father's name. In that greatest distress ever faced by Israel, God declares that the one-third whom He will bring alive "through the fire...refine[d] as silver is refined...as gold is tried [shall] call on my name, and I will hear them" (Zec 13:8,9).
When they see with their own eyes the Messiah come to rescue them, and discover to their shame who He is, "...they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him...a great mourning in Jerusalem..." (Zec 12:10-14). Why such extreme sorrow at being rescued by the Messiah? The God of Israel declares: "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced!" (12:10)
At Armageddon, when Yahweh comes to the rescue, He reveals Himself as the One whom Israel has pierced! Pierced?! When and how could Israel pierce the One who told Moses, "there shall no man see me, and live" (Ex 33:20)? God, "a Spirit" (Jn 4:24), cannot be pierced-but the Messiah coming as a man could be. Jesus, who fulfilled every Messianic prophecy, was pierced on the cross. Why was He crucified? For claiming to be God (Jn 10:30-33)!
Yahweh is speaking in the first person, yet two persons seem to be involved: "...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him...." This him seems to be another person-and yet He must have been pierced because they mourn for Him-so he must also be Yahweh! Is Yahweh two persons? In fact, He declares Himself to be three in one! Consider this: "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I..." (Is 48:16). Surely the one speaking must be God because He has been speaking from the very beginning. Yet He adds, "The Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me" (Is 48:16). Here we encounter God, the Lord God, and the Spirit of God.
Could this be what the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle John to write, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"? Surely this One called the "Word," who already existed at the beginning and is God, must be the same God to whom Isaiah refers who speaks from the beginning.
But the similarities in these two verses don't end there. Both raise almost identical questions. In Isaiah, how can God be sent by God; and in John, how can God be with God? There is only one solution: the Messiah must be God. When Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (Jn 10:30), the Jews accused Him of blasphemy. When they picked up stones, Jesus asked why they wanted to kill Him. Their instant reply was, "for blasphemy...thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (vv. 31-33). For the Messiah to declare His deity was the ultimate heresy, worthy of death? No!
According to the Hebrew prophets, the Messiah had to be God and, at the same time, the Son of God. If God has a Son, who Himself is God and one with His Father, that would dissolve the rabbis' objections. We encounter God's Son a number of times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Speaking prophetically, the Psalmist presents God as declaring of one who is to come, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee" (Ps 2:7).
Jehovah's Witnesses and others who deny Christ's deity take this as referring to Christ's birth on earth as the beginning of His existence. That cannot be the case, however, because God speaks of His Son as already existing and warns a God-defying world, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry....Blessed are all they that put their trust in him" (v. 12).
That the Son of God already existed before His incarnation is clear from a number of other statements by the Hebrew prophets. Solomon quotes the prophet Agur asking this question: "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment?"
The obvious answer is "God." Then he asks, "what is his son's name..." (Prv 30:4), proving that the Son of God already existed at that time. Shadrack, Meshach, and Abednego were cast into a huge furnace so hot that the flames killed those who threw them into it. Nebuchadnezzar, astonished to see these three Hebrews walking alive in the flames, observes another with them and in wonder exclaims, "the fourth is like the Son of God" (Dn 3:25)!
While promising salvation through the coming Messiah, Yahweh repeatedly declared that He himself was the only Savior: "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior" (Is 43:11); "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Is 45:22). And yet this salvation goes to "the ends of the earth" by another who must Himself be God and the Messiah: "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" (Is 49:6). Of whom does God speak?
Unquestionably, the Hebrew prophets all agree that God exists as a tri-unity: three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but one God-and that in the Messiah He becomes man without ceasing to be God. Christ's claims that He was God and man, and one with His Father, agree with the prophets. Isaiah declared: "For unto us a child is born..." (Is 9:6). This refers to His humanity, derived, as foretold, from His virgin mother, Mary: the "seed" of the woman (Gn 3:15). But Isaiah adds, "unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder....Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David..." (9:6,7). Surely the Son given must be the already-existing Son of God-and He must be the Messiah, because He will rule on David's throne.
But Isaiah declares that the Messiah is God! His name is "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God." And He is also "The everlasting Father." Here is the same mystery: God is both Father and Son, and He alone is the Messiah! Most Jews still refuse to recognize this identity of the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." This is one place where they agree with their bitterest enemies, the Muslims. The Qur'an condemns to hell anyone who believes in the Trinity (Sur 5:72-74)!
So the fact that Yahweh has come as a man who was pierced to the death, resurrected, and has returned to rescue Israel at Armageddon is in perfect agreement with the Hebrew prophets. When Israel sees her God in this form coming to her rescue, it will be painfully clear that He has been to earth before, where He was rejected and pierced to the death. So Jesus was only echoing the prophets when He said to the inhabitants of Jerusalem as He was being "brought as a lamb to the slaughter" (Is 53:7) on the way to the Cross: "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt 23:39). At last they will understand "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"-and "all Israel shall be saved" (Rom 11:26)!
By Dave Hunt - The Berean Call - September 2006
There are even groups (not only among white supremacists or cults such as Herbert W. Armstrong's die-hard followers today) who persist in the ridiculous theory that the "Ten Lost Tribes" of Israel migrated to the British Isles and that therefore all those of British descent are the true Jews today. Some go so far as to say that all of the "white races" are the true Jews-as though not only England but all of Europe and Russia was uninhabited wasteland until these remnants of the "Ten Lost Tribes" settled there.
We have proved that the ten tribes taken to Assyria (2 Ki 17:6-23) were not "lost" but make up most of those called Jews today (see 2 Chr 34,35; Q&A Nov '92, May '96). Far from Israel being cut off, hundreds of prophecies foretell Israel's importance in world affairs in the last days, the attack of all the world against her at Armageddon, her rescue by the Messiah, and her glorious final restoration in the Millennial Kingdom. Nor is there ever a reference to Israel anywhere in Scripture that could possibly be interpreted as meaning the British Isles or the British people, much less the "white races!"
Most of the more than 2,000 references to Israel or Israelites in the Bible and the thousands of prophecies (already fulfilled or yet to be fulfilled) pertain to the historical land of Israel in the Middle East, whose boundaries are clearly described (Gn 15:18-21), or to the people who lived there for nearly 2,300 years, were cast out under God's judgment, and will be brought back by God so that not one ethnic Jew will be left outside Israel (Ezk 39:27-29).
We know who the Jews are today by DNA testing. The Israeli Immigrant Liaison Bureau requires DNA tests where there is some question as to the authenticity of claimed Jewish ancestry. Such tests would draw a complete blank if applied to the average person of British descent, and prove British-Israelism to be utter folly. No other ethnic group without its own land and scattered around the world for more than 2,000 years has or could maintain its DNA identity as have the Jews.
It is not important to know who is an American, German, Arab, Greek, et al. In contrast, it is vital to know who is a Jew. Why? About 70 percent of the pages of Scripture are taken up in recounting Israel's history and prophesying her future: her continued and unrepentant rebellion against God, His reluctant and long-delayed but finally severe discipline (the worst of which is yet to come), the Jews' worldwide dispersion, their re-gathering from all over the world back into their own land in the Last Days, hundreds of prophecies concerning Israel's present key role in world affairs, of her greatest trial just ahead (Jer 30:7) when two-thirds of all Jews on earth will be killed (Zec 13:8,9), and of her final restoration under the Messiah (Zec 12-14). Unquestionably, Israel is the major subject of God's Holy Word. To be wrong about Israel is therefore to be wrong on almost everything in the Bible.
The One whom the Bible 203 times calls "the God of Israel" has sworn by an everlasting covenant that Israel (three times called the "apple" of His eye-Dt 32:10; Lam 3:18; Zec 2:8) will never cease to exist as a nation: "Therefore fear thou not...O Israel...though I make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee, yet will I not make a full end of thee: but I...will not leave thee altogether unpunished" (Jer 30:10,11). "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the city [Jerusalem] shall be built...it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever" (Jer 31:38-40). The language could not be clearer here and throughout God's Holy Word.
These and hundreds of other promises from God to Israel recorded in Scripture are a sharp rebuke to those such as Hank Hanegraaff, D. James Kennedy, R.C. Sproul, et al., who teach that the church has replaced Israel. "Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day...moon...and...stars by night...if those ordinances depart from before me...then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me or ever..." (Jer:31:35,36);
"While the earth remaineth...day and night shall not cease" (Gn 8:22); "Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger...and I will bring them again unto this place [Israel], and I will cause them to dwell safely: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God...so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them" (Jer 32:37-42).
Israel has failed to fulfill her calling to be an example to the world of holiness in dedication to God (Lv 20:20-24, 26; Dt 6:4,5; 7:6, etc.). While there are many believing Israelis, some even within the military, Israel today as a whole remains as wicked and godless as America and the rest of the nations. God's "chosen people," living once again in the Promised Land in fulfillment of many specific biblical prophecies, refuse to honor in their daily lives the God of their fathers who has brought them there. Even in the present distress related to Gaza and Lebanon, the vast majority of Israelis trust in their own arms and determination instead of trusting the only One who can protect them and has promised to do so.
The triumph of tiny Israel in every war and against impossible odds is admitted by many in the IDF as defying ordinary explanation. Military officers giving pep talks to new recruits often tell of amazing events they have witnessed in past wars, but rarely is God's intervention hinted at, even when no other explanation would be possible. Israel as a whole has not yet been humbled to the point of acknowledging what the Psalmist prophesied: "If it had not been the Lord who was on our side, now may Israel say...when men rose up against us: then they had swallowed us up quick.... Blessed be the Lord, who hath not given us as a prey to their teeth....Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth" (Ps 124:1,2,6,8). At Armageddon, however, this prophecy will become a reality to all who survive.
In contrast, Britain, along with America, will be among those "all nations" that God will gather and destroy at Armageddon (Jer 30:11; Jl 3:2; Zec 12:9, 14:2, etc.) for their mistreatment of Israel, and especially for dividing His land. In fact, Britain played a key role in robbing Israel of its land and giving most of it to the Arabs for oil. Both Britain and America have betrayed Israel many times, and the U.S. State Department and British Foreign Service have opposed Israel from the beginning, as we document in Judgment Day. Those facts alone prove the lie of British Israelism.
So why would God faithfully help faithless Israel? He makes it clear to Israel from the very beginning, "...because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out...from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt..." (Dt 7:8). As we noted last month, referring to her ultimate restoration and blessing (which He has promised through the Messiah), the God of Israel declares:
"Thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen...be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel...I the Lord have spoken it, and I will do it" (Ezk 36:22,32,36, etc.). In spite of Israel's present disregard of Him, "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Ex 3:15,16 and ten other places in the Bible) is fulfilling His promises to those patriarchs through their descendants-and the day is coming when all Israel who survive Armageddon will believe.
Most Jews worldwide await the Messiah's first coming, unaware that He already came and was rejected and crucified. Jesus warned the Jews, "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (Jn 5:43). Tragically, it will take Armageddon for the surviving Jews to repent, turn to the God of Israel, and embrace the One who comes in His Father's name. In that greatest distress ever faced by Israel, God declares that the one-third whom He will bring alive "through the fire...refine[d] as silver is refined...as gold is tried [shall] call on my name, and I will hear them" (Zec 13:8,9).
When they see with their own eyes the Messiah come to rescue them, and discover to their shame who He is, "...they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him...a great mourning in Jerusalem..." (Zec 12:10-14). Why such extreme sorrow at being rescued by the Messiah? The God of Israel declares: "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced!" (12:10)
At Armageddon, when Yahweh comes to the rescue, He reveals Himself as the One whom Israel has pierced! Pierced?! When and how could Israel pierce the One who told Moses, "there shall no man see me, and live" (Ex 33:20)? God, "a Spirit" (Jn 4:24), cannot be pierced-but the Messiah coming as a man could be. Jesus, who fulfilled every Messianic prophecy, was pierced on the cross. Why was He crucified? For claiming to be God (Jn 10:30-33)!
Yahweh is speaking in the first person, yet two persons seem to be involved: "...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him...." This him seems to be another person-and yet He must have been pierced because they mourn for Him-so he must also be Yahweh! Is Yahweh two persons? In fact, He declares Himself to be three in one! Consider this: "I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I..." (Is 48:16). Surely the one speaking must be God because He has been speaking from the very beginning. Yet He adds, "The Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me" (Is 48:16). Here we encounter God, the Lord God, and the Spirit of God.
Could this be what the Holy Spirit inspired the Apostle John to write, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"? Surely this One called the "Word," who already existed at the beginning and is God, must be the same God to whom Isaiah refers who speaks from the beginning.
But the similarities in these two verses don't end there. Both raise almost identical questions. In Isaiah, how can God be sent by God; and in John, how can God be with God? There is only one solution: the Messiah must be God. When Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (Jn 10:30), the Jews accused Him of blasphemy. When they picked up stones, Jesus asked why they wanted to kill Him. Their instant reply was, "for blasphemy...thou, being a man, makest thyself God" (vv. 31-33). For the Messiah to declare His deity was the ultimate heresy, worthy of death? No!
According to the Hebrew prophets, the Messiah had to be God and, at the same time, the Son of God. If God has a Son, who Himself is God and one with His Father, that would dissolve the rabbis' objections. We encounter God's Son a number of times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Speaking prophetically, the Psalmist presents God as declaring of one who is to come, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee" (Ps 2:7).
Jehovah's Witnesses and others who deny Christ's deity take this as referring to Christ's birth on earth as the beginning of His existence. That cannot be the case, however, because God speaks of His Son as already existing and warns a God-defying world, "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry....Blessed are all they that put their trust in him" (v. 12).
That the Son of God already existed before His incarnation is clear from a number of other statements by the Hebrew prophets. Solomon quotes the prophet Agur asking this question: "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment?"
The obvious answer is "God." Then he asks, "what is his son's name..." (Prv 30:4), proving that the Son of God already existed at that time. Shadrack, Meshach, and Abednego were cast into a huge furnace so hot that the flames killed those who threw them into it. Nebuchadnezzar, astonished to see these three Hebrews walking alive in the flames, observes another with them and in wonder exclaims, "the fourth is like the Son of God" (Dn 3:25)!
While promising salvation through the coming Messiah, Yahweh repeatedly declared that He himself was the only Savior: "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior" (Is 43:11); "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Is 45:22). And yet this salvation goes to "the ends of the earth" by another who must Himself be God and the Messiah: "I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" (Is 49:6). Of whom does God speak?
Unquestionably, the Hebrew prophets all agree that God exists as a tri-unity: three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but one God-and that in the Messiah He becomes man without ceasing to be God. Christ's claims that He was God and man, and one with His Father, agree with the prophets. Isaiah declared: "For unto us a child is born..." (Is 9:6). This refers to His humanity, derived, as foretold, from His virgin mother, Mary: the "seed" of the woman (Gn 3:15). But Isaiah adds, "unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder....Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David..." (9:6,7). Surely the Son given must be the already-existing Son of God-and He must be the Messiah, because He will rule on David's throne.
But Isaiah declares that the Messiah is God! His name is "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God." And He is also "The everlasting Father." Here is the same mystery: God is both Father and Son, and He alone is the Messiah! Most Jews still refuse to recognize this identity of the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." This is one place where they agree with their bitterest enemies, the Muslims. The Qur'an condemns to hell anyone who believes in the Trinity (Sur 5:72-74)!
So the fact that Yahweh has come as a man who was pierced to the death, resurrected, and has returned to rescue Israel at Armageddon is in perfect agreement with the Hebrew prophets. When Israel sees her God in this form coming to her rescue, it will be painfully clear that He has been to earth before, where He was rejected and pierced to the death. So Jesus was only echoing the prophets when He said to the inhabitants of Jerusalem as He was being "brought as a lamb to the slaughter" (Is 53:7) on the way to the Cross: "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mt 23:39). At last they will understand "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"-and "all Israel shall be saved" (Rom 11:26)!
By Dave Hunt - The Berean Call - September 2006
God of Jacob, God of Israel - Part One
According to the latest Fox News polls updated June 26, 2006 (other polls basically agree), “fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God”; only 5 percent say they don’t, while the remaining 3 percent are not sure. In How We Believe, Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptics Society and publisher of Skeptic magazine, claims that “Never in history have so many, and such a high percentage of the [American] population, believed in God. Not only is God not dead as Nietzche proclaimed, but he has never been more alive.”
This statistic, however, is not as encouraging as it sounds. When we ask what respondents mean by “god,” very few believe in—much less know—the God of the Bible. Yet belief in a false god is no better and could be even worse than believing in no God. For many, “God” is simply a “higher power.” Higher than what? Power? What kind? And how could a “power” of any kind have the infinite intelligence (or any intelligence) to design the atom, the universe, imprint the written instructions in a coded language on DNA for constructing and operating every cell, and create intelligent, personal beings with a moral conscience and a passion for purpose?
The very thought of a “power” creating anything is ridiculous! Then why is belief in a “power” so appealing? Did the Star Wars slogan, “May the Force be with you,” have that much influence? It went a long way toward changing movie fans’ thinking, especially among American youth. Of course, this has always been a popular idea because a power/force can’t impose moral laws, demand obedience, or judge and punish anyone—instead, it can be used for one’s own ends. Clearly, the true God who created us for a purpose holds mankind responsible for creation’s witness to His existence and for obedience to the moral laws He has implanted in every conscience (Rom 1:18-25; 2:14-16). He will not be used.
Furthermore, just as human beings are jealous of their individual identities, obviously the true God would insist on being properly identified. He will neither reveal Himself to, nor enter into a relationship with, anyone who will not acknowledge Him as He truly is. Nor will He look with broad-minded favor on those who call Him a “higher power.” To do so is an insult to the true God! The God of the Bible (whose existence we have infallibly proved in prior articles) declares to wayward Israel, “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart” (Jer 29:13). Those who hope to find a god that suits their imagination will not find the true God.
It is common sense that the true God would only reveal Himself to sincere and earnest seekers who want to know Him in truth in order to obey Him. The first prerequisite to knowing God is the willingness—indeed, the passion—to know Him as He really is, not as one imagines or would like Him to be. It is no less idolatry to create an imaginary god in one’s mind than to make one out of clay, wood, or stone. So, who is the true God who proves Himself by unfailingly foretelling the future in the Bible?
As we have seen in past articles, the Bible identifies Him as “the God of Israel” 203 times, “the God of Jacob” 28 times, “the God of Abraham” 17 times, and “the God of Isaac” 13 times. Never is He called the “God of any other ethnic group.” These designations are foundational to everything the Bible teaches, including the very character of God. To profess to believe in God and at the same time to hold a prejudice against God’s chosen people, the Jews, or against Israel, which turns these clear biblical identifications into meaningless titles, casts doubt upon whether one really knows the true God.
In His refutation of the Sadducees’ denial of the resurrection, Christ’s primary argument was based upon God’s statement to Moses: “I AM...the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” (Ex 3:14,15). Clearly, this was the identity of the true God then; it is now and will be forever. God never changes.
Notice Christ’s reasoning: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God....[H]ave ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Mt 22:29-32). Christ is saying that if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not live eternally through a resurrection, then it would be a mockery for God to be identified with them eternally. He would be the God of, and have identified Himself with, beings of limited existence—scarcely a blip in eternity. To be called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, if they no
longer existed, would demean God.
If the nation of Israel is dead, or has been replaced by the church and does not have an eternal future, then the very term “God of Israel” would not be to God’s glory but a slur upon His character in view of His many promises that Israel would never cease to exist. Yet that is the position taken by those who say that Israel has been replaced by the church. In The Last Disciple (p. 88), Hank Hanegraaff has a key character say, “The covenant between God and Israel was broken with the rejection of His Son.”
Hank gives no explanation how an “everlasting covenant” could ever be broken, nor how Israel’s rejection of Christ could break a covenant that was not conditional upon her accepting Him, for which there were never any conditions Israel had to fulfill, and which God said He would bring to completion in the last days.
Indeed, at the same time that God promises eternal blessings to Israel in a full restoration in the last days, He also recites her unfaithfulness to Him without a hint that the many sins of Israel and the Jewish people would be any deterrent to His fulfilling all of His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
...the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them...the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever....I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen...be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel...in the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities....For I will...gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land...and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD....I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it. (Dt 1:8; Jer 7:7; Ezk 36:11, 22-26, 32-36)
Here again, as elsewhere (as we have said), it is quite clear that there are no conditions for Israel to fulfill, but God will, for the integrity of His name, fulfill every promise in spite of Israel’s rebellion against Him. Furthermore, the prophets foretold that the Messiah would be rejected by Israel and crucified, yet in all of those prophecies there is never a suggestion that because of this rejection God would break His everlasting covenant with Israel. The covenant was made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—not with their descendants (Gn 12:1-3; 15:7, 18-21; 17:7-8, 19, 21; 26; 28:13; 1 Ch 16:14-18, etc.); it was never conditioned upon the obedience of their descendants, and therefore could not possibly be broken by anything those descendants did or failed to do. It is a slap in the eternal God’s face to say that Israel has been replaced!
Scripture records literally hundreds of promises from God that Israel as a nation would never cease to exist (Jer 31:35-37, etc.). These cannot be annulled even by God himself. To do so would make Him a liar. Nor can they be spiritualized away as though the land of Canaan, which became the land of Israel, could simply mean the heavenly inheritance of the church.
It is irrefutable that Israel once possessed a physical, historical land that was given to her by God’s eternal decree. It is equally an historical fact that she was expelled from this land by God himself for her rebellion. And it is no less an historical fact that Israel became a nation once again, May 14, 1948, and that millions of Jews have since returned to that Promised Land from more than 100 countries, just as Scripture foretold. This can be nothing less than the beginnings of God’s promised restoration of Israel so that her latter end would be better than her beginning. A very few of God’s many promises follow:
Unto thy seed will I give this land...forever...from the river of Egypt unto the...river Euphrates....I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee...for an everlasting covenant.... And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed...all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession...for unto thee [Isaac], and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father...the land whereon thou liest, to thee [Jacob] will I give it, and to thy seed.
Be ye mindful always of his covenant...which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant....Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance....(Gn 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:7,8; 26:3; 28:13; 1 Ch 16:14-18).
Citing the hatred of Israel’s neighbors at that time, Psalm 83:3,4 foretells the Muslims’ openly and oft-stated plan to wipe Israel off the map: “They have taken crafty counsel against thy people....Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation....” In the same effort to destroy her, Christian denominations have initiated a boycott against companies that do business with Israel. Replacement theologians such as D. James Kennedy, R.C. Sproul, and many others allied with them have rejected modern Israel as of any significance in the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In “An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel,” they declare:
The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham...do not apply to any particular ethnic group, but to the church of Jesus Christ, the true Israel....The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the “Holy Land” cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact, the land promises specific to Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled under Joshua. [See Judgment Day, pp. 276-77]
An everlasting covenant fulfilled under Joshua, who only lived 110 years?! Hundreds of “promises specific to Israel in the Old Testament” had not even been foretold by Israel’s prophets until centuries after Joshua died! Even the prophecies made by Moses during the lifetime of Joshua that Israel would sin and be cast out of the land were not
fulfilled “under Joshua.” This declaration by Kennedy, Sproul, et al., is such a defiance of the God of Israel that one finds it unbelievable coming from biblical “scholars”! Here is the Word of the Lord:
Therefore, behold, the days come saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, the LORD liveth which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt [in Joshua’s day]; But, the LORD liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country [Russia et al.], and from all countries whither I had driven them....(Jer 23:7,8)
This is being fulfilled in our day. When God told Moses that He would destroy Israel and make of him a great nation, Moses reasoned with God that He would be going back on His Word if He did that, and His critics would say that He was not able to keep His promises. If even one failed, it would reflect on all His other promises. (Ex 32:9-14). Yet today, growing numbers of those who claim to be Christians are declaring that God’s eternal covenant with Israel has been annulled!
If the everlasting covenant that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob swore to these patriarchs of Israel is not kept, then God has denied Himself. The same holds true for the literally hundreds of promises God has made that He would restore Israel fully to her land. If just one fails, then God has denied Himself and is not worthy of our trust. Here are a few of the many that could be cited:
As a shepherd seeketh out his flock...so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all the places where they have been scattered...and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel...in a good pasture....I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away...therefore, will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey....I will set up one shepherd over them...even my servant David [i.e., the Messiah]....
And I the LORD will be their God...there shall be showers of
blessing...they shall be safe in their land...no more be a prey to the heathen...none shall make them afraid...And...I will...do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD...neither shalt thou bear the reproach of the people any more...for I will...gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land...that I have given unto Jacob...and I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes...and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore....(Ezk 34:12-16, 22-28; 36:11, 15, 24, 27; 37:25-28)
If “everlasting,” concerning Israel, doesn’t mean everlasting, then how can we trust the promise in John 3:16 of everlasting life to those who believe on Christ? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, is the only true God. The Messiah promised to Israel by Jewish prophets of God came 2,000 years ago. He is the Savior of all who believe on Him as the one who, in fulfillment of what the Hebrew prophets foretold, died for the sins of the world, rose from the dead, and ascended to the Father’s right hand. He is coming in power and glory to punish the world for its abuse of His people Israel and to rule the world
from David’s throne in Jerusalem. Let us stand firm on the truth of Scripture and preach the true gospel of God, to the Jew first, then to the Gentile.
By Dave Hunt - The Berean Call - August 2006
This statistic, however, is not as encouraging as it sounds. When we ask what respondents mean by “god,” very few believe in—much less know—the God of the Bible. Yet belief in a false god is no better and could be even worse than believing in no God. For many, “God” is simply a “higher power.” Higher than what? Power? What kind? And how could a “power” of any kind have the infinite intelligence (or any intelligence) to design the atom, the universe, imprint the written instructions in a coded language on DNA for constructing and operating every cell, and create intelligent, personal beings with a moral conscience and a passion for purpose?
The very thought of a “power” creating anything is ridiculous! Then why is belief in a “power” so appealing? Did the Star Wars slogan, “May the Force be with you,” have that much influence? It went a long way toward changing movie fans’ thinking, especially among American youth. Of course, this has always been a popular idea because a power/force can’t impose moral laws, demand obedience, or judge and punish anyone—instead, it can be used for one’s own ends. Clearly, the true God who created us for a purpose holds mankind responsible for creation’s witness to His existence and for obedience to the moral laws He has implanted in every conscience (Rom 1:18-25; 2:14-16). He will not be used.
Furthermore, just as human beings are jealous of their individual identities, obviously the true God would insist on being properly identified. He will neither reveal Himself to, nor enter into a relationship with, anyone who will not acknowledge Him as He truly is. Nor will He look with broad-minded favor on those who call Him a “higher power.” To do so is an insult to the true God! The God of the Bible (whose existence we have infallibly proved in prior articles) declares to wayward Israel, “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart” (Jer 29:13). Those who hope to find a god that suits their imagination will not find the true God.
It is common sense that the true God would only reveal Himself to sincere and earnest seekers who want to know Him in truth in order to obey Him. The first prerequisite to knowing God is the willingness—indeed, the passion—to know Him as He really is, not as one imagines or would like Him to be. It is no less idolatry to create an imaginary god in one’s mind than to make one out of clay, wood, or stone. So, who is the true God who proves Himself by unfailingly foretelling the future in the Bible?
As we have seen in past articles, the Bible identifies Him as “the God of Israel” 203 times, “the God of Jacob” 28 times, “the God of Abraham” 17 times, and “the God of Isaac” 13 times. Never is He called the “God of any other ethnic group.” These designations are foundational to everything the Bible teaches, including the very character of God. To profess to believe in God and at the same time to hold a prejudice against God’s chosen people, the Jews, or against Israel, which turns these clear biblical identifications into meaningless titles, casts doubt upon whether one really knows the true God.
In His refutation of the Sadducees’ denial of the resurrection, Christ’s primary argument was based upon God’s statement to Moses: “I AM...the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” (Ex 3:14,15). Clearly, this was the identity of the true God then; it is now and will be forever. God never changes.
Notice Christ’s reasoning: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God....[H]ave ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Mt 22:29-32). Christ is saying that if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will not live eternally through a resurrection, then it would be a mockery for God to be identified with them eternally. He would be the God of, and have identified Himself with, beings of limited existence—scarcely a blip in eternity. To be called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, if they no
longer existed, would demean God.
If the nation of Israel is dead, or has been replaced by the church and does not have an eternal future, then the very term “God of Israel” would not be to God’s glory but a slur upon His character in view of His many promises that Israel would never cease to exist. Yet that is the position taken by those who say that Israel has been replaced by the church. In The Last Disciple (p. 88), Hank Hanegraaff has a key character say, “The covenant between God and Israel was broken with the rejection of His Son.”
Hank gives no explanation how an “everlasting covenant” could ever be broken, nor how Israel’s rejection of Christ could break a covenant that was not conditional upon her accepting Him, for which there were never any conditions Israel had to fulfill, and which God said He would bring to completion in the last days.
Indeed, at the same time that God promises eternal blessings to Israel in a full restoration in the last days, He also recites her unfaithfulness to Him without a hint that the many sins of Israel and the Jewish people would be any deterrent to His fulfilling all of His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
...the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them...the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever....I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen...be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel...in the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities....For I will...gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land...and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD....I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it. (Dt 1:8; Jer 7:7; Ezk 36:11, 22-26, 32-36)
Here again, as elsewhere (as we have said), it is quite clear that there are no conditions for Israel to fulfill, but God will, for the integrity of His name, fulfill every promise in spite of Israel’s rebellion against Him. Furthermore, the prophets foretold that the Messiah would be rejected by Israel and crucified, yet in all of those prophecies there is never a suggestion that because of this rejection God would break His everlasting covenant with Israel. The covenant was made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—not with their descendants (Gn 12:1-3; 15:7, 18-21; 17:7-8, 19, 21; 26; 28:13; 1 Ch 16:14-18, etc.); it was never conditioned upon the obedience of their descendants, and therefore could not possibly be broken by anything those descendants did or failed to do. It is a slap in the eternal God’s face to say that Israel has been replaced!
Scripture records literally hundreds of promises from God that Israel as a nation would never cease to exist (Jer 31:35-37, etc.). These cannot be annulled even by God himself. To do so would make Him a liar. Nor can they be spiritualized away as though the land of Canaan, which became the land of Israel, could simply mean the heavenly inheritance of the church.
It is irrefutable that Israel once possessed a physical, historical land that was given to her by God’s eternal decree. It is equally an historical fact that she was expelled from this land by God himself for her rebellion. And it is no less an historical fact that Israel became a nation once again, May 14, 1948, and that millions of Jews have since returned to that Promised Land from more than 100 countries, just as Scripture foretold. This can be nothing less than the beginnings of God’s promised restoration of Israel so that her latter end would be better than her beginning. A very few of God’s many promises follow:
Unto thy seed will I give this land...forever...from the river of Egypt unto the...river Euphrates....I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee...for an everlasting covenant.... And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed...all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession...for unto thee [Isaac], and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father...the land whereon thou liest, to thee [Jacob] will I give it, and to thy seed.
Be ye mindful always of his covenant...which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant....Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance....(Gn 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:7,8; 26:3; 28:13; 1 Ch 16:14-18).
Citing the hatred of Israel’s neighbors at that time, Psalm 83:3,4 foretells the Muslims’ openly and oft-stated plan to wipe Israel off the map: “They have taken crafty counsel against thy people....Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation....” In the same effort to destroy her, Christian denominations have initiated a boycott against companies that do business with Israel. Replacement theologians such as D. James Kennedy, R.C. Sproul, and many others allied with them have rejected modern Israel as of any significance in the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In “An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel,” they declare:
The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham...do not apply to any particular ethnic group, but to the church of Jesus Christ, the true Israel....The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the “Holy Land” cannot be supported by Scripture. In fact, the land promises specific to Israel in the Old Testament were fulfilled under Joshua. [See Judgment Day, pp. 276-77]
An everlasting covenant fulfilled under Joshua, who only lived 110 years?! Hundreds of “promises specific to Israel in the Old Testament” had not even been foretold by Israel’s prophets until centuries after Joshua died! Even the prophecies made by Moses during the lifetime of Joshua that Israel would sin and be cast out of the land were not
fulfilled “under Joshua.” This declaration by Kennedy, Sproul, et al., is such a defiance of the God of Israel that one finds it unbelievable coming from biblical “scholars”! Here is the Word of the Lord:
Therefore, behold, the days come saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, the LORD liveth which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt [in Joshua’s day]; But, the LORD liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country [Russia et al.], and from all countries whither I had driven them....(Jer 23:7,8)
This is being fulfilled in our day. When God told Moses that He would destroy Israel and make of him a great nation, Moses reasoned with God that He would be going back on His Word if He did that, and His critics would say that He was not able to keep His promises. If even one failed, it would reflect on all His other promises. (Ex 32:9-14). Yet today, growing numbers of those who claim to be Christians are declaring that God’s eternal covenant with Israel has been annulled!
If the everlasting covenant that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob swore to these patriarchs of Israel is not kept, then God has denied Himself. The same holds true for the literally hundreds of promises God has made that He would restore Israel fully to her land. If just one fails, then God has denied Himself and is not worthy of our trust. Here are a few of the many that could be cited:
As a shepherd seeketh out his flock...so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all the places where they have been scattered...and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel...in a good pasture....I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away...therefore, will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey....I will set up one shepherd over them...even my servant David [i.e., the Messiah]....
And I the LORD will be their God...there shall be showers of
blessing...they shall be safe in their land...no more be a prey to the heathen...none shall make them afraid...And...I will...do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD...neither shalt thou bear the reproach of the people any more...for I will...gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land...that I have given unto Jacob...and I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes...and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore....(Ezk 34:12-16, 22-28; 36:11, 15, 24, 27; 37:25-28)
If “everlasting,” concerning Israel, doesn’t mean everlasting, then how can we trust the promise in John 3:16 of everlasting life to those who believe on Christ? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, is the only true God. The Messiah promised to Israel by Jewish prophets of God came 2,000 years ago. He is the Savior of all who believe on Him as the one who, in fulfillment of what the Hebrew prophets foretold, died for the sins of the world, rose from the dead, and ascended to the Father’s right hand. He is coming in power and glory to punish the world for its abuse of His people Israel and to rule the world
from David’s throne in Jerusalem. Let us stand firm on the truth of Scripture and preach the true gospel of God, to the Jew first, then to the Gentile.
By Dave Hunt - The Berean Call - August 2006
Skyshield Air Defense Being Considered
With Hizb'allah still in possession of more than 10,000 short-range Katyusha rockets, the Defense Ministry has contacted Lockheed Martin - one of the world's largest defense contractors - and asked it to run tests and make adjustments to a high-powered, rapid-fire cannon built by the company to intercept incoming aerial targets.
The Skyshield 35 Air Defense System is a cannon that fires a unique 35-mm. AHEAD (Advanced Hit Efficiency And Destruction) shell that destroys incoming targets. It ejects 152 sub-projectiles that are released just ahead of the incoming target up to distances of close to 10 kilometers.
The projectiles create a cloud ahead of the incoming rocket and penetrate it, inflicting enough damage to prevent it from striking its target. The system was developed by the Switzerland-based Oerlikon Contraves Corporation.
Initially developed to intercept incoming aircraft, and specifically unmanned drones, Lockheed Martin has been testing the system for the past few weeks to see if it is also suitable to intercept and destroy Katyusha rockets fired by Hizbullah. Before the war, the Defense Ministry had asked Lockheed to run tests to see if the system would be effective against the Palestinian homemade Kassam rocket.
The main changes that need to be made to the system are with the ammunition used to intercept the rockets.
According to officials close to the project, the quality and amount of explosives inside the shells need to be increased for the system to accurately intercept primitive rockets such as Katyushas and Kassams. The testing is expected to be completed in the coming weeks. Israeli defense officials have visited the US test site to watch the system's performance.
Hizb'allah fired close to 4,000 rockets and missiles at northern Israel during the war.
Defense Minister Amir Peretz convened a meeting last week with senior defense officials and appointed Defense Ministry Director-General Gabi Ashkenazi to coordinate the defense establishment's efforts to find a quick answer to counter the Katyusha rockets.
But while Peretz has pointed specifically to Northrop Grumman's Skyguard land-based, air-defense system - also known as the Nautilus - as a possible answer, high-ranking defense officials have told The Jerusalem Post the system would not be chosen.
Some 10 years ago, Israel invested several hundred million dollars in the development of the system with the Hizbullah threat in mind, but the project was ditched after the defense establishment decided it was not suitable for Israel's needs.
Another possible answer to the Katyusha threat is the Vulcan Phalanx cannon, already installed on Navy missile ships and used to intercept incoming anti-ship missiles. Similar to the Skyshield, the Vulcan Phalanx cannon hones in on an incoming missile and shoots dozens of shells in a rapid-fire sequence.
The defense establishment is also considering using the Rafael-developed Barak antimissile system, which is used by the Navy.
Jerusalem Post
09.05.2006
The Skyshield 35 Air Defense System is a cannon that fires a unique 35-mm. AHEAD (Advanced Hit Efficiency And Destruction) shell that destroys incoming targets. It ejects 152 sub-projectiles that are released just ahead of the incoming target up to distances of close to 10 kilometers.
The projectiles create a cloud ahead of the incoming rocket and penetrate it, inflicting enough damage to prevent it from striking its target. The system was developed by the Switzerland-based Oerlikon Contraves Corporation.
Initially developed to intercept incoming aircraft, and specifically unmanned drones, Lockheed Martin has been testing the system for the past few weeks to see if it is also suitable to intercept and destroy Katyusha rockets fired by Hizbullah. Before the war, the Defense Ministry had asked Lockheed to run tests to see if the system would be effective against the Palestinian homemade Kassam rocket.
The main changes that need to be made to the system are with the ammunition used to intercept the rockets.
According to officials close to the project, the quality and amount of explosives inside the shells need to be increased for the system to accurately intercept primitive rockets such as Katyushas and Kassams. The testing is expected to be completed in the coming weeks. Israeli defense officials have visited the US test site to watch the system's performance.
Hizb'allah fired close to 4,000 rockets and missiles at northern Israel during the war.
Defense Minister Amir Peretz convened a meeting last week with senior defense officials and appointed Defense Ministry Director-General Gabi Ashkenazi to coordinate the defense establishment's efforts to find a quick answer to counter the Katyusha rockets.
But while Peretz has pointed specifically to Northrop Grumman's Skyguard land-based, air-defense system - also known as the Nautilus - as a possible answer, high-ranking defense officials have told The Jerusalem Post the system would not be chosen.
Some 10 years ago, Israel invested several hundred million dollars in the development of the system with the Hizbullah threat in mind, but the project was ditched after the defense establishment decided it was not suitable for Israel's needs.
Another possible answer to the Katyusha threat is the Vulcan Phalanx cannon, already installed on Navy missile ships and used to intercept incoming anti-ship missiles. Similar to the Skyshield, the Vulcan Phalanx cannon hones in on an incoming missile and shoots dozens of shells in a rapid-fire sequence.
The defense establishment is also considering using the Rafael-developed Barak antimissile system, which is used by the Navy.
Jerusalem Post
09.05.2006
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Marked For Death?
It's not easy to be shocked by jihad these days, five years and numberless atrocities after the Twin Towers imploded on almost 3,000 fellow citizens. That said, I admit my own jihad-fatigue was broken — shattered, really — by the "conversion" to Islam of Fox journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig videotaped during their two-week ordeal as captives of Palestinians in Gaza.
Why? Andrew G. Bostom, writing at Frontpage mag. tells us forced conversions to Islam "have been the norm, across three continents — Asia, Africa and Europe — for over 13 centuries," and cites contemporary examples in the jihad campaigns of Sudan and Indonesia. Even so, religious coercion, let alone "jihad campaigns," still seems appallingly new to us — if by "us" I can still make myself understood to mean, generally, Western peoples in modern times. Indeed, I can't think of another hostage to jihad forced into Islam — not even Daniel Pearl or Nicolas Berg, and not the U.S. Embassy hostages in Tehran a quarter century ago.
Is this incident a tip-off to a new level of unabashed religious abuse of traditionally (once upon a time) inviolate Westerners? In the "conversion" video, we see such abuse as the American and the New Zealander sit, costumed in Arabic robes, "forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," as Centanni later revealed. Holding up a symbolic first finger, they read their lines in both Arabic and English, proclaiming their "new" faith, declaring their "new" names — Khaled and Ya'aqob — and calling on President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to do likewise. I didn't see the videotape on television (more on that below), but rather on Internet, where, like high-tech specters, "Khaled" and "Ya'aqob" will haunt their freed selves into cyber-eternity.
Or will they? Whether this "conversion" is legit probably depends on the eye or, rather, the religion of the beholder. The Koran says "there is no compulsion in religion" — as did, absurdly, the video — but, as Robert Spencer writes at Frontpage mag., traditional Islamic teachings about Muhammad, which reveal that the Islamic prophet's invitation to Islam was accompanied by "an inescapable threat" of subjugation and war, have left Islam with a different interpretation of "compulsion" from the West. That is, given accounts of Muhammad's own example, Islam doesn't really see forcible conversion in commonly understood terms of "compulsion."
So, what if Centanni and Wiig "revert" to their non-Muslim identities? Would such "apostasy" sentence them to death? (Leaving Islam is a capital crime under Islamic law.) Shocking thought. Of course, there's something even more shocking to the story than the religious charade itself.
No, it isn't the bizarre disclaimer Centanni felt compelled to append to his account of the shotgun-conversion — "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it." While it's more than strange to hear a person who has been forced to choose between death and Islam flack for Islam as he resumes his life, there's something else. And it isn't praise for the "beautiful and kind-hearted" Palestinian people Centanni slathered around the microphone at his Gaza City press conference before, as Bostom noted, high-tailing it to safety in infidel-Israel.
The most shocking thing about the Centanni-Wiig "conversion" is the silence that has followed. First, there is silence from Islam. Shouldn't Muslim religious leaders, and particularly "beautiful and kind-hearted" Palestinian Muslim religious leaders, vehemently condemn the forced conversions? As Bostom put it, "Will such Muslim authorities at least recognize the acute predicament of Centanni and Wiig by issuing a fatwa stating that their 'conversion,' being under duress, was not bona fide, condemning in advance any Muslim who might now attack these journalists for 'apostasy' from Islam?"
Yes, of course, they should — at least according to any Western understanding of compulsion and morality — but don't hold your breath. Meanwhile, holding their breath is exactly what Western media are doing when it comes to covering (not covering) the story. Even Fox's Greta van Susteren, a tabloidesque host who never met a bodily fluid she couldn't elaborate on, went delicate on us the other night, failing, in a one-hour "exclusive" interview with the two men, to ask a single question about their religious ordeal — presumably at their request.
Why? Who or what is served by shutting up? Only forces of coercion — a word which, after all, implies the nullification of individual will. Which means this is one case where silence isn't golden and ignorance isn't bliss. They are dangerous and dumb.
Jewish World review
09.05.2006
Why? Andrew G. Bostom, writing at Frontpage mag. tells us forced conversions to Islam "have been the norm, across three continents — Asia, Africa and Europe — for over 13 centuries," and cites contemporary examples in the jihad campaigns of Sudan and Indonesia. Even so, religious coercion, let alone "jihad campaigns," still seems appallingly new to us — if by "us" I can still make myself understood to mean, generally, Western peoples in modern times. Indeed, I can't think of another hostage to jihad forced into Islam — not even Daniel Pearl or Nicolas Berg, and not the U.S. Embassy hostages in Tehran a quarter century ago.
Is this incident a tip-off to a new level of unabashed religious abuse of traditionally (once upon a time) inviolate Westerners? In the "conversion" video, we see such abuse as the American and the New Zealander sit, costumed in Arabic robes, "forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," as Centanni later revealed. Holding up a symbolic first finger, they read their lines in both Arabic and English, proclaiming their "new" faith, declaring their "new" names — Khaled and Ya'aqob — and calling on President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to do likewise. I didn't see the videotape on television (more on that below), but rather on Internet, where, like high-tech specters, "Khaled" and "Ya'aqob" will haunt their freed selves into cyber-eternity.
Or will they? Whether this "conversion" is legit probably depends on the eye or, rather, the religion of the beholder. The Koran says "there is no compulsion in religion" — as did, absurdly, the video — but, as Robert Spencer writes at Frontpage mag., traditional Islamic teachings about Muhammad, which reveal that the Islamic prophet's invitation to Islam was accompanied by "an inescapable threat" of subjugation and war, have left Islam with a different interpretation of "compulsion" from the West. That is, given accounts of Muhammad's own example, Islam doesn't really see forcible conversion in commonly understood terms of "compulsion."
So, what if Centanni and Wiig "revert" to their non-Muslim identities? Would such "apostasy" sentence them to death? (Leaving Islam is a capital crime under Islamic law.) Shocking thought. Of course, there's something even more shocking to the story than the religious charade itself.
No, it isn't the bizarre disclaimer Centanni felt compelled to append to his account of the shotgun-conversion — "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it." While it's more than strange to hear a person who has been forced to choose between death and Islam flack for Islam as he resumes his life, there's something else. And it isn't praise for the "beautiful and kind-hearted" Palestinian people Centanni slathered around the microphone at his Gaza City press conference before, as Bostom noted, high-tailing it to safety in infidel-Israel.
The most shocking thing about the Centanni-Wiig "conversion" is the silence that has followed. First, there is silence from Islam. Shouldn't Muslim religious leaders, and particularly "beautiful and kind-hearted" Palestinian Muslim religious leaders, vehemently condemn the forced conversions? As Bostom put it, "Will such Muslim authorities at least recognize the acute predicament of Centanni and Wiig by issuing a fatwa stating that their 'conversion,' being under duress, was not bona fide, condemning in advance any Muslim who might now attack these journalists for 'apostasy' from Islam?"
Yes, of course, they should — at least according to any Western understanding of compulsion and morality — but don't hold your breath. Meanwhile, holding their breath is exactly what Western media are doing when it comes to covering (not covering) the story. Even Fox's Greta van Susteren, a tabloidesque host who never met a bodily fluid she couldn't elaborate on, went delicate on us the other night, failing, in a one-hour "exclusive" interview with the two men, to ask a single question about their religious ordeal — presumably at their request.
Why? Who or what is served by shutting up? Only forces of coercion — a word which, after all, implies the nullification of individual will. Which means this is one case where silence isn't golden and ignorance isn't bliss. They are dangerous and dumb.
Jewish World review
09.05.2006
Monday, September 04, 2006
If Israel Had Only A Year To Live
If you knew that Israel had just a year to live, would you see it differently? If, as a Muslim, you knew that Iran, in the name of Islam, was about to turn the Jews of the Holy Land into ash, how would it influence your outlook, your beliefs, your actions?
If as a Diaspora Jew, you knew that you were about to be all that was left of the Jewish people, would that affect your observance, your identification, the direction of your social conscience?
These days, the questions are more than merely theoretical, a point which grass-roots reactions to the recent war drove home with telling effect. Certainly never before was this newspaper, a clearinghouse and meeting place for passionate opinions on both sides, so swamped with messages haunted by the prospect of - or explicitly advocating - genocide.
Iran's certainly thought about it. They've calculated that since Iran's land mass is some 86 times that of Israel, they could take a nuclear first or second strike and still reduce the Jewish state to Alamogordo glass.
So how would it work, if those who would have Israel disappear got their way?
Some of it we know. Some of it we've already seen. We know that there would be jubilation in Arab capitals, as well as broad swaths of Malaysia, Indonesia, Detroit, San Francisco, London and Paris.
There are also millions upon millions of Muslims which the annihilation of Israel would give serious pause. Perhaps a reconsideration of the wisdom of having granted jihadists a broad measure of respect in avenging Israel's killing of Muslim civilians - and avenging the very existence of Israel - by killing Jewish civilians.
Perhaps, as well, a reconsideration of having given so public a stage to radical Islam, and of having remained on the sidelines - or voicing roundabout but heartfelt justifications - as murders were committed in the name of justice, in the name of defending the Prophet, in the name of restoring Muslim honor, in the name of fighting Bush, in the name of Allah.
What we don't know, is how the Jews of North America would respond. Not the minority that is active in Jewish or Israel-oriented organizations, not the minority that takes active part in synagogue or Jewish community life.
What about the others? The majority.
There's no question that for many American Jews, Israel has already ceased to exist. It is a dot on a map, an unfamiliar, perhaps dead-end branch on a fading family tree.
It only makes sense. Some are alienated by the character of North American Judaism. The liturgy doesn't speak to them. The culture doesn't speak to them. Their interests lie elsewhere, in social action, in making a living, in making a lifestyle, in getting through the day.
For many of the generation of Jews now in their 20s and 30s, it appears, Israel is simply not relevant. Life is too short. Life is too full. Life is too promising, to have it be dragged down by that bummer of a distant Promised Land.
It's the wrong promise.
There's too much to answer for. Jews - heirs to what we prefer to recall as the Old Testament prophets' social vision of Judaism as exponent of equality, generosity, humanity, Swords to Plowshares - don't want to be thrown into the First Samuel reality of swords, swords, and swords.
Maybe, in the end, all of this is a healthy thing. Maybe North American Jewry should begin to think about a future without a state of Israel.
Maybe it's time for the Jewish world's largest Diaspora to start acting like it.
Maybe it's time that a healthy, unselfconscious, reduced-neurosis authentic American Jewish culture emerged.
Not because Israel is about to be erased.
Rather, to make sure that in the future, American Judaism is not.
Haaretz
09.03.2006
If as a Diaspora Jew, you knew that you were about to be all that was left of the Jewish people, would that affect your observance, your identification, the direction of your social conscience?
These days, the questions are more than merely theoretical, a point which grass-roots reactions to the recent war drove home with telling effect. Certainly never before was this newspaper, a clearinghouse and meeting place for passionate opinions on both sides, so swamped with messages haunted by the prospect of - or explicitly advocating - genocide.
Iran's certainly thought about it. They've calculated that since Iran's land mass is some 86 times that of Israel, they could take a nuclear first or second strike and still reduce the Jewish state to Alamogordo glass.
So how would it work, if those who would have Israel disappear got their way?
Some of it we know. Some of it we've already seen. We know that there would be jubilation in Arab capitals, as well as broad swaths of Malaysia, Indonesia, Detroit, San Francisco, London and Paris.
There are also millions upon millions of Muslims which the annihilation of Israel would give serious pause. Perhaps a reconsideration of the wisdom of having granted jihadists a broad measure of respect in avenging Israel's killing of Muslim civilians - and avenging the very existence of Israel - by killing Jewish civilians.
Perhaps, as well, a reconsideration of having given so public a stage to radical Islam, and of having remained on the sidelines - or voicing roundabout but heartfelt justifications - as murders were committed in the name of justice, in the name of defending the Prophet, in the name of restoring Muslim honor, in the name of fighting Bush, in the name of Allah.
What we don't know, is how the Jews of North America would respond. Not the minority that is active in Jewish or Israel-oriented organizations, not the minority that takes active part in synagogue or Jewish community life.
What about the others? The majority.
There's no question that for many American Jews, Israel has already ceased to exist. It is a dot on a map, an unfamiliar, perhaps dead-end branch on a fading family tree.
It only makes sense. Some are alienated by the character of North American Judaism. The liturgy doesn't speak to them. The culture doesn't speak to them. Their interests lie elsewhere, in social action, in making a living, in making a lifestyle, in getting through the day.
For many of the generation of Jews now in their 20s and 30s, it appears, Israel is simply not relevant. Life is too short. Life is too full. Life is too promising, to have it be dragged down by that bummer of a distant Promised Land.
It's the wrong promise.
There's too much to answer for. Jews - heirs to what we prefer to recall as the Old Testament prophets' social vision of Judaism as exponent of equality, generosity, humanity, Swords to Plowshares - don't want to be thrown into the First Samuel reality of swords, swords, and swords.
Maybe, in the end, all of this is a healthy thing. Maybe North American Jewry should begin to think about a future without a state of Israel.
Maybe it's time for the Jewish world's largest Diaspora to start acting like it.
Maybe it's time that a healthy, unselfconscious, reduced-neurosis authentic American Jewish culture emerged.
Not because Israel is about to be erased.
Rather, to make sure that in the future, American Judaism is not.
Haaretz
09.03.2006
Sunday, September 03, 2006
'Americans, Convert To Islam'
Al-Qaeda called on non-Muslims especially in the United States to convert to Islam and abandon their ‘misguided’ ways or else suffer, according to a video tape posted on a Web site on Saturday.
The speaker was identified as Azzam the American, also known as Adam Yahiye Gadahn—an Islamic convert from California wanted for questions by the FBI and who US authorities believe to be involved in a propaganda campaign for al-Qaeda.
“To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent (your) misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next,” Gadahn said in English.
He appeared in the video dressed in a white turban and seated in front of a computer and books.
“But whatever you do don’t attempt to spread you misery and misguidance to our lands,” he said.
'Muslims don’t need democracy'
Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri made a brief statement at the beginning of the tape - dated Sept. 2006 - urging viewers to listen carefully to the message, entitled: “An Invitation to Islam.”
Zawahri and Gadahn appeared to be speaking from different places, as Zawahri spoke in front of a black background.
Gadahn recited verses from the Muslim holy book the Koran in Arabic, then translated them into English and said Muslims needed to boost their faith to expel their countries’ rulers.
“Muslims don’t need democracy to rid themselves of their home grown despots and tyrants. What they do need is their Islamic faith, the sprit of jihad and the lifting of foreign troops and interference from their necks,” he said, adding that God did not recognize a separation of religion and state.
Zawahri last appeared in a video in August in which he said that some leaders of Egypt’s Gama’a Islamiya have joined al Qaeda. Gama’a Islamiya later denied his statement.
Y Net News
09.03.2006
The speaker was identified as Azzam the American, also known as Adam Yahiye Gadahn—an Islamic convert from California wanted for questions by the FBI and who US authorities believe to be involved in a propaganda campaign for al-Qaeda.
“To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent (your) misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next,” Gadahn said in English.
He appeared in the video dressed in a white turban and seated in front of a computer and books.
“But whatever you do don’t attempt to spread you misery and misguidance to our lands,” he said.
'Muslims don’t need democracy'
Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri made a brief statement at the beginning of the tape - dated Sept. 2006 - urging viewers to listen carefully to the message, entitled: “An Invitation to Islam.”
Zawahri and Gadahn appeared to be speaking from different places, as Zawahri spoke in front of a black background.
Gadahn recited verses from the Muslim holy book the Koran in Arabic, then translated them into English and said Muslims needed to boost their faith to expel their countries’ rulers.
“Muslims don’t need democracy to rid themselves of their home grown despots and tyrants. What they do need is their Islamic faith, the sprit of jihad and the lifting of foreign troops and interference from their necks,” he said, adding that God did not recognize a separation of religion and state.
Zawahri last appeared in a video in August in which he said that some leaders of Egypt’s Gama’a Islamiya have joined al Qaeda. Gama’a Islamiya later denied his statement.
Y Net News
09.03.2006
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Facing Up To The Challenge Of Reality In Gaza
The Qassam rockets that slammed into Sderot today along with the huge tunnel discovered near the Karni crossing served as bleak reminders that the Gaza
challenge cannot be ignored.
A challenge that is growing by leaps and bounds as weapons and military know-how pour in from Egypt while the various militias compete to build an extensive network of tunnels and other facilities for the war against Israel.
The Gaza threat is hardly a "local" nuisance. The capabilities being developed will put a considerable part of Israel within striking distance - this when major strategic facilities are already within range of weapons systems that have already be operated from Gaza. And while a painfully escalating ongoing war of attrition, in-and-of-itself, would be detrimental to the Jewish State, this pales in comparison to the danger the Gaza threat poses should Palestinian attacks take place within the framework of a regional clash.
What, then, is the solution?
Give Egypt a more active role? They haven't taken seriously their
obligation to control the flood of weapons from Egypt into Gaza and their chief interest so far has appeared to be preserving the strength of the various illegal militias.
International inspectors? They've been a farce at the Rafah Crossing. How about negotiating a "hudna"? But all "hudna" means is that the Palestinians can focus their resources on preparing for battle as they don't have to fear Israeli strikes on their facilities.
How about going to final status talks? In the best of realistic scenarios it means ultimately facing the very same threat but with the added complication that Gaza is an internationally recognized sovereign entity.
So what's left?
Retaking overall control of Gaza would hardly be a picnic. But it is still very doable. And at a cost that's a bargain as compared to the cost of postponing the inevitable.
EU Begins Paying Aid To Palestinians
The European Union said Friday it has begun paying "social allowances" to 625,000 Palestinians left unpaid and impoverished because of the financial crisis besetting the Hamas-led Palestinian government.
The funds - made through a program overseen by the World Bank - bypass the Palestinian Authority government and benefit "those who have suffered a significant loss of income" when much foreign aid and some of the Palestinians' own revenues dried up after Hamas came to power earlier this year.
Besides direct cash payments of about US$347 to each person, EU money will finance Palestinian health services and utilities, notably fuel to run generators.
Among the 625,000 Palestinians now receiving direct financial support are 11,500 health workers who are no longer being paid, said EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.
The EU is funneling some US$771,000 a month through the program, launched in July for a three-month period. Ferrero-Waldner said she hoped a review this month would result in its continuation.
In all, the EU has put aside $135 million to be disbursed through the aid plan. The 25 EU states are contributing another €35 million $45 million.
"We have kept our promise to help relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people during the current crisis," she told reporters before the start of a two-day meeting of EU foreign ministers who considered ways to revive the Middle East peace process after the Israel-Hezbollah war.
Ferrero-Waldner said that, to date, the EU special funding program has paid for, among other things, medical supplies to 413 primary health care centers and 22 hospitals, and the purchase of 1.5 million liters of fuel to run air conditioning and generators at hospitals and water facilities, after the Gaza power plant was knocked out by Israel in July.
Also Friday, the EU pledged $64 million in humanitarian aid to Palestinians at a donors' conference in Sweden. UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said several other "impressive new pledges" were made at the meeting that focused on the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.
"I believe today we will take a big step forward toward raising more than $200 million for an EU emergency appeal to help Palestinians," he said in Stockholm.
Jerusalem Post
09.02.2006
challenge cannot be ignored.
A challenge that is growing by leaps and bounds as weapons and military know-how pour in from Egypt while the various militias compete to build an extensive network of tunnels and other facilities for the war against Israel.
The Gaza threat is hardly a "local" nuisance. The capabilities being developed will put a considerable part of Israel within striking distance - this when major strategic facilities are already within range of weapons systems that have already be operated from Gaza. And while a painfully escalating ongoing war of attrition, in-and-of-itself, would be detrimental to the Jewish State, this pales in comparison to the danger the Gaza threat poses should Palestinian attacks take place within the framework of a regional clash.
What, then, is the solution?
Give Egypt a more active role? They haven't taken seriously their
obligation to control the flood of weapons from Egypt into Gaza and their chief interest so far has appeared to be preserving the strength of the various illegal militias.
International inspectors? They've been a farce at the Rafah Crossing. How about negotiating a "hudna"? But all "hudna" means is that the Palestinians can focus their resources on preparing for battle as they don't have to fear Israeli strikes on their facilities.
How about going to final status talks? In the best of realistic scenarios it means ultimately facing the very same threat but with the added complication that Gaza is an internationally recognized sovereign entity.
So what's left?
Retaking overall control of Gaza would hardly be a picnic. But it is still very doable. And at a cost that's a bargain as compared to the cost of postponing the inevitable.
EU Begins Paying Aid To Palestinians
The European Union said Friday it has begun paying "social allowances" to 625,000 Palestinians left unpaid and impoverished because of the financial crisis besetting the Hamas-led Palestinian government.
The funds - made through a program overseen by the World Bank - bypass the Palestinian Authority government and benefit "those who have suffered a significant loss of income" when much foreign aid and some of the Palestinians' own revenues dried up after Hamas came to power earlier this year.
Besides direct cash payments of about US$347 to each person, EU money will finance Palestinian health services and utilities, notably fuel to run generators.
Among the 625,000 Palestinians now receiving direct financial support are 11,500 health workers who are no longer being paid, said EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner.
The EU is funneling some US$771,000 a month through the program, launched in July for a three-month period. Ferrero-Waldner said she hoped a review this month would result in its continuation.
In all, the EU has put aside $135 million to be disbursed through the aid plan. The 25 EU states are contributing another €35 million $45 million.
"We have kept our promise to help relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people during the current crisis," she told reporters before the start of a two-day meeting of EU foreign ministers who considered ways to revive the Middle East peace process after the Israel-Hezbollah war.
Ferrero-Waldner said that, to date, the EU special funding program has paid for, among other things, medical supplies to 413 primary health care centers and 22 hospitals, and the purchase of 1.5 million liters of fuel to run air conditioning and generators at hospitals and water facilities, after the Gaza power plant was knocked out by Israel in July.
Also Friday, the EU pledged $64 million in humanitarian aid to Palestinians at a donors' conference in Sweden. UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said several other "impressive new pledges" were made at the meeting that focused on the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.
"I believe today we will take a big step forward toward raising more than $200 million for an EU emergency appeal to help Palestinians," he said in Stockholm.
Jerusalem Post
09.02.2006
Friday, September 01, 2006
Thousands Rally In Support Of Kidnapped Soldiers
Thousands Rally In Support Of Kidnapped Soldiers
A mass rally calling for the release of the three kidnapped IDF soldiers, Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser attracted thousands to Tel Aviv Rabin's Square Thursday evening.
Yarkon Subdistrict Chief Lt.-Cmdr. Haggai Dotan told The Jerusalem Post that tens of thousands of people were at the rally, and not 100,000 as organizers had claimed.
Tel Aviv's Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau opened the rally with a prayer for the soldiers' well-being, as he quoted Jeremiah 31: 17, "thy children shall come again to their own border."
Among those in attendance were several dozen youths enrolled in a pre-military course for leadership development. Wearing t-shirts that read "aharai" - an unofficial slogan of the IDF which means "follow me," the youths sat in the middle of the square, where they had set up three army stretchers - symbolizing the three kidnapped soldiers - in the shape of a triangle.
One of the rally's organizers, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan said, "We are coming to the square out of solidarity and a sense of duty. It is both own responsibility and the government's that we do no return to the situation of Ron Arad."
Dayan added that all efforts needed to be made to secure the release of the soldiers. "I have been in the army for many years and I always knew that there was an unwritten agreement between a soldier and his family, and the state and society, and when someone goes out to defend his home, we are all committed to bring him back," Dayan said.
Dayan, a former army deputy chief of staff, called on the government not to lift the air and blockade told The Jerusalem Post that "there is a grave danger that if Israel lifts the air and sea blockade of Lebanon, soldiers will be smuggled out of Lebanon." He called on the government not to lift the blockade. "Time is against us. Every day that passes they [Goldwasser and Regev] become more and more Ron Arad." Dayan added that Lebanon should not receive financial assistance until Goldwasser and Regev are released.
Miki Goldwassar, Ehud's mother, urged everyone who planned to join the rally not to come with protest signs and to avoid expressions of a political nature.
"We just want the boys to return home, we don't have any political agenda," said Goldwasser.
Itzik Orbach, a friend of Ron Arad from flight school, said "we [the friends of Ron Arad] will make sure the government doesn't fail in efforts to bring about release of the three soldiers, like it failed with Ron Arad." Orbach added that "if Ron were here, he would be speaking here at this rally, and he would have told you that all of Israel are beholden one to another. He would have told you that Israel would do everything to get its soldiers back, because we all grew up with the IDF ethic that you do not leave a comrade behind on the battlefield."
Orbach urged Gilad Shalit's father, Noam, to meet with Ron Arad's family, because they were the only people who could tell him how to tackle the situation and how to approach dealing with government.
In an emotional meeting, Gilad Shalit's army company arrived at the rally, straight from duty in Gaza, where they took part in IDF operations Thursday morning in the Sajaiyeh district of Gaza City.
One soldier, Tomer Shtarker, wearing dark sunglasses because he had been wounded in the operation and could not see well, said "We came to be with Gilad. It's hard, but we're optimistic. We feel that he is alive and we hope that he comes back."
One soldier said the feeling in the company was "very bad" since Gilad's abduction. "He's part of our company, he's part of us," he told The Jerusalem Post. The soldiers gathered around Gilad's father, handed out chocolate wafers and talked for few minutes, then sat in silence. After the rally the soldiers will go straight back to duty with their armor unit.
Noam Shalit told The Jerusalem Post that he was concerned that the government did not plan to negotiate for all three soldiers as part of one deal. The latest assessment among officials, he said, is that the government would hold separate negotiations with Hamas and Hizbullah. Shalit said that he hopes "Hizbullah and Hamas are not coordinated on this issue. They may have been coordinated on the issue of the wider war, but we do not believe they are on the soldiers."
Ran Cohen (Meretz), who was one of only two Knesset members at the rally, said he was not there in a political capacity but as a member of a Knesset lobby group that meets with the parents and political officials to work for the return of the soldiers.
"I'm not sure everything is being done in the way of negotiations," Cohen said. "I'm in favor of negotiations without any conditions, and I'm not sure everything is being done in this respect."
Cohen added, "I'm glad tens of thousands of people came out here," adding that "if this issue doesn't unite the nation, then this nation has no hope."
Jerusalem Post
09.01.2006
A mass rally calling for the release of the three kidnapped IDF soldiers, Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser attracted thousands to Tel Aviv Rabin's Square Thursday evening.
Yarkon Subdistrict Chief Lt.-Cmdr. Haggai Dotan told The Jerusalem Post that tens of thousands of people were at the rally, and not 100,000 as organizers had claimed.
Tel Aviv's Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau opened the rally with a prayer for the soldiers' well-being, as he quoted Jeremiah 31: 17, "thy children shall come again to their own border."
Among those in attendance were several dozen youths enrolled in a pre-military course for leadership development. Wearing t-shirts that read "aharai" - an unofficial slogan of the IDF which means "follow me," the youths sat in the middle of the square, where they had set up three army stretchers - symbolizing the three kidnapped soldiers - in the shape of a triangle.
One of the rally's organizers, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan said, "We are coming to the square out of solidarity and a sense of duty. It is both own responsibility and the government's that we do no return to the situation of Ron Arad."
Dayan added that all efforts needed to be made to secure the release of the soldiers. "I have been in the army for many years and I always knew that there was an unwritten agreement between a soldier and his family, and the state and society, and when someone goes out to defend his home, we are all committed to bring him back," Dayan said.
Dayan, a former army deputy chief of staff, called on the government not to lift the air and blockade told The Jerusalem Post that "there is a grave danger that if Israel lifts the air and sea blockade of Lebanon, soldiers will be smuggled out of Lebanon." He called on the government not to lift the blockade. "Time is against us. Every day that passes they [Goldwasser and Regev] become more and more Ron Arad." Dayan added that Lebanon should not receive financial assistance until Goldwasser and Regev are released.
Miki Goldwassar, Ehud's mother, urged everyone who planned to join the rally not to come with protest signs and to avoid expressions of a political nature.
"We just want the boys to return home, we don't have any political agenda," said Goldwasser.
Itzik Orbach, a friend of Ron Arad from flight school, said "we [the friends of Ron Arad] will make sure the government doesn't fail in efforts to bring about release of the three soldiers, like it failed with Ron Arad." Orbach added that "if Ron were here, he would be speaking here at this rally, and he would have told you that all of Israel are beholden one to another. He would have told you that Israel would do everything to get its soldiers back, because we all grew up with the IDF ethic that you do not leave a comrade behind on the battlefield."
Orbach urged Gilad Shalit's father, Noam, to meet with Ron Arad's family, because they were the only people who could tell him how to tackle the situation and how to approach dealing with government.
In an emotional meeting, Gilad Shalit's army company arrived at the rally, straight from duty in Gaza, where they took part in IDF operations Thursday morning in the Sajaiyeh district of Gaza City.
One soldier, Tomer Shtarker, wearing dark sunglasses because he had been wounded in the operation and could not see well, said "We came to be with Gilad. It's hard, but we're optimistic. We feel that he is alive and we hope that he comes back."
One soldier said the feeling in the company was "very bad" since Gilad's abduction. "He's part of our company, he's part of us," he told The Jerusalem Post. The soldiers gathered around Gilad's father, handed out chocolate wafers and talked for few minutes, then sat in silence. After the rally the soldiers will go straight back to duty with their armor unit.
Noam Shalit told The Jerusalem Post that he was concerned that the government did not plan to negotiate for all three soldiers as part of one deal. The latest assessment among officials, he said, is that the government would hold separate negotiations with Hamas and Hizbullah. Shalit said that he hopes "Hizbullah and Hamas are not coordinated on this issue. They may have been coordinated on the issue of the wider war, but we do not believe they are on the soldiers."
Ran Cohen (Meretz), who was one of only two Knesset members at the rally, said he was not there in a political capacity but as a member of a Knesset lobby group that meets with the parents and political officials to work for the return of the soldiers.
"I'm not sure everything is being done in the way of negotiations," Cohen said. "I'm in favor of negotiations without any conditions, and I'm not sure everything is being done in this respect."
Cohen added, "I'm glad tens of thousands of people came out here," adding that "if this issue doesn't unite the nation, then this nation has no hope."
Jerusalem Post
09.01.2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
