Showing posts with label Zionist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zionist. Show all posts

19 July 2008

Why aren`t evangelicals denouncing Pastor John Hagee?

.

Israel e News


Why aren`t evangelicals denouncing Pastor John Hagee?




Filed under: Israeli politics, Middle East, Anti-Semitism, Christian Zionism, Islamophobia, USA foreign policy, Missionising, Disputed territories, News, Religious extremism, US elections, Christian Fundamentalism, Zionism, Jerusalem
On: Friday, July 18, 2008 -





Republican presidential nominee John McCain once sought the endorsement of Texas mega-church pastor John Hagee (left, with McCain). But once McCain got it he was forced to reject it. Why? Because Hagee has denounced Catholicism as "The Great Whore," called for the destruction of Islam, demonizes homosexuals, thinks global warming is a hoax and constantly insists the U.S. should attack Iran because it will help usher in the Second Coming.

Hagee's also a fervent supporter of the State of Israel against its Muslim neighbours. But he doesn't bother to tell Jews that Christians of his ilk expect all Jews to convert to Christianity. If they don't, such end-times Christians believe Jews will suffer eternal damnation when Jesus returns in the Last Judgment.

Hagee's people recently had his sermons removed form You Tube for alleged copyright reasons, after millions of people signed on to watch him say God sent Hitler to frighten European Jews into moving to Israel. Hagee is also reported to have said that the AntiChrist will be German, gay, a "blasphemer" and "partly-Jewish."

The silence from fellow evangelicals about Hagee's militant declarations are perplexing, given that mainstream Muslims are often criticized for not denouncing their extremist brothers and sisters in the faith.

Here's a piece I wrote about how some Jews are growing increasingly nervous about Christian Zionists support for the state of Israel:

Jews and Christians have rarely enjoyed a comfortable relationship. After a history of Christian persecution that contributed to the Holocaust, however, Jews began meeting with shamed Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants, who eventually agreed not to target Jews for conversion.

Evangelical Christians did not typically take part in the interfaith dialogues, or come to the same conclusion. As a result, many Jews have been offended by evangelicals who still believe Jews can go to heaven only if they recognize their "mistake" in not recognizing Jesus as their Messiah.

In politics, as well, there has often been tension between Jews and evangelicals. In the U.S., Jews strongly support the Democrats while white evangelicals firmly back the Republican party. That trend holds in Canada, where polls show evangelicals lean toward the Conservatives and Jews typically vote Liberal or New Democrat.

But there is one overriding issue that opinion polls show is increasingly bringing together many evangelical Christians and Jews in an uneasy alliance: The state of Israel. Many evangelicals, like influential Texas mega-church pastor John Hagee, now call themselves "Christian Zionists." They're supporting Israel against its Middle Eastern foes mainly because of the way they interpret biblical prophecy about the Apocalypse.

These evangelicals cite Genesis 12:3, which recounts God's promise to bless Israel's friends and curse its enemies. Based on their reading of the Book of Revelation, such evangelicals also worry Jesus will not return to Earth to bring in Judgment Day unless the holy land is governed by Jews.

A recent poll by the respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 63 per cent of white American evangelicals believe current conflicts involving the state of Israel "fulfil Biblical prophecy about the Second Coming."

American evangelicals, who constitute 26 per cent of the population, gave President George W. Bush 40 per cent of his votes in the last election. The Pew Forum poll found evangelicals are more than twice as likely as secular Americans to sympathize with Israel more than the Palestinians.

The complex and awkward subject of Christian Zionism -- which causes division within both Judaism and evangelicalism -- was highlighted last year by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which represents 2.5 million conservative Protestants. The Canadian umbrella organization widelydistributed an article in which Christian Zionist Jim Hutchens accused a group of moderate U.S. evangelicals of "appalling ignorance" for supporting Bush's two-state peace proposal of separate nations for Palestinians and Israelis.

The EFC at the same time sent out a related article that offered evangelicals pointers on how to respectfully befriend Jews in hopes of converting them to Jesus Christ. In publishing the articles, however, the EFC says it doesn't necessarily endorse such views.

The issue of conversion is the most combustible ingredient in the political mix that is bringing together evangelicals and Jews.

The controversy relates to the Rapture, or evangelical beliefs about who will be saved on Judgment Day, which grow out of the apocalyptic Book of Revelation. Shaped in part by the phenomenal publishing success of the the Left Behind series, theological thrillers about the end of the world, polls show more U.S. evangelicals than ever believe the reconstitution of the state of Israel in 1948 after nearly 2,000 years signalled the start of a series of events presaging the Apocalypse.

Others signs include the war in Iraq, the oil crisis and the Iranian conflict. Many evangelicals (unlike Roman Catholics or mainline Protestants) believe the more Israel is threatened, the closer is the fulfilment of biblical prophecies about the end times.

For Jews, therefore, the big worry behind Rapture theology is that evangelicals believe they have a special duty to convert Jews to usher in the longed-for Judgment Day. On Judgment Day, many evangelicals believe, all those who have not become Christian, including Jews, will be condemned to eternal damnation.

The Left Behind series includes graphic scenes of unconverted Jews dying in a terrible conflagration. Given this, many Jews have conflicting feelings about embracing evangelical as allies. The national director of the U.S. Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, warned against it: "Make no mistake," Foxman said. "We are facing an emerging Christian right leadership that intends to 'Christianize' all aspects of American life."

In Canada, the most high-profile champion of Christian Zionism is Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College in Ontario, head of the Defend Marriage Coalition and leader of Ottawa's new Institute for Canadian Values. Even though McVety is a Conservative party supporter, no political polling exists that I'm aware of about whether Canada's evangelicals, who make up almost 10 per cent of the population, agree with his views about the state of Israel or Judgment Day.

Canadian evangelicals, as a group, tend to be more moderate than their American cousins. But the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada's recent messages to adherents make clear the future of the state of Israel remains a live and sensitive issue for conservative Protestants north of the border.
Douglas Todd - Vancouver Sun



22 May 2008

"We Created Terror Among the Arabs": The Deir Yassin Massacre

sott.net

"We Created Terror Among the Arabs": The Deir Yassin Massacre

Counterpunch
William James Martin
Tue, 13 May 2008



On April 9, 1948, members of the underground Jewish terrorist group, the Irgun, or IZL, led by Menachem Begin, who was to become the Israeli prime minister in 1977, entered the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin, massacred 250 men, women, children and the elderly, and stuffed many of the bodies down wells. There were also reports of rapes and mutilations. The Irgun was joined by the Jewish terrorist group, the Stern Gang, led by Yitzhak Shamir, who subsequently succeeded Begin as prime minister of Israel in the early '80s, and also by the Haganah, the militia under the control of David Ben Gurian. The Irgun, the Stern Gang and the Haganah later joined to form the Israeli Defense Force. Their tactics have not changed.

The massacre at Deir Yassin was widely publicized by the terrorists and the numerous heaped corpses displayed to the media. In Jaffe, which was at the time 98 percent Arab, as well as in other Arab communities, speaker trucks drove through the streets warning the population to flee and threatening another Deir Yassin. Begin said at the time, "We created terror among the Arabs and all the villages around. In one blow, we changed the strategic situation."

From about 1938 on to the founding of Israel, Begin was the leader of the Irgun. That group regularly assassinated English soldiers in Palestine and frequently hung their booby-trapped bodies in public places. Under Begin, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 97 British civil servants. The Stern Gang, under Shamir, also assassinated the U.N. representative to Palestine, Count Bernadotte, in 1948.

But Deir Yassin was not the only massacre by the Israeli Defence Force. That army, under Moshe Dayan, took the unarmed and undefended village of al-Dawazyma, located in the Hebron hills, massacred 80 to 100 of its residents, and threw their bodies into pits. "The children were killed by breaking their heads with sticks ... The remaining Arabs were then sealed in houses, as the village was systematically razed ..." (Nur Masalha, The Historical Roots of the Palestinian Refugee Question).

We read further. According to Yitzhak Rabin's biography:

We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Alon repeated his question: "What is to be done with the population?" BG waved his hand in a gesture, which said: Drive them out! ... I agreed that it was essential to drive the inhabitants out.

Continuing the narrative, Ben-Gurion University historian Benny Morris writes in "Operation Dani and the Palestinian Exodus from Lydda and Ramle in 1948", Middle East Journal, 40

At 13.30 hours on 12 July [1948]... Lieutenant-Colonel Yitzhak Rabin, operation Dani head Operation, issued the following order: '1. The inhabitants of Lydda must be expelled quickly without attention to age. They should be directed to Beit Nabala,... Implement Immediately.' A similar order was issued at the same time to the Kiryati Brigade concerning the inhabitants of the neighboring town of Ramle, occupied by Kiryati troops that morning... On 12 and 13 July, the Yaftah brigades carried out their orders, expelling the 50-60,000 remaining inhabitants of and refugees camped in and around the two towns....

About noon on 13 July, Operation Dani HQ informed IDF General Staff/Operations: 'Lydda police fort has been captured. [The troops] are busy expelling the inhabitants.... Lydda's inhabitants were forced to walk eastward to the Arab legion lines; many of Ramle's inhabitants were ferried in trucks or buses. Clogging the roads... the tens of thousands of refugees marched, gradually shedding their worldly goods along the way. It was a hot summer day. The Arab chroniclers, such as Sheikh Muhammed Nimr al Khatib, claimed that hundreds of children died in the march, from dehydration and disease. One Israeli witness described the spoor: the refugee column 'to begin with [jettisoned] utensils and furniture and, in the end, bodies of men, women, and children.

There were many other such villages with Arabic names that have almost been expunged from memory--but not quite. These facts have always been known to some historians, however they have been consistently denied by the official Israeli histories, as, indeed, Israel has never taken any responsibility for the exodus of Palestinians from the land of the present state of Israel.

Within the last 10 to 20 years, however, there has been an exponential increase in historical studies of the origins of the state of Israel which have coincided with the release by Israel of many, but not all, of the historical and military archives. Ben-Gurion University historian Benny Morris, as well as others, have systematically mined these documents and found numerous instances of massacres, and, by the way, not one shred of evidence for the frequently repeated official Israeli lie that the Palestinians fled Palestine because the surrounding Arab states told them to.

In fact, according to UN estimates, which some say are conservative, 750,000 Palestinians fled the site of the present Jewish state in 1948. Those refugees and their descendents now number about 4.5 million and constitute the largest and longest standing refugee population in the world. Many live in squalid refugee camps distributed in the surrounding Arab states or in the West Bank or Gaza, many retain the titles to their land, recognized by the British before 1948 or the Ottomans before that , and many retain the keys to their front doors of their former homes in what is now Israel, whether or not those doors still exists.

The '67 War generated a second wave of about 300,000 refugees from the West Bank and Gaza who were either expelled through direct or psychological methods or fled the Israel aerial attacks on the territories which included the extensive use of napalm.

The reader is invited to read the Hagana's Plan D , which has been available in English since the 1960s and was a military strategy of 1948 that entailed the evacuation of the Palestinian population from the areas of a future Jewish state.

Those who invoke the suicide bombings against mostly Israeli civilians to infer the righteousness of the Israeli cause live in a twilight of psychic denial of an otherwise unambiguous historical record: the state of Israel was founded on terrorism and ethnic cleansing.

The suicide bombings inside Israel, the first of which only occurred in 1994, after 25 years of occupation, is only a side show. That is a symptom and long way from the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

There will never be a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until Israel takes responsibility, under U.N. Resolution 194, calling for reparation of the Palestinian refugees, and recognizes the immense suffering it caused at that time. We need also to recognize the US is giving unqualified moral support to a state that is based on racial purity and one that is intrinsically expansionist.



William James Martin is a visiting Instructor of Mathematics at the University of Central Florida, Orlando. He can be reached at: martinw@email.unc.edu





Comment:

It is interesting to notice that Israeli historian Benny Morris - quoted in the article above as one of the sources revealing crimes against Palestinians - will not condemn Zionism in spite of his findings. The following fragment of an interview speaks volumes:

When ethnic cleansing is justified

Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?

There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.

We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.

A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy.

There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.

If you expected me to burst into tears, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that.

So when the commanders of Operation Dani are standing there and observing the long and terrible column of the 50,000 people expelled from Lod walking eastward, you stand there with them? You justify them?

I definitely understand them. I understand their motives. I don't think they felt any pangs of conscience, and in their place I wouldn't have felt pangs of conscience. Without that act, they would not have won the war and the state would not have come into being.

You do not condemn them morally?

No.

They perpetrated ethnic cleansing.

There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing.

And that was the situation in 1948?

That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.

The term "to cleanse" is terrible.

I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed.

What you are saying is hard to listen to and hard to digest. You sound hard-hearted.

I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.

Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them.

And morally speaking, you have no problem with that deed?

That is correct. Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.

And in our case it effectively justifies a population transfer.

That's what emerges.

And you take that in stride? War crimes? Massacres? The burning fields and the devastated villages of the Nakba?

You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that were perpetrated in Bosnia, that's peanuts. In comparison to the massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad, that's chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the population, you find that we behaved very well.

That is Benny Morris. For him, the goal of establishing a "Jewish state" justified any atrocities against the Palestinians.

For the Nazis, the ideal of the greatness of the "Fatherland" and the "Germanic Race" justified the extermination of Jews and others. They probably also thought that it was 'unfortunate' for those others, but that they had no choice.

It seems that for some people learning the facts is not enough to develop real empathy and conscience.



Reader Comments

Zionist Terrorism Pays! By Righthand

Two Israeli Prime Ministers were terrorist that LED different terrorist gangs back in 1948. The present IDF comprises the 3 Zionist terrorist gangs; Stern Gang, Irgun, and Haganah. In addition to massacring countless Arab females, children and civilian males, they killed 97 British civil servants. The British rewarded terrorism by giving in and running. Zionist terrorism pays.

Today any voice for peace on the Arab side is assassinated. Back then it was the United Nations representative, Count Bernadotte that they assassinated. the UN rewarded them by creating the terror state of Israel, at war with its neighbours since. Zionist terrorism pays.

In 1967 Israeli war plains and navel deliberately attempted to sink the lightly armed intelligence USS Liberty killing 34 and wounding 174 USA personal. By a miracle it stayed afloat. The US rewarded the Zionist by totally resupplying them when Sadat was beating them. Zionist terrorism pays.

What lesson is there for the Arabs aside from no justice from the West. Terrorism pays, certainly if you are a Zionist.


Added: Sun, 18 May 2008 01:33 EDT




.

9 May 2008

The loathsome smearing of Israel's critics: Johann Hari

.



The Independent


Thursday, 8 May 2008
Commentator: Johann Hari


In the US and Britain, there is a campaign to smear anybody who tries to describe the plight of the Palestinian people. It is an attempt to intimidate and silence – and to a large degree, it works. There is nobody these self-appointed spokesmen for Israel will not attack as anti-Jewish: liberal Jews, rabbis, even Holocaust survivors.

My own case isn't especially important, but it illustrates how the wider process of intimidation works. I have worked undercover at both the Finsbury Park mosque and among neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers to expose the Jew-hatred there; when I went on the Islam Channel to challenge the anti-Semitism of Islamists, I received a rash of death threats calling me "a Jew-lover", "a Zionist-homo pig" and more.

Ah, but wait. I have also reported from Gaza and the West Bank. Last week,
The response?
  • There was little attempt to dispute the facts I offered.
  • Instead, some of the most high profile "pro-Israel" writers and media monitoring groups – including Honest Reporting and Camerasaid I an anti-Jewish bigot akin to Joseph Goebbels and Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh,
  • while Melanie Phillips even linked the stabbing of two Jewish people in North London to articles like mine.
  • Vast numbers of e-mails came flooding in calling for me to be sacked.
Any attempt to describe accurately the situation for Palestinians is met like this.
  • If you recount the pumping of sewage onto Palestinian land, "Honest Reporting" claims you are reviving the anti-Semitic myth of Jews "poisoning the wells."
  • If you interview a woman whose baby died in 2002 because she was detained – in labour – by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint within the West Bank, "Honest Reporting" will say you didn't explain "the real cause": the election of Hamas in, um, 2006. And on, and on.

The former editor of Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, David Landau, calls the behaviour of these groups "nascent McCarthyism". Those responsible hold extreme positions of their own that place them way to the right of most Israelis. Alan Dershowitz and Melanie Phillips are two of the most prominent figures sent in to attack anyone who disagrees with the Israeli right. Dershowitz is a lawyer, Harvard professor and author of The Case For Israel. He sees ethnic cleansing as a trifling matter, writing:

"Political solutions often require the movement of people, and such movement is not always voluntary ... It is a fifth-rate issue analogous in many respects to some massive urban renewal."

If a prominent American figure takes a position on Israel to the left of this, Dershowitz often takes to the airwaves to call them anti-Semites and bigots.

The journalist Melanie Phillips performs a similar role in Britain. Last year a group called Independent Jewish Voices was established with this mission statement: "Palestinians and Israelis alike have the right to peace and security." Jews including Mike Leigh, Stephen Fry and Rabbi David Goldberg joined. Phillips swiftly dubbed them "Jews For Genocide", and said they "encourage" the "killers" of Jews. Where does this come from? She says the Palestinians are an "artificial" people who can be collectively punished because they are "a terrorist population". She believes that while

"individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project".
Honest Reporting quotes Phillips as a model of reliable reporting.

These individuals spray accusations of anti-Semitism so liberally that by their standards, a majority of Jewish Israelis have anti-Semitic tendencies. Dershowitz said Jimmy Carter's decision to speak to the elected Hamas government "border[ed] on anti-Semitism." A Ha'aretz poll last month found that 64% of Israelis want their government to do just that.


As US President, Jimmy Carter showed his commitment to Israel by giving it more aid than anywhere else and brokering the only peace deal with an Arab regime the country has ever enjoyed. He also wants to see a safe and secure Palestine alongside it – so last year he wrote a book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. It is a bland and factual canter through the major human rights reports. There is nothing there you can't read in the mainstream Israeli press every day. Carter's comparison of life on the West Bank (not within Israel) to Apartheid South Africa is not new. The West Bank is ruled in the interests of a small Jewish minority; it is bisected by roads for the Jewish settlers from which Palestinians are banned. The Israeli human rights group B'tselem says this "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime". Yet for repeating these facts in the US, Carter has widely called "a racist". Several universities have even refused to let the ex-President speak to their students.

These campus battles often succeed. Norman Finkelstein is a political scientist in the US whose parents were both Jewish survivors of the Warsaw ghetto and the Nazi concentration camps. They lost every blood relative. He made his reputation exposing a hoax called From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters which claimed that Palestine was virtually empty when Zionist settlers arrived, and the people claiming to be Palestinians were mostly impostors who had come from local areas to cash in. Finkelstein showed it to be scarred by falsified figures and gross misreading of sources. From that moment on, he was smeared as an anti-Semite by those who had lauded the book. But it was when Finkelstein revealed two years ago that Alan Dershowitz had, without acknowledgement, drawn wholesale from Peters' hoax for his book The Case For Israel, that the worst began. Dershowitz campaigned to make sure Finkelstein was denied tenure at his university. He even claimed that Finkelstein's mother – who made it through Maidenek and two slave-labour camps – had collaborated with the Nazis. The campaign worked. Finkelstein was let go by De Paul University, simply for speaking the truth.

Are the likes of Dershowitz and Phillips and Honest Reporting becoming more shrill because they can sense they are losing the argument? Liberal Jews – the majority – are now setting up rivals to the hard-right organisations they work with, because they believe this campaign of demonisation is damaging us all.
  • It damages the Palestinians, because it prevents honest discussion of their plight.
  • It damages the Israelis, because it pushes them further down an aggressive and futile path. And
  • it damages diaspora Jews, because it makes real anti-Semitism harder to deal with.

We need to look the witch-hunters in the eye and say, as Joseph Welch said to Joe McCarthy himself:

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

j.hari@independent.co.uk






1. Israel is suppressing a secret it must face

It is the smell of shit. Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison.

Meanwhile, in order to punish the population of Gaza for voting "the wrong way", the Israeli army are not allowing past the checkpoints any replacements for the pipes and cement needed to keep the sewage system working. The result? Vast stagnant pools of waste are being held within fragile dykes across the strip, and rotting. Last March, one of them burst, drowning a nine-month-old baby and his elderly grandmother in a tsunami of human waste. The Centre on Housing Rights warns that one heavy rainfall could send 1.5m cubic metres of faeces flowing all over Gaza, causing
"a humanitarian and environmental disaster of epic proportions".


2. "It is the smell of shit. Raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements"

The local chief medical officer, Dr Bassam Said Nadi, explained to me: "Recently there were very heavy rains, and the shit started to flow into the reservoir that provides water for this whole area. I knew that if we didn't act, people would die. We had to alert everyone not to drink the water for over a week, and distribute bottles. We were lucky it was spotted. Next time..."


3. Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) is an international network of environmental organizations in 70 countries. In contrast to many other NGOs operating internationally, it is structured from the bottom up as a as a confederation of groups. Each country has its own separate different organization, which in many cases existed and campaigned in its own right before choosing to affiliate to the global network. The groups conduct their own campaigns and coordinate their activities through the umbrella body Friends of the Earth International. The national groups are often composed of grassroots local groups working in their own areas.


4. CAMERA The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) is a Boston-based, non-profit, pro-Israel media watch organization which was founded in 1982. CAMERA has been noted for its pro-Israel media monitoring and advocacy. CAMERA states it releases reports to stop what it sees as "frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East" that it believes may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice.


5. Honest Reporting is a watchdog organisation that monitors the media for what it deems to be media bias against Israel. It's members contact news agencies to request changes when they identify sources that they consider to be deliberately biased against Israel.



6. Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels was a German politician and Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. He was one of German dictator Adolf Hitler's closest associates and most devout followers. Goebbels was known for his zealous, energetic oratory and virulent anti-Semitism. After the Nazis gained power in 1933, he was appointed propaganda minister.


7. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He became president on August 6, 2005 after winning the 2005 presidential election by popular vote. Before becoming president, he was the mayor of Tehran. He is the highest directly elected official in the country; however, according to Article 113 of Constitution of Iran, he has less total power than the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Iran and has the final word in all aspects of foreign and domestic policies.


8. Melanie Phillips is a British columnist and author. Her articles appear mainly in the Daily Mail newspaper and focus on political and social issues. She has previously written for The Guardian and other publications.


9. Well-poisoning is the act of malicious manipulation of potable water resources in order to cause illness or death, or to deny an opponent access to fresh water resources. Historically it was one of the gravest of three accusations brought against Jewish people as a whole (the other two being host desecration and blood libel), for example in Europe following the Black Death (1348-1350).


10. Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) is an organization launched on February 5, 2007 by 150 prominent British Jews such as Nobel laureate Harold Pinter, historian Eric Hobsbawm, lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman, film director Mike Leigh, and actors Stephen Fry and Zoë Wanamaker. The organization is reportedly

"born out of a frustration with the widespread misconception that the Jews of this country speak with one voice –– and that this voice supports the Israeli government's policies."


11. James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr. was the 39th President of the United States from 1977 to 1981 and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. In foreign affairs, Carter pursued the Camp David Accords, the Panama Canal Treaties and the second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). Carter sought to put a stronger emphasis on human rights; he negotiated a peace between Israel and Egypt in 1979. His return of the Panama Canal Zone to Panama was a major reversal of U.S. claims of influence over parts of Latin America dating to the Monroe doctrine, and Carter came under heavy criticism for it.

After leaving office, Carter founded an institute to promote global health, democracy and human rights. He has travelled extensively to conduct peace negotiations and establish relief efforts; he is also a key figure in the Habitat for Humanity project. As of 2008, he is the earliest-serving living president and the second-oldest. Carter remains a relevant national figure today, and has been especially vocal on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


12. Haaretz founded in 1918, is Israel's oldest daily newspaper. It is published in Hebrew in Berliner format. Haaretz English Edition is the translated English edition of the paper. In Israel, it is published and sold together with the International Herald Tribune.


13. Alan Morton "Dersh" Dershowitz is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and is known for his extensive published works, career as an attorney in several high-profile law cases, and commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict.


14. Ethnic cleansing refers to various military policies or military practices aimed at achieving security during war through displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory.


15. Hamas "Islamic Resistance Movement" is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization and political party. In January 2006, Hamas won a surprise victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the ruling Fatah party took 43.


16. Talk to Hamas, Israelis tell government as attacks continue

Feb 28 2008

Israel is under growing pressure to talk to the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas, which fired a barrage of rockets from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel yesterday, killing a student.

The strike followed the publication of a poll showing 64% of Israelis want their government to negotiate with Hamas to broker a ceasefire and secure the release of a soldier, Gilad Shalit, who was captured in 2006.


17. B'Tselem is an Israeli non-governmental organization (NGO) that describes itself as "The Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories". It was founded by a group of Israeli public figures, including lawyers, academics, journalists, and members of the Knesset. B'Tselem's stated goals are "to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel".


18. Norman Gary Finkelstein is an American political scientist and author, specialising in Jewish-related issues, especially the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His writings, noted for their support of the Palestinian cause have dealt with politically-charged topics such as Zionism, the demographic history of Palestine and his allegations of the existence of a "Holocaust Industry" that exploits the memory of the Holocaust to further Israeli and financial interests. Citing linguist and political activis Noam Chomsky as an example, Finkelstein notes that it is "possible to unite exacting scholarly rigor with scathing moral outrage," and supporters and detractors alike have remarked on the polemical style of Finkelstein's work. However, its content has been praised by eminent historians such as Raul Hilberg and Avi Shlaim, as well as Chomsky.


19. From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine is a 1984 book by Joan Peters about the constant presence of Jews in Palestine (Eretz Yisrael). The famous controversial issue in the book is the amount of modern Arab immigration in comparison to parallel Jewish immigration. Responses to the book have been deeply divided and it continues to receive both positive responses as well as harsh criticism.

However, reviewing the book for the January 16, 1986 issue of The New York Review of Books, Yehoshua Porath wrote that Peters made 'highly tendentious use — or neglect — of the available source material'. But more crucially, he wrote, 'is her misunderstanding of basic historical processes and her failure to appreciate the central importance of natural population increase as compared to migratory movements.' Porath concluded:

'Readers of her book should be warned not to accept its factual claims without checking their sources. Judging by the interest that the book aroused and the prestige of some who have endorsed it, I thought it would present some new interpretation of the historical facts. I found none. Everyone familiar with the writing of the extreme nationalists of Zeev Jabotinsky's Revisionist party (the forerunner of the Herut party) would immediately recognize the tired and discredited arguments in Mrs. Peters's book. I had mistakenly thought them long forgotten. It is a pity that they have been given new life.'


20a. The Case for Israel is a New York Times bestseller by Alan Dershowitz, a law professor at Harvard University. The book responds to common criticisms of Israel.

Norman Finkelstein claims the book is a hoax and that some of its citations are plagiarized from From Time Immemorial, another book Finkelstein extensively criticized. These heated claims have led to what has become known to some as the Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair. Former Harvard president Derek Bok exonerated Dershowitz of the plagiarism charges. Finkelstein devotes much of his book Beyond Chutzpah to responding to Dershowitz's arguments.

Michael Neumann, a professor of philosophy at Trent University, wrote a book entitled The Case Against Israel published by CounterPunch in response to The Case for Israel.


20b. "The Case Against Israel" argues that Zionism was responsible for the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and that Israel is responsible for its perpetuation. The argument rests on widely accepted factual claims and impeccable sources. It avoids rhetoric and gratuitous moralizing. There is no attempt to blacken Israel through association with colonialism, imperialism, or racism. Instead, Neumann's argument emphasizes the fateful Zionist quest for Jewish sovereignty in Palestine. This quest - not the massacres or plans for transfer or other blots on Zionist history - made violence inevitable and compromise impossible. The prospect of Zionists gaining the power of life and death over all inhabitants of Palestine "had" to be seen by the Palestinians as a mortal threat. They responded accordingly.

.

4 May 2008

Haredim boycott 'Zionist' snacks

Israel News


Haredim boycott 'Zionist' snacks
Haredi Community's leaders urge their public not to buy products adorned with Israeli flag 'or any other symbol that advocates Zionist idolatry'

Nissan Shtrauchler

05-04-2008


The Haredi Community, an ultra-Orthodox communal organization which strongly opposes Zionism, declared a consumers' boycott on leading Israeli food brands that have been adorned with the Israeli flag in honour of the country's 60th birthday.

These products include sugar, oil and peanut butter snacks, which are now marketed in special editions with packages that have been redesigned to include the blue and white flag.

In notices distributed across Jerusalem this weekend, the hardei public was urged not to buy any product that carries the flag or any other symbol "that advocates Zionist idolatry."

A source in the community, which numbers some 7,500 households, said:
"It is a well-known fact that the Haredy Community opposes Zionism. It is unacceptable for companies that use our kashrut authorization to use this against us and promote these messages among us."
Meanwhile, a large group of prominent haredi rabbis is calling for a boycott of Independence Day celebrations, fearing they might encourage promiscuity.

"All those who fear God and are concerned for their sons' and daughters' education – will prevent their family from attending these places or participating in mixed dancing," the rabbis wrote in notices published last week. "Whoever transgresses from these prohibitions will be committing severe sins that carry severe punishment," they stated



.


.

20 April 2008

Myth: No, Rivkele, The Jews Weren't Driven into Exile by the Romans

.

The Magnes Zionist

Self-Criticism from an Israeli, American, and Orthodox Jewish Perspective

Myth:

No, Rivkele, The Jews Weren't Driven into Exile by the Romans

Sunday, July 29, 2007



"In A.D. 70, and again in 135, the Roman Empire brutally put down Jewish revolts in Judea, destroying Jerusalem, killing hundreds of thousands of Jews and sending hundreds of thousands more into slavery and exile."
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, May 5, 2006

"Well, now: We were expelled from the land and taken into captivity in the year 70 of the Common Era."
Leonard Fein, The Jewish Daily Forward, May 11, 2007–07–23

"After Bar Kochba…Jewish emigration, a more or less permanent feature of ancient Palestinian demography, now assumed alarming proportions."
Salo Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (New York/Philadelphia, 1952), vol. 2, pp. 122-3.

Despite their ideological differences, what unites columnists like Charles Krauthammer and Leonard Fein, and what distinguishes them from Salo Baron,the greatest historian of the Jews in the twentieth century, is inter alia their acceptance of the myth that the Jews were forcibly expelled from the Land of Israel, and taken into captivity by the Romans. To this day, most lay people, Jews and non-Jews, accept the myth of the exile, whereas no historian, Jew or non-Jew, takes it seriously.

This post will look at the disconnect between popular and scholarly belief and try to examine the origin of the myth several centuries after the event occurred. I will follow pretty closely the first part of a comprehensive article on the subject by Hebrew University professor, Yisrael Yuval, which is available here . Because this article is under copyright, I can’t quote more than a few passages, and so I will just be paraphrasing him. But I urge you to read the article, especially his copious footnotes.


The myth was not invented by the Zionists, although it was greatly used by them, in part, to justify the return of the Jews to their ancestral homeland. For the tacit assumption of the Zionists was that if the Jews had left the land willingly, if they had merely “emigrated” because they found opportunities beckoning in the Diaspora, then they would have betrayed their allegiance to the land, and their return would have been less justified. That is one of the reasons why Zionists argued for years that the Palestinians left Palestine of their own free will – if they were forcibly expelled, then somehow their claim to the land would be stronger. Of course, the putative expulsion by the Romans was not the only claim of the Jewish people to the land – many peoples have been exiled from their lands, and the Zionists were not claiming that all of them had a right to return -- but it dovetailed nicely with the historical view of the wandering Jew that finds no rest outside of his native place from which he was expelled.

  • The first point to make is that well before the revolt against Rome in 66-70 c.e., there were Jewish communities outside Palestine, most notably in Babylonia and in Egypt, but elsewhere as well. References to the dispersal of the Jewish people throughout the civilized world are found in the book of Esther, Josephus, and Philo. There is no indication that these communities were small, satellite communities.
  • Second, there is no contemporary evidence – i.e., 1st and 2nd centuries c.e. – that anything like an exile took place. The Romans put down two Jewish revolts in 66-70 c.e. and in 132-135 c.e. According to Josephus, the rebels were killed, and many of the Jews died of hunger. Some prisoners were sent to Rome, and others were sold in Libya. But nowhere does Josephus speak of Jews being taken into exile. As we shall see below, there is much evidence to the contrary. There was always Jewish emigration from the Land of Israel, as the quote above from Baron indicates.
The first mention of the exile of the Jews occurs in remarks attributed to the third century Palestinian rabbi, R. Yohanan that are found in the Babylonian Talmud, a work that received its final recension several centuries later (c. 500 c.e.): “Our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt, and we ourselves exiled from our land” (Gittin, 56a). The editor/s of the Talmud referred this statement to the Roman exile. Similar statements can be found elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud attributing to rabbis living in the Land of Israel the view that the Romans were responsible for the destruction of the House, the burning of the temple, and the exile from the land. But if one examines other Babylonian sources, and most sources from the Land of Israel, the statements most likely refer to the First Temple, and the exile by the Babylonians. There is, after all, something odd in having rabbis living in the Land of Israel bemoaning an exile from the Land of Israel.

Yuval summarizes the sources as follows:

“In other words, it seems that the triple expression—destruction of the House, burning of the Temple, exile from the land—originally (in the sources from the Land of Israel) referred to the First Temple and were applied to the Second Temple only in Babylonia.10 In the Tannaitic and early Amoraic sources, Rome is accused only of destroying the Temple, not of exiling the people from their land.11 A broad historical and national outlook, one that viewed the “Exile of Edom” (Rome being identified with the biblical Edom) as a political result of forced expulsion, did not survive from this period. Nor would such a view have been appropriate to the political reality and the conditions of Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel, which were certainly very well known to the members of that generation.”
In fact, Chaim Milikowsky, professor and past chairman of the Talmud department at Bar Ilan university, has argued that in 2nd and 3rd century tannaitic sources, the Hebrew term rendered as “exile” has the meaning of political subjugation rather than physically being driven from the land (cited in Yuval, p. 19, n.1) This, by the way, dovetails nicely with the Zionist historiography that emphasizes the loss of political independence, rather the physical removal of the Jews from the Land of Israel. For Zionists were somewhat at a loss to explain how Jewish rabbis could create the Mishnah and subsequently the Talmud of the Land of Israel if there was a mass exile.

This much of Yuval’s essay is uncontroversial and based on widely-accepted historiography. What follows is speculative and fits well the general trend of Yuval’s work, which is to see much greater Christian influence on the formation of rabbinic Judaism than has hitherto been recognized. Yuval points out that in early Christian sources, following the failed Bar Kokhba rebellion, there is an attempt to interpret the removal of the Jews from Jerusalem as punishment for the sin of rejecting Christ, and the depletion of the Jewish population of Jerusalem in light of the Biblical prophecies of exile. The Jewish reaction, on his reading, was to emphasize that Jews were still very much in the Land of Israel – which contemporary Jews, for the first time, interpreted to include not merely the Northern Kingdom of Israel, but the entire land. Only later, during Talmudic times, was the Exile from the Land incorporated in Jewish collective memory.

What implications does the exposure of the myth of the Roman Exile have for Zionism, the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, etc., etc. None, in my opinion. It is less important that the Jews were actually carried off into Exile than that they thought they were. The rabbis, and even earlier Jewish scholars, tended to conflate the Babylonian exile with the later loss of independence among the Romans. As a formative moment in Jewish religious consciousness, the destruction of the first temple and the exile was vastly more significant than the destruction of the second temple; some, like Bible scholar Adele Berlin, have argued that parts of the Bible, and maybe even the Torah, were edited in light of the trauma of the Babylonian exile. What this means is that in Jewish (and Christian) consciousness destruction, exile, and return, became significant categories in light of which history was read. If there is any argument for a right to return, it is not based, in the case of the Jews, on being driven out of the land against their will. It is more because of the Land of Israel playing such an important role in the consciousness of many (though not all) Jews. This is a more modest claim than is generally heard; it certainly does not in itself justify Jewish hegemony over Palestine. But it does put on the table the very real connection (imagined or not) between the Jewish people and Palestine. That, to me, is what is reasonable about Zionism. In the words of J.K. Rowling, just because it is in your head doesn’t mean that it is not real.



My PhotoJeremiah Haber, Jerusalem, Israel
Jeremiah (Jerry) Haber is the nom de plume of an orthodox Jewish studies professor who divides his time between Israel and the US. The picture is not of him, but of his kind of Zionist, Judah Magnes.


.





Wasting the good army

.


ISRAELI E NEWS

Wasting the good army


Filed under IDF/Military, Opinion Editorials, Israeli society -
on Tuesday, April 08, 2008
By: Shoher, Obadiah


Half the country screams at draft dodgers. The other half dodges the draft. Naturally, Arabs are not fond of serving in the Israeli army; it's not even about it being a Jewish army, but the primitive people's dislike for any kind of organization. Palestinian Arabs revolted against Ibrahim Pasha in early nineteenth century over the conscription. Conscripting them, however, is the best way to crush their opposition to Israeli regime; as a bonus for Jews, Israeli Arabs should be forced to fight their Palestinian brethren. Leftists imagine Israeli Arabs loyal to the state & fine, let us see their loyalty. As a minimum, let Arabs dig trenches along Israel's border with Egypt. Or keep march them from Galilee to Eilat and back. Whatever.

Haredi Jews, derogatively called ultra-Orthodox, are a similar matter. They exploit the original agreement with Ben Gurion which is now irrelevant. Ben Gurion lifted draft requirement for just 400 students of yeshivas; now all haredim are students. Their religious justification, that studying the Torah takes priority over other societal obligations is nonsense: most are not full-time students and anyway can disrupt their studies for two or three years for the army service. Besides, Jewish society just doesn't need so many rabbis. Hillel and Maimonides somehow managed to work, and certainly modern haredim can follow in their steps. The dodging is also immoral, as haredim enjoy the armed protection of the very Israelis they consider sub-Jews. And haredim do need the protection: the first modern pogroms in Palestine started in nineteenth century, well before the advent of Zionism. If they don't need the protection - go settle in Hebron or Schem under Abbas' jurisdiction.

But draft dodging raises a deeper problem. Theoretically, I won't blame the parents who cut their child's finger to prevent him from joining the IDF. What's the point of army service today? For the past twenty-five years, Israel uses her soldiers as small coins to pay the world media. Israeli soldiers are sent into the unnecessarily dangerous urban battles instead of levelling the enemy towns from the air; in WWII, urban battle in Krakow was the lone exception. Israeli soldiers fight strategically useless battles, such as in the Second Lebanon war' last days. Israeli soldiers engage strictly for the PR effect, as in the targeted assassinations and arrests in the enemy territory. Israeli soldiers conduct senseless missions, as the perpetual incursions into Gaza. Israeli soldiers are used against their own people, evicting teenagers from ramshackle "illegal outpost" houses. Israeli soldiers are made the cannon fodder, brainless pawns, and traitors. I can understand the parents who hate sending their children to such an army; of course, most draft dodgers won't go to any Israeli army.

Wasting, losing Jewish lives is the depth of immorality. Our morality doesn't extend to saving Amalek's life. A Jew who died in vain is the national shame and tragedy. But few Jewish soldiers died after the 1973 for the higher end of national wellbeing; most died for no good reason. Arguably, the 1973 war was for no good reason, too, but because Golda Meir's government failed to pre-empt or employ nuclear weapons.

I'm a liberal. Not a libertarian or socialist, but the liberal with deep respect for Jewish life as long as that life vaguely conforms to Jewish values. I would never accept Jews dying for political ends. For values, yes. For national survival and even welfare, yes. But not for the state's needs. I would even accept Jews living as an autonomous community under Muslim rule in Judea, if that saves Jewish lives. Israel that relinquishes to Arabs Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, Judea and Samaria, Hebron and Schem, and accepts 40% non-Jewish population, does not need statehood. Such Israel can as well accept dhimmi autonomy, relinquish sovereignty, and let the Jews live everywhere, even in the currently dreaded occupied territories of Judea and Samaria. The socialist atheist State of Israel is worse for Jews than a decent autonomy. We could pull that out a century ago, and Muslims would have welcomed us. Unfortunately, this way is closed for the foreseeable future. More soldiers are killed in retreat than in attack, and Muslims would slaughter the Jews if we abandon our military posture now. Too much hatred has accumulated to allow our Arab enemies the upper hand.

Should we possibly save Jewish lives by abandoning Israel and moving into the Diaspora? That would save lives, but extinguish Jewish lives through assimilation. Dying Jewish is a preferable option to peacefully marrying a Gentile.

In the framework of Jewish values, there is no alternative to the very strong army. In any other framework, I won't care about Jews.


Obadiah Shoher is the author of "Samson Blinded,a Machiavellian view of the Middle East conflict," and the accompanying blog.Samson Blinded, which advocates a ultra-hard-line Israeli approach to Arab nations. Shoher denies ethnic-blind democracy and argues for expulsion of Arabs from Israel. He rejects democratic process , and calls for violent opposition to police efforts at removing the illegal settlements, dismantling the Israeli army and fully relying on nuclear response to counter possible Arab aggression. Shoher's real identity is unknown but he is believed to be an Israeli politician, writing under the pen name, "Obadiah Shoher".


.


.


My Labels