Israeli Team Uses Software To Determine Bible Authorship

When I read the headline "An Israeli Algorithm Sheds Light on the Bible," I  throught I was having deja vu experience. Why? Despite the new software this team of Israeli scholars used to shed light on the scriptures, the conclusions they've reached are outdated and have already been disproven by conservative scholars.

To be fair, here is what the startling new discovery is all about: "The new software analyzes style and word choices to distinguish parts of a single text written by different authors, and when applied to the Bible its algorithm teased out distinct writerly voices in the holy book."

Matti Friedman, API writer for the article gives the gist of what new insights this sleuth software has uncovered:

For millions of Jews and Christians, it's a tenet of their faith that God is the author of the core text of the Hebrew Bible — the Torah, also known as the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses. But since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, academic researchers have believed the text was written by a number of different authors whose work could be identified by seemingly different ideological agendas and linguistic styles and the different names they used for God.

In light of running the biblical text through this advanced software we now know almost 3500 years after the biblical text was written, that Moses did not act on his own when he wrote the Torah - the Five Books of Moses. Unfortunately, this "new" viewpoint gained from digital research is as old as a long list of late nineteenth century biblical scholars who developed what is known as the Documentary Hypothesis (DH)

The Documentary Hypothesis states the Pentateuch was a compilation of selections from several different documents, composed at different places and times over a period of five centuries, long after Moses.  And they came to these conclusions without computers!

According to proponents of this theory, Moses did not write the Torah. The ramification of this claim by the modern team of Israeli researchers is less than flattering for Jewish and Christian believers in the authenticity of the biblical text.

We are now forced to question the text when it says in Exodus 17:14 that "the Lord said to Moses  . . . Write this for a memorial in a book." Other similar statements supporting Mosaic authorship can be found in Exodus 24:4, 34:27 and Numbers 33:1-2.  Did Moses write the Torah or did a collection of writers claim Moses wrote the Five Books? Weren't they compromising the integrity of Moses and the text he allegedly wrote when we find out he didn't write it all of it after all?

This means that the Bible - a book of truth - is built on a fabrication of false claims and statements.

Other books in the Torah state that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. Joshua 8:31 claims, "as it is written in the book of the law of Moses . . " Now the  so-called deception has leaked beyond the Pentateuch and into the historical books of the Bible.

The New Testament also witnesses to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.  In John 7:19 Jesus asked, "Did not Moses give you the law . . ?  So even Jesus was implicated in this fraudulent claim that Moses himself wrote the first five books of the scriptures.

If we are going to determine the authorship of the Bible using computer software, we can't help but start with an assumption. It doesn't take a wiz to figure out computer research starts with assumptions that are already in alignment with what the researchers input into the computer.  The same assumptions that gave birth to the Documentary Hypothesis aka the Graf-Wellhausen Theory still hold true today.

First, most scholars who set out to improve on our knowledge of the compilation of the Bible start with the premise the Bible was not given by supernatural revelation. Starting with this premise, then the conclusion will always demonstrate that the Bible was not supernaturally revealed by God to humans.

Regardless of the claim of the Bible that the text came through God speaking to men, this statement is rejected from the start by scholars who refuse to believe it.  This is commonly known as circular reasoning.  Of course the software used by the Israeli team will reach the conclusion God did not speak to one man, Moses, and give him the Torah.  This is the presupposition under which the Israeli team started with and inputted into the computer.

Second, the team ignores the references to Moses authorship found in later books of the Bible.  They would have to reject the later claims of Mosaic authorship in Joshua or in the New Testament and call them "later insertions," in order to hold to their position.

Third, the Israeli team starts with the belief that the writer of the Pentateuch was incapable of using more than one name for God and more than one style of writing regardless of the subject matter.

API writer Friedman substantiates this belief in his article:

Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.

The priestly school is concocted by the appearance of the name Elohim for God and the non-priestly school is based on the appearance of the tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the biblical text. For some reason, to these students of the Scriptures, Moses was incapable of using both terms in one chapter and so there must be two different writers of the biblical text who may have been separated by hundreds of years.

in his excellent book, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Christian scholar Gleason Archer observes:

According to these theorists, a single author like Milton could not possible have written merry poems such as L'Allegro, lofty epic poetry such as Paradise Lost and scintillating prose essays such as Areopagitica. If he had been an ancient Hebrew, at least, he would have been speedily carved up into the ABC multiple-source hypothesis (pg. 97). 

The bottom line for these scholars is their desire to demonstrate that the Jewish faith was not revealed by God but evolved throughout many centuries of human editing of the biblical text.  Still we cannot be sure another computer software program will be used again in later years to disprove the Bible and merely prove the obvious - if you start with the premise the Scriptures are not the Word of God, you will reach that same conclusion whether you're living in the late nineteenth century or the year 2012.

Israeli Team Uses Software To Determine Bible Authorship

Jewish Community Concerned Over PCUSA's Kairos Palestine Document

From the Religion News Service, I reproduce a press release that came out this Monday from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. The press releases is very clear on its concern with the flawed PCUSA Kairos Palestine Document.

SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER EXTREMELY CONCERNED BY FLAWED PRESBYTERIAN PALESTINIAN ‘KAIROS’ STUDY GUIDE

The Simon Wiesenthal Center voices its profound disappointment that the Presbyterian Church—USA (PCUSA) study guide does not accurately portray the Kairos Palestine Document (KPD) for what it is: a revisionist document of hatred for Israel and contempt of Jews.

In late 2009, a group of Palestinian clergy issued the Kairos Palestine Document (KPD). It cast a political agenda in theological garb, re-writing history, ignoring Jewish roots and presence in the Holy Land for thousands of years. It placed all blame for the tragic circumstances of Palestinians on Israel, and none on the actions of Palestinians who blew up innocent Israelis in restaurants and launched rockets at school busses. It urged Christians to revert to the replacement theology that denied legitimacy of Judaism and Jews. It called for full boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. In the arena of words and policies, it was a declaration of war on the Jewish state, and a demand that all Christians join in the battle.

Jewish groups were highly critical of KPD, along with many Christian voices. As a result, PCUSA’s General Assembly (GA) last year voted only to embrace Kairos’ calls for “hope for liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy, and reconciliation,” and commissioned a study guide, which was released last week.

“Our hopes that this guide would instruct readers on both sides of the conflict,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Jewish human rights NGO. “Instead, to the ordinary reader, it reads like an endorsement of the Kairos document by the leadership of the Church. Where the guide does offer suggestions for reading, it chooses almost exclusively from documents long criticized as hostile to Israel.”

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, the Center’s Director of Interfaith Affairs, attended last year’s GA, and was part of the group that brokered the new “Spirit of Minneapolis” that is supposed to put Church policies and materials on a more even keel. He said, “The Jewish community is mindful and appreciative of the great effort that a few members of the Monitoring Group expended in preventing an even worse document.  But clearly, there are elements entrenched in Church leadership who have not worked for the reconciliation of Palestinians and Israelis, nor for the majority of Presbyterians who look favorably upon Israel, while mindful of their responsibilities to Palestinian Christians.” 

“Many hoped that the ‘Spirit of Minneapolis’ would produce reach change in a short period of time,” continued Rabbi Adlerstein. “It looks like the more likely source of progress will come from the rank and file Church members, who we can only hope will prepare their own study guide that will shed light, not heat on the complicated Israel/Palestine issue,” Rabbi Adlerstein concluded.

Jewish Community Concerned Over PCUSA's Kairos Palestine Document

Ernest Hemingway and the Sin of Ungratefulness

One of the worst deficiencies in a human being is the inability to show appreciation to another person for their kindness or generosity.  In the current age of entitlement it comes as no shock that many individuals lean towards being thankless moochers without a sense of gratefulness.

Ernest Hemingway, the greatly admired American writer, was no exception.  According to Paul Johnson in his excellent book, Intellectuals,  in Hemingway's adolescence the author rejected the religion and moral culture of his parents.  

in 1920 when Hemingway came home from the Great War after serving in an ambulance unit, he was a bit of a war hero. But he embarrassed his parents by failing to find a job and remained somewhat idle. 

In July that year, his mother Grace, wrote her son a letter that was the straw that broke the camel's back in their relationship.  She wrote in her letter that when a child is born into the world, he or she makes withdrawals from his mother like a bank. The child draws and draws without making any deposits throughout his or her childhood.

Now that her son was a young man, Grace wrote a carefully crafted note to him to remind him of his need for maturation:

The account needs some deposits by this time, some good-sized ones in the way of gratitude and appreciation, interest in Mother's ideas and affairs.  Little comforts provided for her home; a desire to favor any of Mother's peculiar prejudices, on no account to outrage her ideas. Flowers, fruit or candy, or something pretty to wear, brought home to Mother with a kiss and a squeeze . . . A surreptitious paying of bills, just to get them off Mother's mind . . . deposits which keep the account in good standing. Many mothers I know are receiving these and much more substantial gifts and returns from sons of less abilities than my son. 

Unless, you, my son, Ernest, come to yourself. cease your lazy loafing and pleasure seeking. . . stop trading on your handsome face. . . and neglecting your duties to God and your Savior, Jesus Christ . . . there is nothing before you but bankruptcy: You have overdrawn.

From this letter Hemingway went into a fury and settled into a deep hatred for his mother. In fact this hatred lasted for the rest of his life. To his fellow writers he usually referred to his mother as "that bitch."

I bring up this incident as an example of an intellectual who despite such novels as The Sun Also Rises and Farewell to Arms was lacking in simple human love and gratitude.  Like most intellectuals Hemingway was a self-made man, a person with no need for God and focused on his own individualism.

As a man who considered religion as a "menace to human happiness," it became apparent that this American writer needed the relationship with God his parents wanted him to enjoy. Instead, he worshipped his own need for fulfillment and ended up as a loveless, individualist who is much like people today who are content with a godless existence and the resulting lack of higher virtues they display.

Ernest Hemingway and the Sin of Ungratefulness

Presbyterian Kairos Palestine Document Shows True Anti-Israel Colors

In my previous blog I introduced the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s Kairos Palestine Document (KPD).  KPD,written by an ecumenical group of Palestinian Christians, was released publicly on December 11, 2009.  This manifesto was released by the PCUSA to let the world know what is taking place in Palestine, according to Palestinian Christians.

The goal of the KPD to call the "international community to stand by the Palestinian people." At the 219th General Assembly (2010) of the PCUSA, the full document was approved to the church for study and to endorse its emphases on "hope, liberation, nonviolence, love of enemy and reconciliation."

Let it be known that the desire of those who recommended the KPD was for others to hear the "often neglected voice of the Palestinian Christian." Unfortunately, the Palestinian Christian voice managed to distort the Israeli perspective and gave the PCUSA a dangerously one-sided perspective on the Middle East conflict.

As one reads through the KPD, several glaring anti-Israel messages are observed. As a result of reading through this document and noting its anti-Israel stance, I strongly urge this document should be further challenged and rejected by the PCUSA leadership.

Full blame for the current Middle East problem is placed on the occupation.  The document assumes that if Israel would end the "occupation" then peace would result. However, one would need to be quite naive to believe this falsehood. Consider the continued military attacks that were initiated by the Palestinian Gaza towards Israel when the Jewish nation withdrew from Gaza.

Today there is a strong call for Israel to unconditionally lift its embargo against Gaza for humanitarian reasons. Yet there are no safeguards offered that would stop the flow of rockets and weaponry to be used by Hamas against Israelis if the embargo is lifted.

The vision of Israel by the KPD committee is a non-Jewish Israel.  Despite the long term stance of the PCUSA that affirmed Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, the KPD calls for an international Israel.

In KPD 2.3 the document states, "we believe our land has a universal mission. The text states, "In this universality, the meaning of the promises, of the land, of the election, of the people of God open up to include all of humanity, starting from all the peoples of the land."

These words are a clear rejection of the Jewish Scriptures which call the people of Israel, God's elect chosen to dwell in clear geographically boundaries within the Holy Land.  In KPD 2.3 the writers expose their theological prejudice towards replacement theology in which the God's promises once made to Israel are given to the church.

Yes, it is God's intent for the nations of the world to come to Israel to worship the God of Israel and for the Law to go forth from Jerusalem to all the nations (Isaiah 2).  But God never pronounced that the international blessings of the world through Israel meant that Israel would become unnecessary and be replaced by an international entity. In all the passages describing a future messianic kingdom, Israel continues to exists and remains the key nation under the rulership of the Messiah King through which God's blessings to the nations flow forth. Israel is never replaced for a universal non-descript entity.

Thus, the KPD undermines the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

The security of Israel is ignored in the KPD and only challenges the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.  It is surprising to read a document written by Christians who have no problem condemning Israel's "occupation" of Palestinian territory, yet the same document fails to condemn the violence committed by Palestinian terrorists.  In my writings I have brought up this point as a major flaw in the Palestinian Christian's call for non-violence in dealing with Israeli soldiers.

I find the Palestinian Christian attempt to paint themselves as peaceful and advocates of  a "love thy enemy"  theology to be a serious misuse of this New Testament passage. This is especially true when  these proponents of non-violence fail to condemn the violent actions of their own Palestinian leaders.

In relation to Israel's right to protect itself against terrorist attacks, the KPD claims Israel used Palestinian terrorist attacks as a "pretext to accuse the Palestinians of being terrorists and was able to distort the real nature of the conflict, presenting it as an Israeli war against terror, rather than an Israeli occupation faced by Palestinian legal resistance aiming at ending it" (KPD 1.5).

The KPD does not require that the Palestinian government be held to the same standards as for the Israeli government.

Palestinian Christians are quick to point towards the poverty suffered by their people, but rarely hold their own government responsible for relieving the financial burdens of their people.  It's quite amazing that  the Palestinian ruling authority has enough financial capital to purchase arms to use against Israel but cannot feed their own people. It's also uncanny that the Palestinians are supported by Iran, Syria and Egypt in order to arm itself against Israel but once again, they fail to use these funds to improve the living conditions of their own people.

The KPD is filled with many inconsistencies and historical flaws regarding the background of the Middle East conflict.  I strongly suggest the PCUSA make every attempt to work with Jewish organizations and the Jewish community to provide a balance in their perspective on the Arab/Israel crisis.

The failure to include any Jewish authorities in compiling this report on the Middle East tempts one to believe that the PCUSA had no interest in presenting a balanced view on this most important conflict.  Rather, they used this committee that composed the KPD an an opportunity to bias the PCUSA against Israel.

Presbyterian Kairos Palestine Document Shows True Anti-Israel Colors

Presbyterian Kairos Palestine Document Takes A Swing at Israel

Since the Presbyterian Church (USA) ended its General Assembly July 2010, the denomination has made itself clear on its one-sided stance against Israel  regarding the Middle East conflict.

In an excellent article "Oslo Syndrome Redux?" summarizing the anti-Zionist element within the PCUSA by Dexter Van Zile, he argues that despite several compromises in their commentary on the Arab-Israel conflict, "there is still some committed anti-Zionists in this church who are obsessed about Jewish influence on American politics and who want others to embrace this obsession."  The church, Van Zile says, has realized that it needs to figure out a way to advocate for the Palestinian cause without demonizing Israel.

Background 


Let me back up and provide background on the PC (USA) when it comes to Israel.  Existing within the church is a bloc of anti-Israel activists who have tried to portray Israel as the chief culprit for the problematic Arab/Israel conflict.  These individuals have submitted overtures to meetings of local presbyteries. 


These overtures have ignored the terrorist activities of the Palestinians and focused on Israeli policies.  Once these overtures are submitted and passed by the local groups, they advance to the General Assembly, the PC (USA)'s national stage.


     The 2004 anti-Israel overture. In 2004 an anti-Israel divestment resolution that was submitted by a presbytery in Florida was approved by the GA.  The overture claimed Israel is the cause of the violence against innocent Palestinians.  Again, the resolution, like many of them, failed to mention the part Islamic groups played in creating violence in Israel.  The passage of this resolution appeared to be a great victory for the anti-Zionists within the PC (USA).


     The 2006 overturn of the 2004 resolution. Jewish leaders along with Presbyterian pastors and laity most likely complained about the 2004 resolution. So at the next GA two years later, the assembly overturned the 2004 vote that focused on Israel for divestment.  Oddly, the local presbyteries did not single out any other nation for divestment other than Israel. It doesn't take a genius to figure out other nations could have been called out for human rights violations. 


     The 2010 divestment resolutions. The local presbyteries were still bent on singling out Israel for punishment by the PC (USA).  A number of resolutions were brought before the GA in 2010.  Two overtures called for the denomination to divest (to deprive of financial support) from Caterpillar because the company supplies tractors and bulldozers to Israel.  


Israel would often bulldoze the homes of Palestinian terrorists especially if that person was involved in a brutal attack on innocent Israelis. Both the home and the family dwelling in the home were displaced because of the terrorist actions of one of its family members.  


     The report of the Middle East Study Committee (MESC). Apart from the above mentioned overtures, none of them were as bad as the 172 page report prepared by a nine-member MESC. This committee was responsible for providing a comprehensive report on the Israel/Palestinian conflict.


The resulting report "Breaking Down the Walls" was damaging to Israel and lacked any concern for Israel's security. The report was unfortunately passed by the GA . . . but in an altered form while retaining its anti-Israel bias. 


"Breaking Down the Walls" was seen by Presbyterians for Middle East Peace as "unbalanced, historically inaccurate, theologically flawed and politically damaging." 


     The creation of the Kairos Palestine Document. The 219th GA created a special "Monitoring Group on Middle East Policy" (MGMEP).  One of the tasks given to the MGMEP was to create a study guide for the Kairos Palestine Document, a so-called compromise for not accepting the "Breaking Down the Walls" report.  As we shall see, it isn't much of a compromise. 


The study guide was intended to endorse the document's focus on the hope of "liberation, non-violence, love of enemy and reconciliation."  Earlier this month, the study guide was released . The study guide and accompanying document was solely meant to address the concerns raised by Palestinian Christians. 


The Kairos Palestine Document was released on December 11, 2009 in Bethlehem.  The paper was composed by an ecumenical group of Palestinian Christians who wanted to show the world what was taking place in their land.  It cannot over overlooked that board of theologians and pastors who composed the KPD were all Palestinian!  


On the Kairos Palestine website the purpose of the document is spelled out: 

This document is the Christian Palestinians’ word to the world about what is happening in Palestine. It is written at this time when we wanted to see the Glory of the grace of God in this land and in the sufferings of its people. In this spirit the document requests the international community to stand by the Palestinian people who have faced oppression, displacement, suffering and clear apartheid for more than six decades. The suffering continues while the international community silently looks on at the occupying State, Israel.

The document continues its biased intent:

In this historic document, we Palestinian Christians declare that the military occupation of our land is a sin against God and humanity, and that any theology that legitimizes the occupation is far from Christian teachings because true Christian theology is a theology of love and solidarity with the oppressed, a call to justice and equality among peoples.

Notice that the Kairos Palestine Document (KPD) does not represent the Israeli perspective but solely the Palestinian viewpoint.  There is nothing mentioned about Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israel.  The document uses the terms "occupying Israel" to prejudice the reader against Israel.

In addition, the KPD condemns any theology that would show support for Israel, which is akin to a theology which "legitimizes the occupation."  In other words, the KPD only allows for a replacement theology in which the church is now the new Israel and all the promises God made to Israel concerning the Holy Land are null and void.

I have a lot more to say about the KPD, which I will leave for my next blog.  The flaws and dangers of the KPD cannot be tossed aside.  If you are a member of a Presbyterian Church (USA), I  implore you to speak to your pastor or leadership board about their position on this document. Voice your concerns about the infiltration of an strong anti-Zionist contingency in the denomination.

Presbyterian Kairos Palestine Document Takes A Swing at Israel

Lynne Hybels On A Pro-Palestinian Christian Tour

Bill Hybels, pastor of mega church Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois, has been frequently featured on the media's list of Who's Who.  Not too long ago Pastor Hybels introduced President Clinton as a guest at a Willow Creek church leadership conference. Hybels also offered the president spiritual counsel in the aftermath of Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Currently Hybels, pastor of the one of the world's most influential seeker friendly churches has taken a back seat on the media radar screen to his wife Lynne.

 One Christian blog reports Ms. Hybels has become a "woman on a mission."

Lynne Hybels

In light of a past encounter with Palestinian Christian Sami Awad, director of the Holy Land Trust, the pastor's wife spent time with him in Palestine, and the encounter changed her perspective on the Israel Palestinian issue.

At a recent meeting at her home, the film The Little Town of Bethlehem produced by evangelical Christians was screened.  According to the film's promotional blog, the documentary "shares the gripping story of three men—a Palestinian Muslim, a Palestinian Christian, and an Israeli Jew—each born into violence but willing to risk everything to bring an end to violence in their lifetime." Sami Awad is the Palestinian Christian in the film and was present at the meeting.

When introducing Awad after the 77 minute film, Lynne Hybels declared, "I want to introduce you to my hero."  

Upon closer examination of The Little Town of Bethlehem, I observed the production to be filled with historical inaccuracies about the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, places the majority of the blame for the lack of peace in the disputed territories on Israel, fails to even mention the fact the majority of the Palestinian population voted for Hamas, a terrorist organization, to govern them. These historical distortions and omissions casts a disingenuous shadow on  this evangelical documentary.

In The Little Town of Bethlehem (LTOB) Awad and others compare their non-violent movement to that of Martin Luther King.  However, this comparison is seriously flawed. The film fails to mention that during the civil rights movement blacks in the South never performed terrorist acts against the white community.  Blacks did not walk into segregated schools or lunch counters in the southern U.S. as suicide bombers with bombs strapped to their backs.

Awad claims to be firmly against demonizing Israelis. Yet throughout The Little Town of Bethlehem the demonization of Israeli soldiers was a continuing theme. In addition, this Palestinian biased film gave a pass to the radical terrorism perpetrated by the Palestinian people and their Arab neighbors since the War of Independence of 1948. Palestinian terrorism was not even alluded to in the film. I felt I was watching a propaganda films produced by Nazi propaganda expert Joseph Goebbels.

Regarding LTOB, Hybels commented, "Little Town of Bethlehem has challenged me to ask on a deeper level, ‘What does it mean to follow Jesus into the brokenness of this fragmented, hate-filled, fearful world?’” She hopes its influence can be extended: “I think every American—certainly every Christian—should watch this film!”

Well, the film is definitely getting some nationwide exposure.  The next stop for The Little Town of Bethlehem is a screening at the Wild Goose Film Festival  a Christian music festival that is to be held near Chapel Hill, NC.

After the documentary film is screened Saturday, June 25, Brian McLaren, the father of the controversial emergent church, Lynne Hybels, and Ian Cron, an episcopalian priest will serve on a panel to discuss the film.  I wonder if the Israeli side will be presented.  I doubt it.  I guess this is what it means to "to follow Jesus into the brokenness of this fragmented, hate-filled, fearful world."

So where does mega-church pastor Bill Hybels stand on his wife's involvement with the pro-Palestinian Christian movement?   One can only draw hasty conclusions as Lynne Hybels appears to be delving deeper and deeper into a non-violent Palestinian Christian movement that fails to see the violence of their own people and casts the blame for the Middle East crisis on Israel alone.

Lynne Hybels On A Pro-Palestinian Christian Tour

Why Israel Cannot Go Back to Pre-1967 Borders

Thinking Outside the Blog exists to not only make comments on current events - political and religious - but to also provide historical information on the Middle East conflict. It is my conviction that much discussion on the news and in the blogosphere is based on a lack of accurate historical information. I fear that individuals form their opinions about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict from last night's evening news sound bytes.

I am most concerned with President Obama's suggestion that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders.  Those borders are shown on the following map:

One can see from this map that there was not much area between the borders of the West Bank to the Mediterranean Sea. Hostile Palestinian forces or other terrorist entities in the West Bank had the advantage over Israel since some of the land area between the West Bank and Israel's West Coast was as small as 9 miles (Netanya is one example)!

Israel needs defensible borders to prevent ground assaults.  Israel's return to pre-1967 borders would provide Arab states and the Palestinians with the ability to launch ground and missile attacks on the Jewish state with ease.

The most effective military strategy by Israeli's enemies would be to attack at the narrowest point using ground troops and cut Israel in half, thus isolating northern and southern Israel with an enemy military zone in the middle.

 I cannot emphasize enough that with the pre-1967 lines, the boundaries of the West Bank would be 9 miles of the Israeli coast, 11 miles from Tel Aviv, 10 miles from Beersheba and 21 miles from Haifa.


Consequently, Israel needs to push its border as far East as possible in order to be put some distance between the Israeli population and the Palestinian capability of ground or missile attacks.

While living in Hollywood, CA when I first moved to the West Coast, I would be very concerned if missiles were being fired over the Hollywood Hills from northern Van Nuys. I would want to put as much distance as possible from the source of these missile attacks and myself, In addition,  I would want military troops stationed as close to Van Nuys as possible to control any enemy attacks and engage the enemy. I would also support checkpoints for individuals leaving Van Nuys and trying to enter Hollywood with evil designs to cause more havoc.

In the next map from 2002 one can see the importance of Israel maintaining a buffer zone of security between the West Bank and Jordan.

It should not be any surprise that attacks by Arab states were more frequent before 1967.  Prior to the Six Day War Palestinian attackers used Syria and Jordan as a home base for attacking Israel.

Another important reason Israel cannot go back to the pre-1967 borders is that Israel would have to give up its present-day  system of early warning radar set up in the hills of Judea and Samaria.

With this early warning system Israel can maintain its ability to deploy surface-to-air missiles in the case of attack by an Arab state.

In addition, the citizens of Israel are given enough time to relocate to places where shelter is provided from incoming missiles after being warned by an air raid warning.  If Israel was to give back the locations where the early warning radar is set up, the Jewish state would give up its own security.

Based on this 2002 map of modern day Israel one observes the need for Israel to maintain a military presence in the Jordan River Valley to the east of the West Bank.  Without this military presence there would be no security between Israel and Jordan.  Terrorist groups would have open access to enter the country through the West Bank.

Israel must maintain its military control, not occupy, the adjoining areas to the West Bank.

To put things in proper perspective, I've included another map of Israel, but this one shows the area Israel controlled after the Six Day War. In comparison, this map shows shows what territories Israel has already given up.

During the Six Day War Israel took military control over the Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank.  In post Six Day War peace negotiations Israel gave back 94% of the land that came under IDF control.

Now two million Arabs live in the West Bank. In recent years, the infiltration of Palestinian terrorists from the Palestinian Authority has increased. May of these infiltrators have included suicide bombers.  In addition, 1.5 million Arabs live in Israel itself in such towns as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Also, since the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel has withdrawn from 40% of the West Bank. The Oslo Accords were:

. . . .  a framework for the future relations between the two parties. The Accords provided for the creation of a Palestinian National Authority (PNA). The Palestinian Authority would have responsibility for the administration of the territory under its control. The Accords also called for the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

In a post Six  Day War world, Israel has returned to the Palestinians a vast amount of formerly Israeli controlled territory.

To return back to the pre-1967 borders would be suicide for Israel. The Jewish state would lose its military security which is a necessity as long as Israel is adjoined to the Palestinian state under the control of the self-proclaimed terrorist organization, Hamas.

Thus far Hamas has given Israel no indication that Israeli citizens will be free from terrorist attacks from radical Palestinians nor has Hamas renounced it failure to recognize the Jewish state or to back off from their goal to destroy Israel.

Unless there is a change in the stance of Hamas, Israel can never go back to the pre-1967 borders for the sake of the security of the Jewish state and its citizens - both Arab and Jewish.

Why Israel Cannot Go Back to Pre-1967 Borders