Showing posts with label anti-Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-Israel. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Cut the Jewish Roots, Kill the Christian Tree!

 Cut the Jewish Roots, Kill the Christian Tree! by Olivier Melnick.


I am reposting this blog from Olivier Melnick from his blog New Antisemitism.  I believe his blog is especially appropriate in light of the fact that a Hamas-affiliated organization held a UN endorsed "informal parallel meeting" promoting the destruction of the Jewish state.

According to the Jerusalem Post the event was advertised on the UN website and listed on an official UN document headlined “Human Rights Council, twentieth session, 18 June – 06 July 2012."

One of the speakers at this event was Sameh Habeed, head of the media department at the "Palestinian Return Center." In the course of the speech, Habeed said at a UN-provided microphone, at a UN-advertised event associated with the UN’s top human rights body:

“In 1947, 1948 and 1949 the Palestinian refugees were ethnically cleansed by the Israeli gangs.... Some Arab armies came to Palestine to fight the Zionist project, which came from all over Europe to take over Palestine and to make it as a national home for the Jews, although it was always the national home for the Palestinians for thousands and thousands of years.

Notice the words concerning the land of Israel, "although it was always the national home of the Palestinians for thousands and thousands of years." For my readers who are familiar with biblical history and post-biblical history, it is clear this is an outright lie meant to kick off a campaign of propaganda concerning Israel.  In light of this UN endorsed meeting, I thought Olivier's blog was appropriate.


Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Messianic Jewish Leaders Take a Stand Against Anti-Israel Position of the United Methodist Church

What a blessing to see various messianic leaders of several organization issue a statement against the United Methodist Church for their anti-Israel position.  Please read this blog which is reposted from The Rosh Pina Project and share it on your social networking sites:



Messianic Jewish Leaders Warn United Methodists Poised to Betray Israel and Scripture


The following is a joint statement by Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC),International Messianic Jewish Alliance(IMJA) and the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS).
As the major organizations representing the international Messianic Jewish community, we are greatly alarmed that the United Methodist Church (UMC) appears close to adopting a policy of selective divestment concerning Israel. Such a move, being proposed to the UMC General Conference, which begins April 24, 2012 would place the UMC not only in direct opposition to the prophetic purposes of God for Israel, but also in opposition to biblical justice.
The prophet Ezekiel foretells that in latter days God would breathe on the dry bones of Israel, restoring us physically to the land of Israel and spiritually to God (Ezek. 36:24-28; 37:1–14). The historically unprecedented, miraculous and prophetic re-gathering of the Jewish people to our ancient homeland, starting in the nineteenth century, reached a climax in 1948 with the establishment of the modern State of Israel, and the physical process of national restoration continues to this day. Since the pivotal year of 1967, when Jerusalem was reunited under Jewish rule, the number of Messianic Jewish individuals and congregations throughout the world, including Israel, has mushroomed, growing at a rate far greater than any other Jewish religious movement in existence today. The modern re-emergence of the Messianic Jewish community is in the process of fulfilling biblical prophecy (Deut. 30:1–10; Isa. 44:1–5; Jer. 31:7–13; cf. Rom 11:25–29).
The International Messianic Jewish Alliance (IMJA), Messianic Jewish Alliance of America (MJAA), International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues(IAMCS), and Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) constitute the major organizations representing this community. As Messianic Jews who stand in the place of our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the prophets and apostles, we are deeply disturbed that the UMC is considering an agenda that would actually work against God’s purposes of physical and spiritual restoration for the land and people of Israel and the promotion of peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.
Our forefathers, Peter, Paul, John and the Biblical prophets of Israel, would be outraged to see people that call themselves followers of the Messiah Jesus advocating a policy that is so far out of sync with God’s purposes and plans. The divestment proposal could even be seen as persecuting and oppressing the tiny, God-restored and democratic state of Israel.
Israel’s claim to legitimacy as a Jewish state rests not only on the words of the Hebrew prophets, but also on broadly accepted standards of human rights and international law. The Jewish people have maintained a presence in the land of Israel throughout history, and have constituted the majority population in Jerusalem since the mid-nineteenth century. The state of Israel was born in response to the homelessness and suffering of the Jewish people in exile, which reached its horrible climax during World War II. Israel has had to fight several wars for its very survival as a state. Israel has made numerous efforts to pursue a plan for peace. Israel’s continued military presence in the West Bank represents a failure of the peace process for which Palestinians as well as Israelis must be held responsible.
The UMC proposal objects to specific Israeli policies, such as “illegal settlements, segregated roads, checkpoints, the separation wall, home demolitions and other realities of occupation,” which in many particulars represent security measures in response to past terror attacks. But the proposal goes beyond specific policies and expressly “calls on the United Methodist Church to end its financial involvement in Israel’s occupation by divesting from companies that sustain the occupation” as a whole (Proposal 21071-FA-Non-Dis, “Aligning UMC Investments with Resolutions on Israel/Palestine,” http://calms.umc.org/2012/Text.aspx?mode=Petition&Number=1071). To demand a unilateral Israeli withdrawal ignores recent history and realities on the ground today. In a sad irony, this pressure on Israel comes at a time when it is suffering continual rocket attacks from the Gaza strip, from which Israel unilaterally withdrew in 2005. Pushing for an immediate Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria indicates either an ignorance of Israel’s purposes in maintaining a presence there, or a reckless disregard of Israeli lives and security.
Failure to curtail terrorist violence undermines the credibility of the Palestinian Authority as a partner for peace. The PLO, with its axiomatic rejection of any Jewish state, came into existence in 1964, three years before Israel controlled the territories in question. Its legacy has been transferred to the Palestinian Authority, which has historically envisioned a Middle East without the State of Israel. Surely, this systemic hatred must be recognized as a root of conflict and terror. Hope for an end to this tragic conflict requires that Palestinian leadership unequivocally recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. To ignore this imperative, as the divestment movement does, makes a mockery of its call for justice. Likewise it is unjust to ignore the history of hostility and aggression by Israel’s neighbors, which outnumber the seven million citizens of the Jewish state with a combined population of 350 million within the 22 states of the Arab League. Nearly all of these states have failed to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state or to renounce their desire for its destruction. Efforts to moralize over today’s tragic situation without reference to its historical and political roots cannot produce lasting results.
Selective divestment from companies doing business with Israel promotes a one-sided and highly politicized view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which can only lead to further polarization of all concerned. In addition, it unfairly applies a double standard singling out the democratic and free state of Israel with a potent and rarely used form of protest, while ignoring the horrific humanrights violations in the Palestinian Authority and the countries surrounding Israel.
As Jewish followers of Yeshua (Jesus), we appreciate the attempts of Christian denominations since the Holocaust to promote understanding and good will. Divestment from Israel, however, only serves to diminish the possibility of genuine negotiations for peace, encourage violence and extremism, and undermine the relationship between the church and the Jewish community. Divestment efforts insert partisanship into an enterprise best governed by this word from Moses, “You shall not render an unjust judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great: with justice you shall judge your neighbor” (Lev. 19:15). Most of all, the UMC divestment initiative ignores the words of Scripture that foretell a Jewish return to the land of Israel after centuries of exile: “For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land” (Ezek. 36:24; see also Jer. 16:14–15, 33:10–14, etc.).
The United Methodist Church places a premium on justice, but ironically threatens to perpetrate an injustice. A decision to divest resources from Israel will do more to hurt the UMC than Israel. Therefore, we call upon the United Methodist Church to heed the words of the Jewish prophets and the standards of justice established in Scripture, and to reject the use of divestment as a weapon against Israel.
Instead, we call on the UMC to pray for and support the people of Israel in their struggle against those that would seek to destroy the Jewish state and oppose God’s purposes as revealed in Scripture.
John Fischer, President Joel Liberman, Executive Director International Messianic Jewish Alliancehttp://www.imja.org
Paul Liberman, President Joel Chernoff, General Secretary Messianic Jewish Alliance of Americahttp://www.mjaa.org
Jeff Forman, Chairman International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues
Howard Silverman, President Russell Resnik, Executive Director Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations http://www.umjc.org
Contact: Joel Chernoff, joelchernoff@mjaa.org,             610-304-2237
Russ Resnik, rebrez@umjc.org,             505-440-2265

Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

The Church is the New Israel Now . . or is it?

Ever since I accepted the Lord in 1969 I have been faced with Replacement Theology which teaches the Church has replaced Israel.  In other words, all the promises God gave to the Jewish people are now fulfilled in the Church and Christians form the "New Israel." Is this true?

Charles D. Provan has written a book The Church is Israel Now in which he attempts to support the Replacement Theology line of thinking.

Recently Mike Moore on his blog Mike's Musings critiques Provan's book and presented a very well thought out argument.  I decided to repost Mike's blog.  I encourage you to read the article and go to Mike's blog add your comments of appreciation or share you input on his blog.  You are also welcome to share your thoughts and dialogue with Louis Lapides about Replacement Theology on ThinkingOutsidetheBlog.

There's an interesting discussion about Messianic Jews on Facebook. One of the contributers recommended Charles Provan's book The Church is israel Now. I, however, am not a fan of Provan's book. 
When The Church is Israel Now was first published I sent a substantial critique of the book to the author and to his main distributers in the UK and the USA. I received no reply from either Provan or his US distributer, and the response I received from his UK distributer was a polite, two-sentence note that basically told me to get lost. I believe the reason I receive no answer is because my case is unanswerable. This is what I sent. 
Dear Mr Provan,
I read with interest your book The Church is Israel Now and believe it needs some form of response. Obviously much thought and comparison of Scripture with Scripture went into the book, which is commendable. The format of placing Old Testament Scripture against New Testament Scripture is illuminating. However, in spite of the fact that you attempt to allow the Bible to speak for itself, I believe your thesis is basically unscriptural, fundamentally flawed and very dangerous. 
In the second paragraph of your introduction (no page number) you state: ‘The only hypothesis which explains how this could be [i.e.: that the same terms used in the Old Testament to describe Israel are used in the New Testament to describe Christians] is that the Israel of the Old Testament (so called ‘Racial Israel’) had been replaced by the Israel of the New Testament, the Christian Church.’ It is a mark of humility on your part that you acknowledge your book to be a hypothesis and I would like to suggest that your hypothesis is fundamentally flawed. 

You appear to be unable to think in categories other than ‘either/or’. Your method of assembling sets of verses which show, for example, that in the Old Testament Israel was beloved of God and that in the New Testament Christians are beloved of God, and that in the Old Testament the Jews are called God’s people and in the New Testament Christians are called God’s people has its strengths but it also has great weaknesses.
For example, if your system of Scriptural interpretation was applied to the biblical teaching about God one would have to conclude that Jesus has replaced Jehovah on the grounds that in the New Testament the divine titles are all accorded to Jesus. In the Old Testament, for example, Jehovah is the King of Israel, whereas in the New Testament Jesus is the King of the Jews; in the Old Testament Jehovah is the Shepherd of his people whereas in the New Testament Jesus is the good Shepherd; in the Old Testament Jehovah is the Rock but in the New Testament Jesus is the Rock. As I have pointed out to numerous ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is no title given to Jehovah which is not applied to Jesus in the New Testament. But that is not the same as a ‘transfer’ of titles. Jesus has not replaced Jehovah. Is it not at least possible, therefore, that the Church may indeed be the beloved Israel of God without having replaced the nation of Israel? 
While appearing to be scriptural, I believe your method is ultimately unscriptural in that you attempt to fit the Scriptures (no doubt unwittingly) into a preconceived framework. Nowhere is this more evident than when you aver that Matthew 21:43 ‘demonstrates ... quite clearly’ the transfer of Israel’s privileges and responsibilities: ‘Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.’ 
At first sight the words of Christ appear to support your hypothesis. But Matthew goes on: ‘When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them.’ (Matthew 21:45). Jesus was not saying the kingdom would be taken from Israel but from the rulers of Israel.
At the beginning of Matthew 21 the people of Jerusalem welcomed Christ and acknowledged him to be the Messiah, the son of David and a prophet (vv. 8-11). It was ‘the chief priests and the scribes’ alone who were displeased (vv15, 16) at the events of the day. In verse 23 the people listened avidly to Christ but the chief priests and the scribes took issue with him over his authority to teach. 
In the first of the two parables recorded in the same chapter (vv. 28-33) Jesus revealed that publicans and prostitutes entered the kingdom before the religious leaders. In his second parable the Lord used the imagery of Isaiah 5 to make his point. In the days of the prophet, the corruption of the people led to the Babylonian captivity and the kingdom was taken away. Christ says in Matthew 21 that the kingdom will again be taken away, this time from the chief priests and Pharisees, and given to another nation (as at the time of the Babylonian captivity). 
However, Christ does not say the kingdom will be taken from Israel: Matthew records that the chief priests and Pharisees ‘perceived that he spoke concerning them’.
The common people of the nation received Christ and hence received the kingdom. After Pentecost vast numbers of the Jewish people turned to Christ. Contrary to traditional Christian thinking, the same people who cried ‘Hosanna’ on Palm Sunday did not call, ‘Crucify’ on Good Friday. That teaching has fuelled anti-Semitism in the gentile world and continues to be a reason why so many Jewish people, out of a misinformed sense of what it means to be a Jew, continue to reject Christ.
The Sanhedrin had difficulty arresting Jesus for fear of public outrage: ‘But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitudes’ (Matt 21:46).
They arrested him at night and tried him in secret so that on the morning of the crucifixion the majority of the population of Jerusalem appear to have been astonished and dismayed to discover he had been condemned: ‘And a great multitude of the people followed him ... who mourned and lamented him’ (Luke 23:27). 
Even a cursory reading of the Gospels reveals that Jesus was not rejected by the nation as a whole: 
When he had come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? So the multitudes said, This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth (Matthew 21:10,11).
Many of the people believed in him, and said, When Christ comes, will he do more signs than these which this man has done? (John 7:3 1).
Even among the religious hierarchy, not all rejected Christ: ‘Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed on him’ (John 12.42).
The Book of Acts demonstrates that the kingdom had not been taken from ‘Racial Israel’. In Israel and the Diaspora thousands accepted Jesus as their Saviour and King.
That day about three thousand souls were added to them (Acts 2:41). 
Many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to be about five thousand (Acts 4:4). 
The number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem; and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7).
When the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews ... followed Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:43). 
Many of them believed; and also not a few of the Greeks (Acts 17:12).
John, of course, records that ‘his own received him not’. Nevertheless, he modifies that statement with another: ‘but to as many as received him...’ Many verses demonstrate that the picture was not as bleak as we have become conditioned to accept. There was a substantial ‘remnant according to the election of grace’ in Jerusalem, Judea and the Diaspora.
You state on page 46 that in the Old Testament, ‘Israel Is An Olive Tree’ (Jeremiah 11:16-17; Hosea 14:5-6) and in the New Testament, ‘Christians Are An Olive Tree’ (Romans 11:17-24). Though acknowledging that in Romans 11, ‘The Olive Tree under discussion ... is clearly Israel’ your bold-type sub-headings give the wrong impression. Paul does not say in Romans 11 that Christians are ‘an olive tree’. 
Gentile believers, says the apostle, are branches from a wild olive tree that have been grafted on to the olive tree of Israel. If your hypothesis is, as you believe, the only possible one, Paul’s olive tree illustration is misleading. If the Church has replaced ‘Racial Israel’ a more fitting illustration would be that one olive tree has been cut down and another planted in its place, as your own sub-headings suggest.
But God has not cut down one olive tree and planted another in its place. Nor are there two separate olive trees. Instead, God has broken off some branches from the olive tree of Israel because of their unbelief and has grafted in branches not native to the tree. This is a vital and important distinction and it is inexcusable that a book purporting to be serious biblical scholarship should fail to see that distinction.
Nowhere in the book do you take into account Romans 11:1: ‘Did God reject his people? By no means!’ Nor do you engage with Old Testament verses such as Deuteronomy 4:31: ‘For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath.’ Nowhere do you take into account Jeremiah 31:35-37:
This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar – the LORD Almighty is his name: ‘Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,’ declares the LORD, ‘will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.’ This is what the LORD says: ‘Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,’ declares the LORD.
At best, the claim that ‘the Church is Israel now’ demonstrates an utter disregard for the apostle’s warning to the grafted-in branches of the Olive Tree not to boast themselves against the natural branches. At worst, your hypothesis appears a particularly arrogant example of theological anti-Semitism. If it falls into the hands of Jews it will serve only to alienate them from the Church which has supposedly replaced them because it will confirm their historical contention that the Church is anti-Jewish.
The Church is Israel Now appears to me a classic example of adding two and two together to make five. To your credit you acknowledge that your conclusion is a ‘hypothesis’ (albeit the only possible one) according to which, when ‘the Israelites obeyed God, God loved them. But when they turned from Him He hated them, stripping them of their Israelite status.’
While it is true that in certain Old Testament passages, God speaks of His hatred for disobedient Israelites those passages must be modified by other statements. If God’s love is conditional upon obedience, it is difficult to pinpoint a time when God could possibly have loved ‘Racial Israel’. Indeed, nowhere are God’s declarations of love greater than in the book of Hosea when Israel, the bride of Jehovah, is likened to a brazen whore.
If God’s love is conditional, where does that leave the Church! If God’s love is conditional there is no hope for any of us.
Followed to its logical conclusion your hypothesis would leave Christians without assurance of salvation. If God, without warning, transferred all ‘Racial Israel’s’ privileges to Christians, what confidence can Christians have that he will not at some future date transfer our benefits to others?
Apart from a reference to a select number of verses in Romans 11, one would think you were unaware of the chapter’s existence, for nowhere do you consider what Paul means when he says that Israel is the people God ‘foreknew’, that ‘the Israelites are beloved for the fathers’ sakes’ or that God’s ‘gifts and calling are without repentance’.
The book’s subtitle, ‘The Transfer of Conditional Privilege’ reveals a lack of understanding of the unconditional nature of God’s covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15.
Moreover, there is a failure to understand that the Church is not a new entity which came into being on the Day of Pentecost. Israel is God’s qahal, a Hebrew word that in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament is rendered ekklesia, the same word translated ‘church’ in English versions of the New Testament. Ekklesia means basically ‘that which is called out’ and the Christian church, or congregation, has been called out of the world and gathered to Messiah. But the Lord’s calling out of a people for his name did not begin at Pentecost. According to Stephen, in Acts 7:38, God had an ekklesia in the wilderness.
Until the time of Paul’s missionary enterprise the ekklesia consisted mainly of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, though there were notable exceptions such as Rahab of Jericho, Ruth the Moabitess, Uriah the Hittite and Naaman the Syrian.
In the 2,000 years since the time of Christ the majority of the ‘called out’ have been Gentiles. Paul’s illustration in Romans 11 is that Israel is an olive tree, the branches of which are individual believers. Some of the native branches have been ‘broken off through unbelief’. But whether the branches are natural or wild, both are joined to the same tree.
This renders the theory that the Church has replaced Israel a nonsense. How can Israel replace Israel? How can the Church replace the Church?
Neither is the church God’s ‘new’ Israel. On the day of Pentecost ‘the church’ entered a new phase, when the gospel would be proclaimed to all nations beginning at Jerusalem. ‘With Pentecost’, writes Kai Kjær-Hansen, ‘God’s church for the last days begins its ministry’.
Shadows have been replaced by reality; the partial has been superseded by the fullness, and the preparation by the fulfilment. At Pentecost, as at the erection of the tabernacle and the dedication of Solomon’s temple, the glory of God descended and filled his temple ‘made without hands’.
Gentile believers must eschew fruitless and arid replacement theology and return to the New Testament’s emphasis on fulfilment. We must acknowledge with gratitude that we who were once ‘without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world’ are now ‘no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone’.
The language of replacement is inappropriate to the discussion. It promotes that Gentile arrogance against which Paul warned in Romans 11, whereas the recognition that we Gentiles have become ‘fellow heirs [with Israel], of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel’ will promote humility, wonder and a longing for the natural heirs of the blessings to enter into the fullness of their inheritance.
Please leave your comments on this article or on the subject of Replacement Theology. Thanks.
Share/Bookmark

Friday, March 9, 2012

Arab Mufti Admitted: The Arabs Sold the Land to the Jews

In contrast to the current lie being promoted by pro- Palestinian supporters, the Jewish people did not steal the land from the Arabs and kick them out.  Rather, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, a man who found friendship with Adolph Hitler in their hatred of the Jewish people, seventy years ago admitted the Arabs sold the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Here is a reposting of the blog Israel Matzav entitled:

The Mufti tells the truth: The Arabs sold the land to the Jews

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, will never be accused of loving Jews. In fact, 70 years ago today, the Mufti, who was Yasser Arafat's uncle,met with Adolph Hitler in Berlin to discuss the 'final solution' to the 'Jewish problem.'

In 1937, the Mufti testified before the Peel Commission, which was looking into the causes of unrest between Jews and Arabs in what was then known as 'Palestine.' The Mufti made a stunning admission: Most of the land that belonged to the Jews, which we are constantly accused of 'stealing,' had actually been purchased by the Jews from the Arabs. And the Arabs were what we lawyers call willing sellers.
The Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is: 
“The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen (Arab peasants) are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews…Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased…There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” The land shortage decried by the Arabs “…was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” (Chapter V in the report). 
El-Husseini’s interview on January 12, 1937 was preserved in the Commission’s notes and referenced, although not published, in the full report. It has been summarized by a number of scholars, including Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009) and Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to our Time (Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); and a detailed analysis with quotations from the interview can be found in Aaron Kleiman’s The Palestine Royal Commission, 1937 (Garland Publications, 1987, pp. 298ff.). 
The selections from the interview presented below can be found on line here and here. Sir Laurie Hammond, a member of the Peel Commission, interviewed the Mufti about his insistence to the Commission that Zionists were stealing Arab land and driving peasants into homelessness. He spoke through an interpreter. 
SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation.

MUFTI: At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What year?

MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation.

SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much?

MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams.

SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned? Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams?

MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered.

SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000.

MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab?

MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth.

SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews?

MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes?< MUFTI: No, it wasn’t.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition?

MUFTI: No.

SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold?

MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases.

SIR I HAMMOND: I don’t quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold. Who sold them?

MUFTI: Land owners.

SIR I HAMMOND: Arabs?

MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom?

MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said?

MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords?

MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated?

MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse.

SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter?

MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens.

SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily?

MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs.

LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now?

MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers.

The Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater on par with Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed. Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners. Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine’s Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population.

The next time someone spouts the Arab line about how Zionists came and stole Arab land and drove Arabs out, just quote the Mufti.
Share/Bookmark

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Anti-Semitic Jewish Authors' Connection with Stephen Sizer

Recently I posted a blog entitled, An Open Letter to Messianic Leaders and Congregants, in which I issued a wake up call for messianic Jewish followers of Jesus to take note of the growing anti-Israel movement slithering its way through evangelical Christianity.  The blog was re-posted on various blog sites such as the messianic Jewish Rosh Pina Project.

The majority of feedback I received was positive and encouraging.

One of the comments I received on Thinking Outside the Blog was from a Christian brother who suggested I read a list of books by Jewish authors who appeared to be anti-Zionist and part of the political Left.  In attempting to provide a response, I came across some research done on several of these Jewish authors and discovered these writers are more than anti-Zionist.  To my shock I found out several of these Jewish individuals are anti-Semitic.  I'm not even sure if the person who offered me the reading list of Jewish authors was even aware of this fact.

One of the authors listed was Israel Shamir who wrote a book called Galilee Flowers.  Shamire claims to be Jewish but several sources I came across doubted his Hebraic background. Only his mother knows for sure.

What we can gather from different sources is that Shamir a.k.a. Adam Ermash or Joran Jermas is a Russian born anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. Michael Moynihan, editor of Reason.com contributed an article entitled, "Assange's Extremist Employees," in which he demonstrates Shamir functions as WikiLeak's content aggregator.  Shamir is responsible for selecting and distributing the cables to the Russian news organization.

Moynihan, no fan of Shamir, recounts Shamir's views about the Holocaust. The WikiLeak official has called the Auschwitz concentration camp "an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross," not a place for extermination.  Shamir told a Swedish journalist (and fellow Holocaust denier) that "it's every Muslim and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust.  The Jews, he says, are a "virus in human form" and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real. 

I would assume that any Christian would not want to be associated with Shamir in any official capacity. Yet in a blog entitled Stephen Sizer's Friends I was disappointed to read that Sizer, Vicar of Christ Church has his books and website listed by Shamir.

I know if I had a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite promoting any of my writings or websites, I would make a public statement to distance myself from that individual.  I have yet to find Pastor Sizer make any such comments. In addition,  the blog Seismic Shock features an article, "The Neo-Nazi, the Pro-jihad priest and Stephen Sizer" that presents proof of Sizer's additional connection with Shamir. Someone can make an argument that it's unfair for me to tag Sizer as guilty of being an anti-Semite because of his association with Shamir.  However, until I discover a public statement by sizer disavowing any connection with Shamir, I am compelled to believe the Vicar is quite comfortable with the association.

Another author mentioned in the suggested reading list given to my by a ThinkingOutsidetheBlog reader is Gilad Atzmon, the author of The Wandering Who? In an article by Alan Dershowitz "Why are John Mearsheimer and Richard Endorsing a Blatantly Anti-Semitic Book?", the well-known attorney recounts how anti-Israel activists have shunned Atzmon due to his extreme antisemitism. Dershowitz writes,
At least ten authors associated with the Leftist publisher that published The Wandering Who? have called on the publisher to distance itself from Atzmon’s views, explaining that the “thrust of Atzmon’s work is to normalise and legitimise anti-Semitism.”
Hard-core neo-Nazis, racists, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, on the other hand, have happily counted Atzmon as one of their own. David Duke, America’s premier white supremacist, has posted more than a dozen of Atzmon’s articles on his website over the past five years and recently praised Atzmon for “writ[ing] such fine articles exposing the evil of Zionism and Jewish supremacism.”
Atzmon also has a connection with Shamir that is quite damaging:
Israel Shamir, a Holocaust denier(“We must deny the concept of Holocaust without doubt and hesitation”) who argues that Jews ritually murdered Christian children for their blood and that “The rule of the Elders of Zion is already upon us,” refers to Atzmon as a “good friend” and calls Atzmon one of “the shining stars of the battle” against “the Jewish alliance.”
From an article in Seismic Shock  I learned of Stephen Sizer's recommendation of a book Israel's Mossad Bomb Russian Plane To Kill Scientists? reviewed by the Palestine Telegraph, a news source filled with anti-Semitic articles. Palestine Telegraph is the hate publishing operation of independent Palestinian journalist Sameh Habeeb.

In a list of individuals featured over a period of time in several issues Palestine Telegraph is Gilad Atzmon who is reported as marking Holocaust Memorial Day by publishing a revolting "Israelis-are-Nazis" discourse.

Since Sizer references Palestine Telegraph in his book recommendation, it is probably safe to conclude Sizer feels

Sizer may appear to be soft-spoken, gentle and non-plussed when speaking to opponents.  He even cleverly wooed Calvin Smith, a leading Christian Zionist scholar in the UK, in a recent debate on RevelationTV. By the end of the debate Smith was convinced Sizer is a nice guy who he'd like to get to know more.  I think that's admirable for two Christians to want to become closer a brothers in the Lord. 

Yet if Smith had more information about Sizer's connection to Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, the King's Evangelical Divinity School professor might see things differently.  

Stephen Sizer may make claims about his love for the Jewish people, but I have a hard time believing  from his talks, his writings and public comments that this Christian brother is a friend of the Jewish people. 

Share/Bookmark

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Palestinian leader: Arabs erred on 1947 partition


JERUSALEM (AP) — The Palestinian president says the Arab world erred in rejecting the United Nations' 1947 plan to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state.
President Mahmoud Abbas also told Channel 2 TV in a rare interview with the Israeli media on Friday that he and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were "very, very close" to reaching a peace agreement in 2008.
"If he stayed two, three months, I believe that time we could have concluded an agreement," Abbas said.
He confirmed reports that Olmert had agreed to withdraw from 93.5 percent of the West Bank.
Abbas also said it was not clear the Palestinians could muster the requisite nine votes in the U.N. Security Council to approve the statehood bid they submitted last month.




Share/Bookmark

Friday, October 14, 2011

Jewish Group Urges Starbucks to Take Down Anti-Israel Post



SWC Urges Starbucks to Remove Misleading Middle East Posting from its Digital Network

October 12, 2011

Various members of the Simon Wiesenthal Center have alerted the SWC to this (see graphic) misleading posting on the history of the Land of Israel which ran on Starbucks Digital Network. The Center immediately contacted Starbucks headquarters.

The Center wrote in part, “…we'd like to hear from Starbucks about what steps you are taking to remove it and what steps… you'll be taking to assure that Starbucks won't serve as a platform for such material in the future.

The propaganda presentation called Palestine: A Century of Shrinking present maps that falsely assert that the historic Land of Israel belonged to the Arabs.

“The material presented on the Starbucks Digital Network is similar to other anti-Israel propaganda being promoted by extreme anti-Israel groups. We urge our members to join us in urging Starbucks not to allow itself to be a platform by extremists, “ said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, SWc Associate Dean.

Go to info@starbucks.com to let Starbucks know what you think of this, site case #7361732 in your email.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center is one of the largest international Jewish human rights organizations with over 400,000 member families in the United States. It is an NGO at international agencies including the United Nations, UNESCO, the OSCE, the OAS, the Council of Europe and the Latin American Parliament (Parlatino).

For more information, please contact the Center's Public Relations Department, 310-553-9036, join the Center on Facebook, www.facebook.com/simonwiesenthalcenter, or follow @simonwiesenthal for news updates sent direct to your Twitter page or mobile device.
Share/Bookmark