Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The Ad That Ticked Off Ir Amim

Ir Amim is a spin-off from Peace Now and dedicated to removing Israel's political administration from the areas that were illegally in Jordanian hands up until 1967 aka "East Jerusalem", and especially Ir David.

An advert in Haaretz last Friday really ticked them off.

This Hebrew-language story (no English yet), Yoav Guttreich placed the ad on behalf of a group called "Free Choice" - "Freedom to Elect, Freedom to be Elected" is their slogan.  The story explains that the ad works against Ir Amim, portraying it as extremist in its efforts against Elad and against attempts to "judaize" the city over the Green Line by "settlers". Its signed by Arab MKs and others against the privitization of the national park in Shiloah.  It's a fake portrayal they claim.

I guess Ir Amin feels so uncomfortable with this.

The ad:



^

Islamic Progress

So, this is progress?

Democracy?

Liberalism?

Tunisia's al-Nahda party, a moderate Islamist movement that had been repressed under the regime of deposed leader Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, appears poised to win roughly 40 percent of the vote in the country's recent elections...Liberal parties quickly moved to form a unity government with al-Nahda, raising hopes that genuine pluralism will flourish in post-revolution Tunisia...

The election's results were cheered by Islamists across the Middle East, who took al-Nahda's victory as evidence that their movements are compatible with democracy. The leader of the political party representing Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said that Tunisia's elections proved, "there is no Islamist exception, no Arab exception about democracy."

Meanwhile, al-Nahda leaders attributed their success to the party's willingness to incorporate liberal ideas into its ideology while simultaneously downplaying its religious conservative. "We are the most progressive Islamic party in the region," said one spokeswoman.

So, reassuring.

^

Jewish Rights - A Document

Received:


Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
Jerusalem, Israel


Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

The Provisional Executive Committee of the Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel wishes to bring once again to your attention the exclusive, irrevocable and inalienable rights of the Jewish People to the entire Land of Israel, recognized by the entire international community between 1917 and 1924 in the following documents of international law: (1) the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920; (2) the Mandate for Palestine confirmed unanimously by the Council of the League of Nations on July 22, 1922 and re-affirmed by the United States of America in (3) the Anglo-American Convention respecting the Mandate for Palestine, signed in December 1924. These rights were then recognized and protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter formulated and signed in 1945, thus acquiring the status of an international treaty valid to this very day.

The Provisional Executive Committee wishes, moreover, to stress that the State of Israel inherited from the Jewish Agency for Palestine the status of representative of the Jewish People to implement the rights thus acquired by the Jewish People; the State of Israel has no legal or moral right to give up those rights or any part of them to any political or ethnic grouping that is not the Jewish People. The policy of the Government of the State of Israel at the head of which you stand, the policy of "two states for two peoples" in the Land of Israel west of the Jordan River, thus lacks legality or moral status of any sort whatever.

The Provisional Executive Committee of the Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel calls on you, as Prime Minister of the State of Israel, to act in accordance with the principles set out in this letter and to inform the members of the "Quartet" of this decision of yours at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, the Provisional Executive Committee expresses herewith its intention to exercise the internationally-recognized sovereignty of the Jewish People over any areas of the Land of Israel the Government of Israel may unwisely, illegally and immorally decide to abandon.

Very respectfully,

Professor Hillel Weiss
The Provisional Executive Committee, Vice-Chairman
The Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel

^

Political and Diplomatic History Notes

This caught my eye:

Under the Turkish rule, according to the Ottoman Nationality Law of 19 January 1869, Palestine’s inhabitants were Ottoman citizens. At that time, legally speaking, there was nothing called Palestine, Palestinian nationality, or Palestinians, neither was there anything called Israel, Israeli nationality, or Israelis.

And this

The eastern border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan was of particular significance. The Palestine Mandate originally incorporated the territory of Trans-Jordan within the scope of ‘Palestine.’ Article 25 of the Mandate accorded Britain the power, “with consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as… may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.” Subsequently, on 16 September 1922, the Council of the League of Nations passed a resolution by which it approved a proposal submitted by Britain to exclude Trans-Jordan from the scope of Palestine’s territory. Ultimately, the border between Palestine and Trans-Jordan was fixed as suggested by Britain. This resolution merely confirmed the previous practice as Trans-Jordan was earlier excluded from Palestine by Article 86 of the Palestine Order in Council (constitution) of 1922, which stated: “This Order in Council shall not apply to such parts of the territory comprised in Palestine to the east of the [River of] Jordan and the Dead Sea.” On 20 February 1928, Britain reached an agreement with the Ameer of Trans-Jordan, by which the former recognized the existing autonomous government of Trans-Jordan, while maintaining the territory under British supervision in a form of mandate. (Britain continued to treat Trans-Jordan as part of Palestine for international relations purposes – it included Trans-Jordan within its annual reports to the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 24 of the Mandate, regarding its administration of Palestine.) The unilaterally drawn border of Palestine with Trans-Jordan had been thus confirmed. On 22 March 1946, after concluding a treaty of alliance with Britain (enforced on 17 June 1946), Trans-Jordan declared its independence as a state.

More:

The allied powers meanwhile gathered in San Remo, Italy, to discuss a deal with Turkey and determine the future of Palestine (then including Trans-Jordan), along with Iraq and Syria (then including Lebanon). On 25 April 1920, those powers decided that Ottoman Arabic-speaking territories would not be restored to Turkey. Instead, France was allotted a mandate for Syria and Britain was given mandates for Iraq and Palestine. Shortly after the San Remo conference, Britain declared unilateral mandate over Palestine on 1 July 1920.
More:

...on 24 July 1922...the adoption of the Palestine Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations. It ended when Britain ratified the Treaty of Lausanne on 6 August 1924. Two important points are worth noting here. One is that although a mandate over Palestine was declared by Britain in 1920, the Palestine Mandate legally entered into force only on 29 September 1923. Yet what matters for the present discussion is the date on which the Mandate was adopted: on that day, Palestine was recognized as a separate political entity at the international level.

Regarding Palestine, the Council of the League of Nations that convened in London confirmed the Palestine Mandate on 24 July 1922. Britain hence acquired an international legal basis for its presence in that territory.



...an amended version of Article 129 was incorporated into Article of the Draft Final Act of the Treaty of Lausanne and presented to the Turkish delegation at the Lausanne Conference on 2 December 1922. Article 35 reads:


“Jews of other than Turkish nationality who are habitually resident in Palestine on the coming into force of the present Treaty will have the right to become citizens of Palestine by making a declaration in such form and under such conditions as may be prescribed by law.”



All from here:

Genesis of Citizenship in Palestine and Israel: Palestinian Nationality in the 1917-1925 Period by Mutaz M. Qafisheh

^

 

Media Bias Bolstered The Schalit Campaign

.

My op-ed on the media mobilization on behalf of Gilad Schalit.

At Arutz 7.

^

Baskin in the Money

Gerson Baskin, extreme left-wing radical 'peace' activist, has been promoting his role in the Schalit release.

He has now sent out this donations' letter:

Dear Friends,


I had the amazing privilege to take part in opening a back channel for negotiations that succeeded with the signing of an agreement for the prisoners exchange that brought Gilead Schalit home. For almost all Israelis this was a day of unity, solidarity and celebration. On the Palestinian side, 1027 Palestinian prisoners are returning to their homes, where hopefully they will engage in normal lives and will turn their desires to take part in the Palestinian national struggle through non-violent means.


I had the abilities to open this channel and to take part in the negotiations because of IPCRI. Without the institutional support of IPCRI and the 23+ years of experience I gained from developing and leading this institution, I would not have been in the position to achieve the prisoners’ deal.


I am asking you once again to contribute to the ongoing activities of IPCRI. There is still much work ahead of us. For years I have been saying that I will bring Gilead Schalit home. For even longer I have said that we will bring peace, and we will! But we need your support.




I do not begrudge his financial requests.

However, if any of these released terrorists engage in future acts of terror and violence or become part of a terror-training/encouraging network, what will Baskin do then?

Return your donation? Breakup IPCRI? Demonstrate outside the PA headquarters in Ramallah?  Beat his breast?

Or just keep hoping?

^

Monday, October 24, 2011

Jewish US Establishment Stifling

As you can imagine, I have had a long confrontation, going back to the 1960s, with Jewish establishment groups.  So when this next item came my way, there was no surprise.

The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have issued a joint "pledge" calling on Jewish and Israel groups not to criticize President Obama's record on Israel (it can be viewed here and if still not working, go here).

Here's the JTA report:

The Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee are co-sponsoring a pledge for unity on Israel...to rally bipartisan support for Israel while preventing Israel from becoming a wedge issue during the next election season.

..."America’s friendship with Israel is an emotional, moral and strategic bond that has always transcended politics," it reads in part. "Support for Israel has never been merely a plank in a Republican or Democratic Party or candidate’s platform. It is a core American policy that serves our nation’s most fundamental national interests.

...Abraham Foxman, ADL's national director, said that “We want the discourse on U.S. support for Israel to avoid the sometimes polarizing debates and political attacks that have emerged in recent weeks, as candidates have challenged their opponents’ pro-Israel bone fides or questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-a-vis Israel. The last thing America and Israel need right now is the distractions of having Israel bandied about as a tool for waging political attacks.”

The pledge reads, in part:

...the United States must continue to project to the world the solid support of the American people and their elected representatives for Israel’s rights and quest for peace and security. U.S. leadership in the efforts to achieve an agreement resolving the conflict that results in two states—the Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peaceful coexistence—is more critical than ever.

and

We salute the long line of American leaders who have moved beyond their often bitter policy differences over issues of the day to stand shoulder to shoulder together on the side of a strong and enduring U.S.-Israel relationship.

The two-state solution is not the only one on the negotiating table.

The Emergency Committee for Israel will not sign the pledge. ECI's chairman, William Kristol, issued the following statement:

"Here's the Emergency Committee for Israel's answer to Directors Abe Foxman and David Harris: You must be kidding.

"Indeed, this attempt to silence those of us who have 'questioned the current administration's foreign policy approach vis-a-vis Israel' will re-energize us. Nor, incidentally, should those who support the administration's approach to Israel be bashful about making their case. Directors Harris and Foxman need a refresher course on the virtues of free speech and robust debate in a democracy. Their effort to stifle discussion and debate is unworthy of the best traditions of America, and of Israel."

Stifling is so Jewish establishment.

___________

UPDATE

Foxman retreating?

JTobin thinks so:-

The controversy over the pledge was not the result of what Foxman calls “distortion” by his critics; the fact is, he was caught red-handed in a thinly veiled partisan ploy.

The problem with the “Unity Pledge” is it echoed Jewish Democratic demands we have been hearing for years about shutting down Republican efforts to point out left-wing animus for Israel as well as the Obama administration’s predilection for picking fights with Israel. Obama’s decision to distance the United States from Israel, his stand on Jerusalem and his ambush of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in May were all factors in the Republican victory in the special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District last month. That result and polls showing a decline in Jewish support for Obama have panicked Democrats. The decision of the ADL and the AJC to issue a statement that would serve to legitimize efforts to silence debate about Israel by condemning its use as a “wedge issue” departed from not only their non-partisan status but also undermined their stance as Jewish defense organizations.

...As for the pledge, it should be amended to remove the line about “wedge” issues or scrapped entirely. We can only hope the disaster the ADL and the AJC have created for themselves will serve to deter Jewish groups from ever playing politics in this manner again.

^

Pre-Blog Op-eds in Sh'ma

From Sh'ma, September 18, 1992:




Sh'ma, January 8, 1982


^

Are The Givat Assaf Residents Comfortable?

Will Oz Tziyon help Givat Assaf?

Or harm its future existence?

After today's events, the new outpost set up by Daniella Weiss (1:45) and Rabbi Levinger (at 1:00), do the residents of Givat Assaf feel comfortable?

^

^

Forget "Settler". The 'In' Word is: "Settlor"

I learned something about a term: settlor -

A settlor is someone who 'makes a settlement'. They do this by placing assets such as money, land or buildings in a trust. This is known as 'settling property'. Settlors can do this directly or indirectly, by giving the funds to someone else to set up a trust. They normally place assets in a trust when the trust is created, but can also do so later on.

I found it in an amazing article, do read it all, published hereby Stephen Kruger, a lawyer, a writer, and an editor who comments on legal matters. Excerpts:-

...Settlor, trust instrument and beneficiary

When God gave the Land of Israel to the Jews, as recited in the Bible, He did so in trust. In law, a settlor is an owner of specified property, such as a parcel of land, who gives the specified property to another person, but subject to a trust.

To do this, the owner of the property (the settlor) transfers ownership of the specific property (the corpus) to an entity (the trust) for the benefit of a named person (the beneficiary). The means of transfer is a document (the trust instrument).

The corpus is owned by the trust, and the corpus is managed by the manager of the trust (the trustee). It is the duty of a trustee fulfill the intention of the settlor, as expressed in the trust instrument. Utmost fidelity is required of a trustee toward the corpus of the trust and toward the beneficiary of a trust.

God is the Settlor of the trust, the corpus of which is the Land of Israel. Portions of the Bible are the trust instrument. E.g., Genesis 15:1-21; Numbers 21:21-22:1, 34:1-15; Deuteronomy 2:17-3:27. The trust is a concept expressed in the Bible, rather than an entity.

Terms in the trust instrument include the boundary of the Land of Israel, the transfer of the Land of Israel to Jews, the permanence of the possessory interest of Jews in the Land of Israel, and the permanence of the trust.

By default, the present trustee of the trust is the government of Israel. The beneficiaries of the trust are all Jews, throughout their generations.

The world does not accept those facts, because they are decisive to Jews. Without God and the biblical trust, there is no superior claim of Jews to the Land of Israel.

As trustee, the government of Israel is entirely without fidelity. The giving away by the government of Israel of swathes of the Land of Israel to Arabs, and the potential giving away by the government of Israel of more swathes of the Land of Israel to Arabs, stem from the contempt of the government of Israel for the Settlor of the trust, for the corpus of the trust, for the terms of the trust, for the Book in which it is written, and for the beneficiaries of the trust.

Instead of declaring and enforcing the rights of Jews, the government of Israel continues the touchy-feely policy toward Arabs put in place by left-wing Jews in Mandatory Palestine after World War I. The self-defeatism inherent in that policy caused the government of Israel to lose the peace in 1948, to lose the peace again in 1956, to lose the peace once again in 1967, and, in ensuing years, to cement its loss of the peace. Baseball has a rule: three strikes, you’re out. That rule should have been applied by the government of Israel in 1967, after the third major Israel-Arab war. It was not.

Denial of Jewish sovereignty

Creation of a “Palestine” was made possible by denial, by the government of Israel, of Jewish sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Aza. Denial created the condition precedent for entry of some other sovereignty there.

A population was needed. Creation of “Palestinians” was made possible by denial, by the government of Israel, of the right of Jews to live everywhere in the Land of Israel...

...There is no “international law” any more than there is an “international community.” The term “international community” is a euphemism for the totality of disparate, motley countries which fight endless wars of all against all. Thomas Hobbes wrote, in another context, that “. . . during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.” Leviathan, ch. 13.

Actions of the government of Israel in line with “international law” are anomalous. Some countries other than Israel pay lip service to “international law.” Most countries do not even that. Lip service or no service, every country acts in accordance with its national self interest, because there is no “international law” and there is no “international community.”

The lowest common denominator of countries large and small is Jew-hatred. That explains widespread use of “international law” by the “international community” as a club with which to clobber Israel...

...create a “Palestine” out of Judea, Samaria and Aza, which are integral parts of the Land of Israel, is illustrated by application elsewhere of the concept of two states for the purpose of resolving a territorial conflict.

Suppose that a call were issued to Moslem Iraq and to Moslem Turkey to give away land for peace, to create a homeland. Suppose that there were UN resolutions expressive of the obligation, under “international law,” of Iraq to deny its sovereignty over Kurdistan, and of Turkey to deny its sovereignty over Anatolia, and for Iraq and Turkey to create ex nihilo, out of Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkish Anatolia, a homeland for Kurds, with Mosul as its capital.

There would be no two-state solution. No sonorous talk about a Kurdistan living side-by-side in peace and security with Iraq. No visionary sound-bites about mutually-beneficial relations between Kurdistan and Turkey. No road map; no international conferences; not a single meeting at Camp David. No shuttle diplomacy among Baghdad and Ankara and Mosul. There would be no establishment and endless funding of a United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Kurdish Refugees in the Near East (compare the UNRWA)...

Mindboggling.

But let's add Eli Hertz's comments to clarify that international law, whatever you think of it, is on our side:

Successive Israeli governments have failed to recognize the supreme importance of the "Mandate for Palestine" [24 July, 1922] a historical League of Nations document that set forth the irrevocable Jewish legal rights to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered by international law and valid to this day...the best legal weapon [we] will ever have...

...The [Balfour] Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, 'not to be susceptible of change.'

Article 27 of the Mandate for Palestine states that the "consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate." No such consent was ever passed.  Eleven successive British governments, Labor and Conservative...viewed themselves as duty-bound to fulfill the "Mandate for Palestine"...Article 80 of the United States Charter states that "nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties".  Thus, the Mandate for Palestine is still in effect today...

And Howard Grief's overview, here and see this additional collection of articles.

^

A Little Construction

With the rains imminent, the approach to our synagogue will become a bit muddy and so, a little construction:-



^

What Does The Nobel Prize Mean To You?

Whatever it means to you, here's what it means to
Muhammad bin 'Abd Al-Majid Al-Zindani, the son of Yemeni cleric 'Abd Al-Majid Al-Zindani

Saying that the prize does not honor any Muslim with eyes in his head, he added, "The recipients of the Nobel Prize have, since its inception, provided priceless services to the West and to the infidels who wish to harm the nations of Islam. The prize is usually given to Jews or their collaborators, and to those who serve their interests among the nations of Islam...Those in charge of the committee that determines who merits the prize are Jews, or those who are biased towards them. That is why many of the prizes have been given to Jews or Arabs who [promote] normalization with the Zionists."[Barakish.net, October 12, 2011]

MEMRI | Inquiry & Analysis | 752 | October 24, 2011

Imagine that, normalization.

^

94% Is Not Enough

Just not enough:-

...in 2008 the then Israeli Prime Minister promised to give the Palestinians up to 94 per cent of the land they wanted.

In extracts from her forthcoming autobiography, published by Newsweek, Ms Rice referred to a meeting with Mr Olmert in Jerusalem.

She said he told her: "I'll give them enough land, maybe something like 94 per cent with swaps...There will be two capitals, one for us in West Jerusalem and one for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem".

She added that Mr Olmert said that the mayor of the joint city council would be selected "by population percentage".

No comment.

^

Ben's & Jerry's Balls Removed

Well, I don't like their boycott of the Golan but let be clear, the story is about one of their ice cream flavors being taken off shelves:

Stores pull "Schweddy Balls" from shelves

"Ben & Jerry's" popular "Schweddy Balls" ice cream, based on a "Saturday Night Live" sketch featuring Alec Baldwin, has been pulled from some supermarket shelves over concerns of vulgarity.

Let their frozen ice cream balls go the way of "freeze construction" attempts - big meltdown.

^

More Christian Unethical Anti-Christian Zionism

I found here this manifesto or declaration: An Open Letter to America’s Christian Zionists composed by David P. Gushee ("Dr. Gushee seeks to participate in the advance of God’s reign through scholarship and teaching in the field of Christian ethics") and Glen H. Stassen ("Stassen’s primary research and teaching interests are theological ethics, incarnational discipleship, peacemaking, social justice, and our need for healing in what he calls an 'Age of Interaction'."), September 19, 2011.

Remember, it is addressed to their fellow Christians.  Excerpts:-

...American evangelical-fundamentalist Christian Zionism affects US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians in distressing ways.

Not to put too fine a point on it, we wish to claim here that the prevailing version of American Christian Zionism—that is, your belief system—underwrites theft of Palestinian land and oppression of Palestinian people, helps create the conditions for an explosion of violence, and pushes US policy in a destructive direction that violates our nation’s commitment to universal human rights. In all of these, American Christian Zionism as it currently stands is sinful and produces sin...we are seriously worried about...policies that violate biblical warnings about injustice and may lead to the...serious harm to or even destruction of Israel.

We write as evangelicals to you, our fellow evangelicals. On the shared basis of biblical authority, we ask you to reconsider your interpretation of Scripture, for the sake of God, humanity, the United States, and, yes, Israel itself, the Land and People we both love.

...We think that love of the Holy Land is far better than indifference to it. And both of us, as students of the long and terrible history of Christian anti-Semitism, which culminated in the horrors of the Holocaust, far prefer a strong sense of Christian kinship with the Jewish people and their historic homeland than the centuries-long Christian pattern of theological disdain and even hatred that so long predominated...

...we take seriously all of the offspring of Abraham. Genesis 15:4-5 has God taking Abram outside and telling him that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars of the heavens. Genesis 17:4, probably the pivotal text, has God saying to Abraham: “This is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations.” Many nations, a multitude of nations; many offspring, many kings—read Genesis 17 again and see the plural nouns here.

Close readers of Scripture will know that in fact Abraham did become the father of many nations...The Old Testament clearly positions Abraham as the father/ancestor of not only the Jewish people but of a vast number of other peoples...

A close reading [of the Book of Joshua]shows that the Hebrew tribes shared the land for centuries with other groups, and that even when tribes were assigned certain portions of land, they didn’t necessarily control every square inch of it. The point is obvious later when it comes to the challenge posed by the Philistines. It is not an overstatement to say that the Israelite/Hebrew/Jewish people never had exclusive possession of the Holy Land, regardless of whatever divine promises they or we believe that they received.

...Israel’s prophets repeatedly warned that God’s covenant promise of the land was conditional on her moral performance...At a theological level, we are claiming that even if one accepts a) a divine promise of land to the Jewish people as recorded in scripture, b) a belief that this promise extends even to this day, and c) the modern state of Israel as, in part, God’s gracious fulfillment of this promise, one must also say d) the Bible, in the prophetic writings, also teaches that persistent injustice on the part of Israel has evoked, and still can bring, God’s judgment, which can extend even to war and exile. Israel’s remaining in the land depends on Israel’s now doing justice to Palestinians and making peace with its Arab neighbors that surround Israel.

Indeed, Jesus, as prophet and Savior, also prophesied that Jerusalem would be destroyed because they did not know the practices that make for peace (Lk 19:41-44)...your actions actually make it more likely to happen!

...We are not Old Testament prophets, nor do we pretend to see the future. But we have seen enough to claim that the occupation practices of the modern state of Israel are a direct violation of the most basic biblical moral principles.

We genuinely fear that someday someone or some nation inflamed with resentment at the seemingly eternal Israeli subjugation of the Palestinian people will “make your land desolate so no one can live in it” (Jer 6:8). That sounds like a nuclear bomb. Have you heard of Mahmoud Ahmedinijad?

We will leave it to God to sort out with the Jewish people of the modern state of Israel the very complex terms of his covenant with them. But we cannot remain silent about the vast array of American Christians who support the most repressive and unjust Israeli policies in the name of Holy Land and a Holy God.

We plead with you, our brothers and sisters, to find a better way, a more biblical way, to love Israel. Love Israel enough to oppose rather than support actions that violate God’s clearly revealed moral will.

David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics, Mercer University;

Glen H. Stassen, Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller Theological Seminary;

Drs. Gushee and Stassen are co-authors of “Kingdom Ethics” (InterVarsity Press) and are members of the board of directors of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good.

Before I continue on a theological level (see this previous post on the subject and for something worse than this manifesto, see Moody), to understand the ethical Gushee, consider this from his recent visit:


The wall loomed high over our heads in massive gray ugliness, livened only on the Palestinian side by creatively angry graffiti. With guard towers, barbed wire, spikes on the ground to disable tires and ubiquitous young Israeli soldiers everywhere, the wall (Wall, really) is one of the most distressing pieces of human architecture I have ever seen.  The Wall divides Israel from occupied Palestine. It also divides Jews from Palestinians. Israeli Jews are not legally permitted to cross into the Palestinian side. Palestinians who want to leave their walled cities must cross through a security check that may or may not permit them to exit...

...In every direction we saw gleaming, new-looking and amazingly massive Jewish “settlements” -- Jewish communities planted in land that under international law, and recognized by U.S. policy, rightly belongs to the Palestinians. These are not “settlements” in the sense of modest little villages with a few shops, but rather sizable cities. They are connected to each other and the outside world through special roads that cut into Palestinian territory yet on which Palestinians cannot drive.

At least he refers to them as "communities". But he falls for an apartheid road claim.

This blog is not the place for an academic discussion of Christian Zionism (but see here; here; here; here; and here.

Nevertheless, consider this:

1. Nowhere in the world is Christianity and Christians under threat of death and elimiantion more than in the Islamic world, which would appear to parallel what Islmic forces are doing to Israel and Zionism and yet these two theologians ignore this aspect except to basically blame the Jews.

2. Ethics seem not to apply to Arabs according to their thinking.

3. Their Biblical interpretration is wanting. Here is one Christian response. Here is the IJEC. And another. A third. For a Jewish position, see AISH. And for an Islam pro-Israel view, see here and Sheikh Palazzi and also here.

In short, as in other instances, we have politically prejudiced professors, of the libertarian persuasion, reinterpretating Scripture/Bible from a throwback from the future without any comprehension of the actions and ideology of the Arabs of the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine.

They ignore the history of the Jewish-Arab conflict in this country, the murderous character of their opposition and their continued immorality, their prevarications and propaganda.

In short, I doubt they are true Christians.

____________


UPDATE

I have been sent the response to the two gentlemen from the ICEJ USA


Excerpts:

...[your] conclusions not only demonstrate a flawed understanding of biblical justice, but a degree of theological inconsistency and historical ignorance that are deeply troubling in professors of your standing in such highly respected institutions such as Fuller and Mercer.

...Our support for Israel does not mean that we think Israel is perfect, or that we blindly support all of her policies. She has many good policies and some bad – like all states do. We tremble not over God’s promise to judge Israel and correct her when necessary (Jer. 30:11), but His ultimate judgment of the nations for their treatment of Israel and the Jewish people (Isa. 60:12; Joel 3:2; Matt. 25:31-40). We pray for the peace of Jerusalem knowing that the answer to that prayer will mean great blessing for both Arabs and Jews – in fact, all the world...

The underlying attitude of the document is shocking and should be of a great concern to the respected Fuller Theological Seminary. To suggest that Israel deserves a devastating war and nuclear annihilation and that Christian Zionists are “aiding and abetting” Israel’s sin thereby causing any future war and possible nuclear wipe-out is a position that Fuller Seminary urgently needs to distance itself from.

...the authors’ opening recap of the present day situation is their over simplification of complex issues that have long histories. The authors do not seem to take this history into consideration which makes the reader wonder if they even know it...

...the authors blame the lack of negotiations on the ideology of the Netanyahu government: Zionism. What is missing is any reference to the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize Israel’s right to exist and their decades long use of violence aimed at her eradication...

...As to the actual borders of the land, that is something entirely up to God, as the Apostle Paul affirmed in Acts 17:26. Israel’s borders changed many times in history and it is true that during times of judgment there was a loss of land. It is not up to us to determine her borders but to support her right to exist in security and peace.

But the scriptures also describe a spiritual reality that the authors never mention. That is; throughout Israel’s history there has been a relentless, evil attempt to destroy her (Psalm 83). The book of Esther is a compelling example of this...

...let’s look at Israel’s treatment of aliens starting with the treatment of the Arabs within Israel itself. They have citizenship, can vote (including women), have freedom of speech, have their own political parties, serve in the Knesset, serve on the Supreme Court and can even be “Miss Israel.” Israel is the only country in the whole Middle East in which the Christian Arab population is growing. Why aren’t the Christian Arabs fleeing Israel like they are the Muslim world? Obviously, they have found more justice in Israel than in any of the Arab countries...

...We tremble not over God’s promise to judge Israel and correct her when necessary (Jer. 30:11), but His ultimate judgment of the nations for their treatment of Israel and the Jewish people (Isa. 60:12; Joel 3:2; Matt. 25:31-40)...if we want to help bring justice to the Palestinian people then we need to be honest and admit that their problem is not Israel but their own corrupt and cowardly leaders and we need to call for those leaders to lay down their goal of eradicating Israel, recognize her right to exist as a Jewish state and broker an agreement for the sake of the Palestinian people.

Susan Michael, ICEJ USA Director; Dr. Jürgen Bühler, ICEJ Interim Executive Director; Rev. Malcolm Hedding, ICEJ Vice Chairman.

^

Palestinian 'Black Arts' Brand

Word is out they are going to try brand "Palestine" as this firm, Qorvis, has signed a contract and registered as a Foreign Agent for piurposes of working with the Palestinian Authority (or is it Fatah, or the PLO?):-

"One of Washington's best-known lobbying and public relations firms has been upended in the wake of the turmoil in the Middle East due in part to its representation of some of the region's autocratic governments...

"One of the methods used by Qorvis and other firms is online reputation management -- through its Geo-Political Solutions (GPS) division, the firm uses '"black arts" by creating fake blogs and websites that link back to positive content, "to make sure that no one online comes across the bad stuff," says the former insider. Other techniques include the use of social media, including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter."

Update:- see LBD here on Qorvis which was also raided by the FBI for setting up a dummy organization to hammer Israel – the Alliance of Peace and Justice in the Middle East.

Already in July we had this story:

...a nation-brand is already in the making. Over the past few months, a group of influential Palestinian business leaders has been quietly working to set up a special body charged with creating a Palestinian nation-brand and promoting it around the world.

If everything goes to plan, the first campaigns will be launched later this year. The initial markets targeted are the US and, perhaps more surprisingly, Israel.

“There is a lack of knowledge and understanding about how we operate and behave, and what we believe in,” says Samir Hulileh, the chief executive of Padico, a Ramallah-based conglomerate and the biggest Palestinian company by market value. “Outside Palestine, people either see us as a primitive community and a third world country, full of gangsters and terrorists. Or they don’t have an impression at all.” [hmmmm]

Padico is...in the final stages of setting up a new Palestinian Institute for Public Diplomacy charged with overseeing the campaign, and intend to hire an international marketing company in the coming months...

And now, these details:

...three-month, $90K contract with Qorvis involves PR, advertising, direct mail, social media as well as lobbying to opinion makers and policymakers.

From the paper work filed with the Department of Justice:

"The business community of Palestine is undertaking a branding campaign for Palestine. The goals of the campaign are to foster a better understanding of Palestine and its people and promote international trade and tourism.

Many people around the world do not have a clear understanding or picture of Palestine...The campaign is funded by the business community through the Palestinian American Chamber of Commerce. The campaign is being managed by Palestine's top public relations and advertising firm, Ellam Tam.

Ellam Tam has been at work already since last August:

PR Newswire, a global provider of electronic distribution, targeting, measurement and broadcast services for business news, and Ellam Tam, Palestine's First Strategic Communications Company, signed an agreement by which Ellam Tam will be able to represent PR Newswire services in the Palestinian Market. The agreement will come into effect starting July 1st 2010, providing the private sector in Palestine with a gateway to publish its news globally and with selected leading industry news channels.

"This agreement allows the Palestinian business community to benefit from the spread of services that PR Newswire provides in the area of electronic distribution and measurement services. Our company services thousands of corporate and government entities around the globe. We believe that our provision of PR Newswire services in Palestine is a tremendous opportunity for local enterprises, international businesses and aid agencies that are operating in Palestine to benefit from the many advantages of a professional global electronic media distribution network with an extensive network of regional and global news media," said Lisa Ashworth, CEO PR Newswire Europe. "Our services will assist different business sectors in Palestine in efficiently targeting the appropriate media outlets across the globe - be it in Industry, ICT, Tourism, Trade, Real Estate, Banking, Finance, Telecommunications and NGOs."

But you had this opinion, too:-

The Palestinians have long had a marketing problem. They do not have a slick western style campaign to get the key points of their plight across, instead relying on news organisations and charities, each with their own agenda [!!??].

The Israelis' on the other hand, from Washington to London and beyond have lobbyists, activists and use technology to great effect to get their point across...in the world we live in, branding is important.

I hate to say this, but giving people a simple idea is the most effective way of getting a message across. Apple understands that, so does Coca-cola. You may hate the idea of a peoples' struggle being reduced to a marketing term. I know I do. But we have to be realistic.

UN status and the recognition of "Palestine" will help the cause. What will hinder it is the politics of how it happened and, what happens next.

I write this fully understanding what the bid means and why so many Palestinians are opposed to it: That many fear that too much is being given up and that not enough consultation with Palestinian groups outside of the West Bank has taken place.

...But, being able to use the name Palestine again surely has a worth? That has to be something that Palestinians can take some pride in, that whatever their politicians are up to, finally the world will recognise that they are a country and a people.

Sadly, the way this has come about means that millions of Palestinians the world over worry that Abbas's move is simply too high a price to pay for what effectively is a piece of paper with no real and substantive change.

But, as any cow can tell you, branding hurts.

If you have any ideas, contact, it seems:

Ola Sawaftah
Media Monitoring & Analysis Manager
+970(2)2-240-9105/7
Or email ola@ellamtam.com


^

First Jerusalem, Then New York

No, not a new Leonard Cohen song.

First, the Jerusalem gender-segregated buses were judged innappropriate and therefore, illegal. Naomi Ragen led the charge.

And now New York, maybe:

NY may close bus service that makes women sit in back

New York City authorities said they will shut down a city bus service run by Orthodox Jews if the group doesn't stop making women sit at the back of the bus.

The Private Transportation Corp, which operates the city's public B110 bus under a franchise arrangement, has come under criticism following publicity about its practice of making women give up their seats in the front to promote Hasidic customs of gender separation.

New York City's Department of Transportation spokesman Scott Gastel said the agency's executive director Anne Koenig has asked the company to respond to the allegations and was waiting to hear back.

"Please be advised that a practice of requiring women to ride in the back ... would constitute a direct violation of your franchise agreement and may lead to termination of that agreement," Koenig wrote.

If such a violation is found, the franchise could be revoked, the DOT said in a statement.

...The B110 bus runs through the sections of the borough of Brooklyn that are heavily populated by Orthodox Jews...

I recall the buses from the Diamond Center, with a mechitza down the middle. This must be a newer seating arrangement.

^

I Had Nothing To Do With This

This:-

As many as 1,000 people were feared killed on Sunday when a powerful earthquake hit southeast Turkey, flattening buildings and leaving survivors crying for help from under the rubble.

But Turkey is responsible for this:

Turkey declined an offer of aid from its former strategic ally Israel Sunday after a powerful earthquake struck southeast Turkey, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said.

"I am under the impression the Turks do not want our help," Barak told Channel 2 News. "Right now (their answer) is negative but if they see they need more aid and don't have it, or if they rethink it, we have made the offer and remain prepared (to help)," he said.

^

Turmos Aya Weddings - in the United States

Here.

^

Sunday, October 23, 2011

80 Olive Trees

Caught this (via WAFA) - The UN's OCHA report for this week, p 2 contains this claim:

...In three separate incidents this week, Israeli settlers set fire to around 800 olive trees in the villages of Bruqin in the Salfit governorate (680) and Ras Karkar in the Ramallah governorate (120). Also, settlers sprayed chemicals on around 80 olive trees in Turmus ‘Ayya (Ramallah governorate), damaging them.

This is the first I have heard of an incident in my neighborhood.

But 680 torched olive trees?

In any case, note this from August relayed from OCHA:

“In four separate incidents, Israeli settlers reportedly set fire to agricultural land belonging to the villages of Turmus ‘Ayya in the Ramallah governorate and Burin, Awarta and Jalud in the Nablus governorate, damaging around 400 olive and almond trees,” it said.

"Reported"? So, OCHA cannot confirm anything. They have no supervision or investigatory ability? They rely on the Pals.?

Do they see pictures?

What is going on?

Are the Pals. simply throwing out numbers? Moving from district to district with the same basic story, repeated in similar fashion?

This, of course, does not mean that official Yesha bodies, whether the Yesha Council or the various regional councils, can afford to ignore this propaganda warfare. A response unit needs be established.

Last year we had a "poisoning" story which went nowhere. The theme gets more and more outlandish.

I have written to Mai Yassin, a spokesperson at OCHA.

P.S.

Here is another weird claim:

Turmus Aya is known for its grapes [what grapes?]...On top of that hill, stood houses with red roof tiles and they were built with the same structure. There was a water tower for infrastructure in the middle. To the right of those houses, there was a big building, which is a public building. The trees in that area were not olive trees and they were different than the ones I saw in Turmus Aya. All of these characteristics are characteristics of settlements [modernity; variety]. I asked the people about the settlement and they told me its called “Shilo.” They told me there is another settlement on the other side, which is called “Shf [Shvut] Rahel.” The Israeli government confiscated 4000 acres [16,000 dunam?] of land, which was planted with olive trees, in order to build those settlements.

I have been in Shiloh for over 30 years. The number of olive trees in our village that were planted by Arabs was less than 50 and they were harvested for about a dozen years, annually. It became apparent, though, that they could not prove proper ownership and was obviously a rogue operation.
^