WATCH AND PRAY

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech To United Nations, Sept 23, 2011

2011-09-25T08:00:00.000-05:00

Address by PM Netanyahu at 9.11 Ceremony, Jerusalem House of Quality

2011-09-12T18:11:00.001-05:00

WHAT JEWS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CHRISTIANS

2011-09-12T10:36:00.000-05:00

The Region: What Jews should know... JPost - Opinion - Columnists

Most Jews today (or should I merely say many?), even the most secular, have a tremendous fear of Christians – especially fervent believers of the type represented today by Evangelicals – and conservatives. There is a material basis for this fear based on past Jewish experience. But it’s 2011; things have changed, and it’s time to reconsider these assumptions and see if they still make sense.

Let me begin by mentioning two specific situations I have witnessed that show the foolishness of this blindness:

1. In a certain city a group of Jews organized a march for Israel. Several Christian groups wanted to participate. Since some elements among the Jews disagreed with the Christians on other political issues, they canceled the march rather than participate alongside pro-Israel Christians.

2. In a certain other city, an Israeli speaker was invited to speak by the main pro-Israel Jewish group. He was also invited to speak by a respectable pro-Israel Christian group. The potential speaker was informed that if he spoke for the Christian group the pro-Israel Jewish group would refuse to have him as a speaker.

This kind of behavior is simultaneously shameful and stupid. We are not speaking here of political sophistication but about a mode of thinking equivalent to a fear of catching cooties.

True, for almost 2,000 years many Christians and their institutions have often persecuted Jews. In this short space I will not attempt to review that history or get beyond generalizations. Readers are able to do that for themselves.

For 200 years, modern conservative and nationalist thought in the West has also often persecuted Jews, in words, attitudes and actions. A good starting point for that phase is the triumph of German nationalists over Napoleon and the reversal of the French revolution’s grant of rights to Jews in those lands. And of course the culmination was in the Nazi death camps.

It is understandable, then, that Jews supported parties of the liberal and left-wing type where they were welcomed, where modernity was extolled, and where Jews believed they could integrate with the masses and thus defuse grassroots anti-Semitism. That strategy made perfect sense.

With Communism’s betrayal of the Jews, the contemporary tendency for the far Left to take over traditional social democratic and liberal institutions, and the Left’s romance with Third World (and particularly Palestinian, Arab and Islamist radicalism), the world has changed. The Left has largely abandoned Israel as a cause, often becoming antagonistic and even evincing anti-Semitism.

There is still hope for reviving the social democratic and liberal tradition of being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, but that won’t happen until the infiltration and seizure of intellectual hegemony of the far Left is defeated.

Meanwhile, there has also been a change among many Christians (especially those called Evangelicals) and conservatives toward a greater friendship regarding Jews and Israel. A key reason for this shift – and proof of its authenticity – are a set of transformations in the thinking of these groups.

Before discussing the details, though, let me make it clear that Jews do not have to become conservatives or even agree with them – or with Evangelical Christians – on a wide range of issues. What is worthwhile, however, is to accept the offer of friendship on certain specific issues, respectfully disagree on others, and not demonize such people.

As noted above, many conservatives and pious Protestants have changed their view of Jews. Factors that once made for anti-Semitism have now been reversed. Here is a brief summary:

• Formerly, Jews were seen as subverting Christianity. Now, in an increasingly secular world, Jews (even only slightly religious ones) are seen as fellow believers, allies in preserving religiosity in the face of huge challenges.

• A key element in anti-Semitism were Christian documents of Jews as the “suffering servant” whose humiliation proved Christianity to be correct, and “replacement theology,” which says that Jews are no longer the “chosen people,” that this role has now been filled by Christians. These ideas have been widely abandoned by Evangelicals. There is a new interest in – and gratitude for – the Jewish roots of Christianity, and a view of Jews as fellows in a Judeo-Christian religious community.

They are very much aware of Biblical verses that, for example, say that the creator of the universe will not bless those who attack or hate the Jewish people. There is also a real understanding of the history of the Holocaust and past anti-Semitism, along with a desire to make amends. While there are those seeking converts, of course, and some who believe that supporting Jews will bring Armageddon, these are largely outdated concepts.

• Conservatives tended to view Jews as cosmopolitan anti-nationalists, leftists and pacifists. Today, however, the existence of Israel has given a different perspective on this. Jews, in the eyes of most conservatives, have created a model nation-state, a country that is willing and able to fight in its self-defense, where religion is respected as an important element in Jewish peoplehood.

• An especially important question has been how conservatives deal with the fact that there are so many Jews on the Left, that is, among their political opponents and those who fight against religion in various ways. In the twentieth century especially, this was a huge source of anti-Semitism and a central element in Nazi doctrine.

Contemporary conservatives have, however, developed a new way of viewing this issue. First, of course, they have observed the Left’s growing antagonism toward Israel and even toward Jews. Most importantly, they view leftist and anti-religious Jews as enemies of their own people. This neatly dispenses with a traditional core issue of anti-Semitism.

Someone like, say, Noam Chomsky is not seen as part of “the Jewish conspiracy against America,” but as a person who has so broken with his Jewish roots and the interests of his people that he is as much against the Jews as he is against his country or conservative values. In a sense, this concept parallels what most Jews – especially the religious and the pro-Israel majority – also think of such people.

In France and Italy, Holland and Spain, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, conservative parties are more pro-Israel than their counterparts on the Left. This has less to do with Israeli or Jewish behavior – whatever claims are made to the contrary – than it does the philosophical and political evolution of politics within those countries.

Let me make this absolutely clear: to cooperate with liberals on supporting Israel one need not be a liberal; to cooperate with conservatives on supporting Israel one need not be a conservative. To cooperate with Christians on supporting Israel one need not be a Christian.

Of course, a distinction must be made between much larger conservative forces and smaller neo-fascist ones. The Le Pen party in France, the British National Party, and other forces continue the historic anti-Semitism of the right wing. In the United States, some right-wingers still hold traditional anti-Semitic concepts.

Yet the Jewish people have always survived via a willingness to understand the world as it is and to act as necessary without sacrificing core principles. While working to maintain and rebuild relations with real liberal and moderate social democratic forces where possible, Israel and Jews should also shake the extended hand of conservatives and Christians which is so often sincerely offered.

The writer is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center (www.gloriacenter.org). He is a featured columnist at PJM (http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/) and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) journal.

The Real Lives Of The Long-Term Jobless

2011-09-10T14:45:00.000-05:00

Why Israel Can't Withdraw To Its Pre '67 Border

2011-09-06T09:05:00.000-05:00

Happy Birthday Anne! Anne Frank Would Have Been 82 Years Old Today 6/12/11

2011-06-12T19:07:00.004-05:00

Epicenter - The Middle East (Complete Documentary) Joel Rosenberg

2011-05-24T08:54:00.000-05:00

Israel's Critical Security Needs for a Viable Peace

2011-05-23T15:49:00.000-05:00

Gloria Center: Israel's New Neighbor Egypt: Radical Nationalist President; Islamist-Dominated Parliament [Article]

2011-05-14T17:29:00.001-05:00

Gloria Center: Israel's New Neighbor Egypt: Radical Nationalist President; Islamist-Dominated Parliament [Article]

We depend on your contributions. To make a tax-deductible donation through PayPal or by credit card click here. When processing your donation through PayPal please indicate in the "Special Instructions for Seller Box" for GLORIA Center. If you would like to donate by check please write to "American Friends of IDC" and place "For GLORIA Center" on memo line. You can mail the donation to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

Amr Moussa, probably Egypt's next president, has given a comprehensive picture of his views, a foretaste of the likely policies of someone about to become the Arab world's most powerful person. One thing he said is particularly important and shocking. Read on.

Moussa, former Egyptian foreign minister (1991-2001) and head of the Arab League until his resignation takes effect on May 15, is a figure from the Egyptian establishment and the old regime. But which aspect of the old regime: that of the centrist Husni Mubarak, the moderate Anwar al-Sadat, or the radical Arab nationalist Gamal Abd al Nasser?

Moussa is the last Nasserist. He knows that the next president must also be a populist to survive. So he will bash Israel, the United States, and the Egyptian upper class. The hope is that he will be pragmatic enough to restrict his demagoguery to rhetoric.

It might seem ironic that a revolution against the old regime ends up electing as president a figure from the old regime. Yet Moussa perfectly combines experience and name recognition with radicalism. A recent Pew poll shows him with an 89 percent positive rating. Moussa's prospects look so good because the Islamists aren't running a presidential candidate. Moderate democrats, restricted to a small urban middle class constituency, can choose among four candidates running against each other, thus further splitting that vote.

Another reason Moussa's election appears likely is his deft use of the anti-Israel card. So identified is Moussa with hostility to Israel that in 2001 a popular song entitled, "I Hate Israel (I love Amr Moussa)" zoomed to the top of the Egyptian hit parade. Indeed, Moussa is now emphasizing that much of the reason for his break with Mubarak was due to his desire to take a stronger policy against Israel.

Moussa's basic argument in his Wall Street Journal interview is that Egypt has obtained nothing from peace with Israel and that Israel is completely at fault for the lack of an Israel-Palestinian peace agreement. Of course, Egypt received: the Sinai's return; the reopening of its oilfields and the Suez Canal; and the opportunity for more trade, tourism, and a lower military budget. Failure to take advantage of the latter points was due to Egyptian decisions.

In addition, Egypt and Israel had what amounts to an alliance against revolutionary Islamism, particularly Hamas in the Gaza Strip. President Moussa will reverse this policy and see Hamas as an ally, albeit one that he won't trust and might try to restrain.

Hamas is now starting to believe that by attacking Israel it will have the power to draw Egypt into a war with Israel. If that view is not countered decisively by the next Egyptian government, the result will be a return to the 1960s and a terrible major conflict. Unfortunately, the current U.S. government cannot be counted on to see and help eliminate that problem.

As the Wall Street Journal accurately notes: "U.S. and European officials said they don't see the Egypt-Israel peace agreement in danger in the near term. They say Cairo won't place in jeopardy billions of dollars in aid."

We've seen this kind of economic determinism before and every time it is applied to Middle East states it fails. Examples:

--Yasir Arafat will make peace with Israel because he wants to get a state and huge compensation funding.

--Syria will moderate and turn toward the West and away from Iran in order to get trade and investment.

--Iran would much rather become wealthy than to pursue these silly ideas about spreading Islamist revolution.

Now, here's what's really shocking in the interview. To quote the Journal's account, Moussa, "Described a political landscape in which the Muslim Brotherhood...is dominant. It is inevitable, he said, that parliamentary elections in September will usher in a legislature led by a bloc of Islamists, with the Brotherhood at the forefront."

Think about that. Even Moussa, who is anti-Islamist, admits this, though Western governments and mass media haven't figured it out yet. He's running as an independent meaning with no political party behind him. Thus, Moussa must constantly compromise with the Islamist majority in parliament that will consist of the Muslim Brotherhood plus even more radical groups.

The alliance of the Muslim Brotherhood with even more radical "Salafi" groups--the kind of people who launched a terrorist war in Egypt during the 1990s and who support Usama bin Ladin--is another dangerous development. The Salafis are the ones attacking Christians; the Brotherhood-Salafi alliance has organized two demonstrations outside Israel's embassy. In contrast, there are no riot police present and the demonstrators are allowed to approach closer to the embassy than before. It's only a matter of time before there's a nasty incident.

Now, just for fun, check out this MEMRI video on the pro-bin Ladin, anti-American demonstration at the al-Nur mosque in Cairo. They chant, "Death to America" and the Islamist chant calling for the slaughter of all Jews. There's also a new one we'll be hearing a lot of in the months to come, "Obama is the enemy of Allah!" There are, what, 2000 people in that one mosque?

Note how young the crowd is. See how they use their state-of-the-art smartphones to taken snapshots of bin Ladin's face in the mosque's place of honor! At least one of them is wearing the jacket of the English national football (soccer) team! Why they might even use Facebook!

The Financial Times reports a speech by Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badie that when Egypt's parliament meets the Brotherhood, which will have the largest bloc, will propose the following program:

"An end to normalization [with Israel] which has given our enemy stability; an end to [Egyptian] efforts to secure from infiltrators the borders of the Zionists; the abolition of all [joint] economic interests such as the Qualified Industrial Zones agreement and the export of Egyptian gas to Israel."

Note the key point there: "an end to efforts to secure from infiltrators the borders of the Zionists." In other words, to turn Egypt into what the Gaza Strip was in the 1950s, Jordan was in the late 1960s, and Lebanon was in the 1970s: a springboard and safe haven for terrorists attacking Israel across the border. Such a policy can only end in full-scale war.

Isn't it great that now Egypt is a democratic state where people feel free to voice their opinions? Of course, the problem is the nature of those opinions.

Remember this: The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't have to engage in terrorist violence within Egypt because it has allies ready to do so. This is just like Hamas' use of smaller groups to attack Israel from the Gaza Strip and then disclaims responsibility, allowing its apologists to claim that now it's really moderate.

While I doubt that the Islamists will have an outright majority they should come pretty close and thus have one by allying with various radical nationalists, leftists, and independents. That also means they'll take a leading role in writing Egypt's new constitution.

Moussa makes another important point in the interview. First, after many years in which Egypt was oriented inward, he will reassert a leading Egyptian role in the Arab world. That probably means conciliation with Syria and the recreation of a radical Arab bloc that includes Egypt for the first time in more than 30 years. The best thing that can be said is that neither Iraq nor the Saudis would participate, while the Jordanians would be very wary.

Egypt will no longer be a U.S. ally. The question is the degree to which it will be an enemy of the United States.

Finally, he knows that he will have to deliver economic benefits to the masses. But that probably means higher subsidies and more government jobs, policies that will do nothing to improve Egypt's economy in a real way. The worse the economy gets, the greater the anti-Israel, anti-American demagoguery will be.

. We are able to predict this crisis more than six months ahead of time, yet Western countries, media, and experts have not yet seen what is certainly coming down the road toward us.

* Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict, and Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan), Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East (Routledge), The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition) (Viking-Penguin)

The Return

2011-02-02T10:22:00.002-06:00

When is He coming? Well, that's up for debate. The fact that He's coming, however, isn't. Billy Graham was once asked, When shall the end of the world be? To that he responded, The end of the world begins the moment you die. Good ole Billy; always the evangelist.

O Come O Come Emmanuel - Merry Christmas

2010-12-24T06:17:00.001-06:00

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
Matthew 1:23 (KJV)

JERUSALEM AT CENTER STAGE

2010-12-20T16:23:00.000-06:00

By Todd Strandberg

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last week that he has no intention of sharing the holy city of Jerusalem with the Palestinians. This statement did not generate too many headlines, but I believe it is very significant in showing us where we are in Bible prophecy.

“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it” (Zechariah 12:3).
The Palestinians' claim to Jerusalem is based on a massive sham. Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital for three thousand years. There never was a Palestinian people, nation, language, culture, or religion. The archeological record points endlessly to a Jewish heritage for Jerusalem. If the Palestinians had any common sense, they would go pick some other city as their capital.

Since Netanyahu came to power nearly two years ago, he has accepted the principle of a Palestinian state next to Israel. There is growing indication that Netanyahu is beating the Arabs at their old game of repeatedly agreeing to something but never getting around to actually accomplishing the task.

The international pressure on Israel has been relentless. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been pushing hard to get Israel to give on the core issues of Jerusalem's status. In one recent speech, she urged both sides to reach a final agreement "without delay and with real specificity." She pointedly called for compromise on the contested holy city, observing that "there will surely be no peace without an agreement" on Jerusalem — "the most sensitive of all the issues."

Bible prophecy promises calamity for any nation that seeks to divide Jerusalem. I believe a key reason America's economy has stumbled in recent years is the pressure we’ve been placing on Israel. Now that the Obama administration has decided to increase the pressure, I would expect to see greater trembling in the land.

Israelis have a good reason to stick with the status quo. A decade ago, the public lived in terror of being killed in a suicide bomber attack. After trying everything to combat the problem, the Israeli government was finally driven to the point of walling itself off from the Palestinians. Since the borders were sealed, there has not been a single terrorist attack in the past several years.

Another reason for Netanyahu to play coy with the Arabs is that it doesn't have any land to give away that will not jeopardize Israel's security. In the past, the Jews made the Arabs happy by giving them the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, a southern zone of Lebanon, and partial control of the West Bank. The Arabs always come back asking for more land.

The situation reminds me of story about a woman who was once chased by a grizzly bear. A human can only run half as fast as a bear, but the woman saved herself by taking off several items of clothing. Every time she dropped an item to the ground, the bear would momentarily pause before resuming the pursuit. At this point in the Middle East chase, Israel is down to its underwear, and instead of one bear there are about two dozen pursuing the Jewish state.

One of Satan’s key goals is to gain control of the city of Jerusalem. The devil certainly knows that his only chance of delaying events that will lead to his destruction is to capture Jerusalem and destroy the Jewish state. So far, Satan has edged closer to this goal by using peaceful means. Now that it looks like the Jews are not going to give up any more land, his next move will likely be war.

Prophecy teachers have long said that we are in the last days because our generation witnessed the rebirth of Israel. Perhaps it is time to say the Lord’s return is near because Jerusalem has now become the focal point of world attention.

"Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man" (Luke 21:36).

Isaiah 62:6-7, 10-11
"I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they shall never hold their peace day or night. You who make mention of the Lord, do not keep silent, and give Him no rest till He establishes and till He makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth."

SIMPLE SONG FOR ISRAEL

2010-12-18T18:55:00.000-06:00

DONNA SUMMER - "THE LAMB OF GOD"

2010-12-17T16:08:00.027-06:00

THE LAMB OF GOD

Lord we have traveled far
Torn and weary guided by your star
There before us the living King
Hallelujah His Praises sing

Herod with a evil plan
Kill the babies
Came his bold command
He tried to alter God's Holy Plan
God has saved Him
The Son of Man

Behold the Lamb of God
The Mighty King of God
The Chosen One of God
Behold the Lamb of God
The Mighty King of love
The Chosen One of God

Three Kings from a distance came
Bearing gifts for the only One
Shout to heaven sound the drum
Tell the nations
The Lord has come

Behold the Lamb of God
The Mighty King of God
The Chosen One of God
Behold the Lamb of God
The Mighty King of Love
The Chosen One of God

He came to bring us His peace
He came to bring us his joy
To bring us love

Behold the Lamb of God
the mighty King of God
the chosen One of God

Behold the Lamb of God
the mighty King of God
the precious Lamb of God

Behold the Lamb of God
The mighty King of God
The chosen One of God

Spoken:
And so the wise men the shepherds
the ox and the lamb
the angels above
all rejoiced at God's command
as a star shine from heaven
this new King to adorn
on that very first Christmas
when Jesus Christ was born

Do You Hear What I Hear by Carrie Underwood

2010-12-08T09:38:00.002-06:00

YouTube - itsycat's Channel

ISRAEL FIRE TRAGEDY CARMEL 2010

2010-12-04T09:42:00.000-06:00

I AM ISRAEL , TRUE VERSION

2010-11-29T08:02:00.001-06:00

JERUSALEM – TOO HEAVY TO LIFT - The Jerusalem Connection Blog

2010-11-26T12:34:00.000-06:00

Jerusalem–Too heavy to lift » the Jerusalem Connection Blog -

by Jan Willem van der Hoeven, ICZC

Why not make Jerusalem the first issue to be dealt with, and not the last?

And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it. (Zechariah 12:3)

First Palestinian Arab study groups, backed by their political and religious leaders, declared that there was no evidence that a Jewish Temple ever stood on the Temple Mount. Now, in a just-published study, the Palestinian Authority is insisting that the Western Wall, too, has no historical connection to the Jewish people.

With these outrageous lies, the Palestinian leadership is preparing to stake its claim to “East Jerusalem:” International pressure must be brought to bear on Israel to hand over these parts of the city, which “have no connection to the Jewish people,” so they can be made into the exclusive capital of their Palestinian state.

As this Arab demand and condition for any peace agreement with Israel is a non-negotiable, Israel would be wise and do well to make Jerusalem the first item for discussion and not the last. Indeed, if it becomes clear there is no give and take on “East” Jerusalem, as certainly will become clear, then this city, as the Bible has already remarkably foretold, will become a stone too heavy for all the nations of the world to lift. After years of praying diligently to return to that place where their God made His dwelling between the cherubim in the Holy of Holies, the vast majority of Jews will refuse a peace that will see that place excluded from their territory.

For who can fathom a situation arising where indeed, for peace sake, a majority of Israelis will be willing to forfeit their ancient city and Temple Mount? Certainly the Muslim Palestinians will never, not even for peace sake, be willing to lay aside their claim – and this not withstanding the fact that Jerusalem is not mentioned even one single time in their Quran!!

Even if – God forbid – the unthinkable would happen, that Israel’s will would crumble under the incessant demands of the Arabs, and the Jews would withdraw not only from all of the “territories” but also from the eastern side of their ancient capital – even this would not bring peace. Instead it would be readily used by the now radicalized Muslim world as a stepping-stone to further dismantle Israel.

Let us not forget that the PLO was formed in 1964 – three years before the outbreak of the Six Day War – not to liberate the then already Arab-controlled ‘West Bank’ but to “liberate” all of Israel!

Well, was it said, therefore, by the eminent military historian Dr. Uri Milstein, as quoted in Arutz Sheva on November 5, 2010:

The problem, Milstein says, is the left. “In the leftist bastions of Ramat Aviv and Kfar Shmaryahu, they are still convinced that peace will come if we give up Judea and Samaria and the Golan. They probably won’t change their minds even if missiles rain down on Tel Aviv. The only way they will change their mind is if we do surrender these areas, and they find that the Arabs still make war against us.”

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

2010-11-25T09:46:00.000-06:00

Prager University: The Middle East Problem

2010-11-17T18:19:00.000-06:00

AFI Responds to Archbishop’s Statements Regarding Gaza

2010-11-03T22:36:00.000-05:00

AFI Responds to Archbishop’s Statements Regarding Gaza
Written by Anglican Friends of Israel

Speaking to the Governing Body of Church of Wales on 22 September 2010, the Most Rev Dr Barry Morgan offered commentary about Israeli policies in the Gaza Strip that portrays the state of Israel in an unduly harsh light and downplays the threat posed by extremists in that territory. Anglican Friends of Israel is compelled to respond to these statements and provide some badly needed context.

“Now is not the time for one-sided polemic,” said Simon McIlwaine, co-director of Anglican Friends of Israel. “As negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank proceed we need measured and responsible commentary from our leaders.”

Anti-Semitism

At the beginning of his commentary on the Gaza Strip, the Archbishop attempts to inoculate himself from charges of anti-Israel bias by warning his audience “Now I realise, that whenever I say anything about this matter, I will be accused of being anti-Semitic, but our own Prime Minister has described Gaza as a prison camp.”

Here, the Archbishop raises a central issue of the Arab-Israeli conflict – anti-Semitism – in a very offhand way. While Most Rev Dr Morgan does affirm Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket attacks from Hamas, he fails to acknowledge that that Hamas is an explicitly anti-Semitic organization that at the very least seeks to exercise a veto over the Jewish right to self-determination.

Hamas’ anti-Semitic ideology pre-existed the blockade, which has been lessened in recent weeks by the Israeli government. Hamas’ attacks against Israel are not merely motivated by a desire to end the blockade, but to deprive the Jewish people of their ability to enjoy a national life of their own.
Clearly, anti-Semitism plays a significant role in fomenting violence against Israel in the Middle East. Israel’s adversaries throughout the Middle East speak about Israel and Jews as a cancer on the body politic in the Middle East.

Anyone intent on offering a word of peace must acknowledge and lament – if not condemn – this reality. Sadly, the Archbishop does not, but instead deals with the issue of anti-Semitism in a flip manner.

Palestinian Responsibility

The suffering of the people living in the Gaza Strip is genuine and indeed, Israel does bear some measure of responsibility for this suffering. Israeli journalists have long documented the suffering of the Palestinians .

The Archbishop’s commentary about the Gaza Strip, however, portrays Palestinian misdeeds as rooted entirely in Israeli policies. He states “the longer things continue as they are then moderate, ordinary Palestinians become more resentful and are in danger of being radicalised.”

The process of radicalisation began long before the blockade he condemns. Palestinian textbooks and newspapers have been portraying Jews as monsters for years. Anti-Jewish blood libels appeared on state-run television in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip before, during and after the negotiations at Camp David which ended in violence at the start of the Second Intifada in 2000.

The Archbishop describes the devastation in the Gaza Strip without acknowledging the role Hamas played in bringing the destruction about. Hamas has used schools, mosques and even hospitals for military purposes which under international law renders them legitimate military targets.

History has shown that isolating tyrannical regimes such as Hamas results in civilian suffering. The Church of Wales has laudably attempted to minimize this suffering, but so has the State of Israel allowing an increased flow of goods into the Gaza Strip in the weeks prior to Archbishop Morgan’s statements.

Ultimately, the responsibility for the disruption of daily life in the Gaza Strip lies with Hamas. By way of comparison, daily life in the West Bank, which has not been the source of rocket attacks, is improving – with Israel’s cooperation.

Life in the Gaza Strip under Hamas control has proven to be violent and unpredictable. Hamas has murdered its political opponents, threatened its critics and stolen humanitarian aid shipped in from outside. It has even stolen fuel intended for hospitals. The Archbishop mentions none of this, but instead blames the suffering in the Gaza Strip entirely on Israel. The Archbishop also inaccurately asserted that “no building supplies are allowed into Gaza.” In fact, a shipment of building supplies as allowed into the territory just days before the Archbishop offered his commentary. These supplies are intended for the repair of a waste treatment plant in Gaza City.

“The Archbishop is right to be outraged at the suffering and privation endured by the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip,” McIlwaine said. “He is wrong, however, to place the blame for this suffering entirely on Israel.”

Despite the difficulties, the situation is clearly improving. The increased flow of goods into the Gaza Strip from Israel has made smuggling goods from Egypt unprofitable. In fact, goods are now flowing from Gaza into Egypt through the tunnels. Reuters states that 'A United Nations report in August said the volume of supplies to Gaza now averaged 1,006 truckloads a week, up 80 percent since June.' Clearly, conditions in the Gaza Strip had improved dramatically weeks before the Archbishop leveled his criticism.

Ignores Israeli Experience

The Archbishop also endorses the Kairos Palestine Document issued on 11 December 2009 and a resolution recently enacted by the Methodist Church in England which state “that the key hindrance to security and a lasting peace for all in the region is the occupation of Palestinian territory by the State of Israel.”

Israeli experience indicates otherwise. Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 was met the following year with the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit (who is still being held) and by thousands of rocket attacks. Moreover, during the Second Intifada, many of the suicide bombers that killed Israeli civilians originated from those areas of the West Bank from which Israel had withdrawn its soldiers in the 1990s.

By endorsing the Kairos Palestine Document, the Archbishop is affirming a text that speaks of Palestinian terrorism as “legal resistance.”

The Archbishop also ignored the attacks that led to the construction of the security barrier. The barrier does indeed cause great problems for Palestinians in the West Bank, but it also stopped the suicide attacks originating from this territory.

“In his statement, the Archbishop asserted no one denies Israel’s right to defend itself,” McIlwaine said, “but that’s what the International Court of Justice did when it called on Israel to dismantle the barrier.”

Troubling Theology

Possibly the most troubling aspect of the Archbishop’s statement is his demand that Israel must behave in a morally pure manner because of its status as a Jewish state. The Archbishop asserts that if the modern state of Israel “claims to be the homeland for the ancient Jewish people of God [it] must take seriously this vocation as the paradigm nation where justice and wisdom are seen to be done.”

To buttress his claim, the Most Rev Dr Morgan invokes a essay by Archbishop Rowan Williams titled “Holy Land and Holy People.” Unlike Archbishop Morgan’s testimony, Archbishop Williams acknowledges that the ability of modern Israel to serve as a paradigm nation is hindered when it is subject to relentless hostility. The 2004 essay states “Without stable and agreed borders, neither internal stability nor the universal service of external witness to justice can be sustained. The land becomes a prison, not a gift. The state of Israel has had to sustain its existence against enemies who would not grant its right to exist.”

Archbishop Morgan insists that Israel’s legitimacy is contingent on how well it adheres to the demands of being a “paradigm nation.” This is patently discriminatory. Such demands are targeted at no other nation in the world, especially not the Palestinians.

“The landscape of the Anglican Communion is littered with activists and commentators who have allowed their legitimate concern for the Palestinian people drive them into making some very one-sided and discriminatory remarks about Israel,” McIlwaine said. “We can do better.”

The Vanishing Christians of the Middle East

2010-10-14T10:24:00.001-05:00

The Vanishing Christians of the Middle East

The Synod of Bishops for the Middle East is meant to address the decline of Christians in the Muslim world. The reason for the decline is obvious. It is the willingness to discuss that reason which is at issue.

Christians in the Middle East are a minority in a Muslim region. Even the more moderate Muslim countries, such as Egypt, marginalize Christians and routinely deprive them of basic civil rights. Egypt is an American ally and nearly 10 percent of the country is Christian, yet that 10 percent live as second-class citizens, discriminated against and constantly subject to violence.

The rising tide of Islamization has made it more dangerous than ever to be a non-Muslim in a Muslim country, in ways that range from everyday discrimination to terrorist attacks. But the West is suffused by a narrative which insists that Islam is tolerant and promotes tolerance. Such a false narrative makes it extremely difficult to address or recognize the problem.

Meanwhile growing Muslim migration into Europe raises questions about the future of Christianity even in the West. If Christians are denied basic civil rights even in moderate Muslim countries, what will their fate be if France and Germany go the way of Byzantium? The fact that Christians do not generally enjoy equal rights in the Muslim world, suggests that they would also not enjoy such rights in Eurabia. The root of the problem lies in Sharia, Islamic law, which treats non-Muslims and women as second-class citizens.

Protecting Christians in the Muslim world requires working to replace laws based on Islamic jurisprudence, with laws based on objective secular standards that treat all religions equally. But this is likely to prove impossible. The governments of countries like Egypt are already under pressure by Islamists, who gain popular support by accusing them of being puppets of the West and disloyal to Islam. Applying pressure to the governments themselves cannot significantly shift the balance. Especially since the reign of those like Mubarak is endangered by the rise of the Islamists determined to overthrow the government and replace it with an Islamic state.

The real problem underlying it all is Islam. The question is what can be done about it.

Perhaps a first necessary step would be triage. The Catholic Church should consider the impact of importing the conditions already prevalent in the Muslim world into Europe, and take a firm stand against Muslim immigration in the name of Christian civil rights. This is not mere talk as some European countries are already projected to have a Muslim minority within a generation. If Muslim immigration countries, then the fate of Christians in Europe, will likely be that of Christians in the Middle East.

Such an action would empower marginalized European parties battling against the erosion of Europe's traditional character. It would also provide the Catholic Church with some leverage that it could employ with the Muslim world, demonstrating that it is capable of affecting the conditions of Muslims in the West, just as they are capable of affecting the conditions of Christians in the East.

But so far the Vatican has made no move in this direction. The Synod acknowledges that the problem exists, but its clergy are often part of the problem. The addresses still focus heavily on Israel, despite the fact that Israel is a tiny strip of land in the region. Turkey's steep Christian decline, going "from 20 percent Christian in the early 20th century to 0.2 percent now", could not even be remotely traced to anything involving Israel, as the two countries have been allies until recently. Instead it comes down to the Turkish persecution of Christians. An issue that has to be addressed, particularly in the era of Erdogan and his radical Islamist AKP party.

Michel Sabbah, the Archbishop of Jerusalem, will be arriving to promote which calls for a boycott of Israel in support of creating a Muslim Palestinian state. This will not serve the cause of Christian civil rights, as the Palestinian Authority has overseen a dramatic decline in the Christian presence, notably in Bethlehem. It would put Christians under Muslim authority, which would undermine one of the few places in the Middle East where indigenous Christians are not being repressed. Kairos Palestine does not promote Christian civil rights, it promotes Arab Nationalism.

The very fact that Kairos Palestine demands "an independent Palestinian state with Al-Quds as its capital", telegraphs that this is a document driven by a Muslim agenda, not a Christian one. Al Quds is the Islamic name for Jerusalem, not the Christian one. The Biblical Latin name for Jerusalem was Hierosolyma, the Biblical Greek name for it was Hierousalēm. The Pre-Islamic Arabic name for it was Ūršalaym. When a supposed Christian document replaces the traditional name for Jerusalem, with the Islamic Al Quds, it demonstrates that its worldview is Islamic, not Christian.

Unsurprisingly Kairos Palestine actually defends Islamic terrorism, and even promotes the cause of Hamas. The document repeatedly describes terrorism as "resistance". It blames the international community for the separation of Gaza and the civil war between Hamas and Fatah, "since it refused to deal positively with the will of the Palestinian people expressed in the outcome of democratic and legal elections in 2006" (1.5.1). Those would be the elections which Hamas won. Quite disturbingly, Kairos Palestine actually appears to endorse an Islamist Hamas government-- despite the persecution of Christians by Hamas.

And the collaboration continues. In Lebanon, Michel Aoun, who returned from exile to side with Hezbollah terrorists, claimed that Islamic extremism had nothing to do with the dwindling presence of Christians in the Middle East. Instead he blamed everything from economics to WW1 to Israel. Aoun demanded that the Catholic Church, "halt attempts to demonize Islam, the religion of more than one billion... And to call for examining the essence and religious text of Islam only, away from the acts of terrorist groups which Muslims consider themselves victims of just like the rest of the world."

This last is particularly laughable, as Aoun betrayed Lebanese Christians by signing a deal with Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist organization backed by Iran. Hezbollah's goal is to create an Islamic state. In Hezbollah's 1985 message to Christians, it stated, "We call upon you to embrace Islam so that you can be happy in this world and the next. If you refuse to adhere to Islam, maintain your ties with the Muslims and don't take part in any activity against them." Which is a roundabout way of saying, "Submit or we'll destroy you."

Nor is Aoun misled about what he's doing. In a 2002 interview, he described Hezbollah as a terrorist group under Syrian control and said that Christians had been turned into second-class citizens. A few years later, he cut a deal with that same organization, and now promotes the Islamist agenda. If Aoun helps Hezbollah take over, the Christian presence in Lebanon will be destroyed.

In the fact of those like Sabbah or Aoun, there are Middle Eastern Christian clergy who continue to fight for civil rights. But they have to walk a fine line, because what they can say is governed by the laws of the Muslim world. Speaking out can have legal consequences for them and deadly consequences for their followers. The statements they do make are careful and couched in ambiguous terminology. A necessity in a region where Muslim outrage quickly translates into church burnings and murders. And this gives Islamist apologists like Aoun and Sabbah a free hand to tell the one-sided Islamist tale.

The Synod so far includes the usual calls for dialogue with Muslims and Jews, the usual comments about the importance of the Peace Process, which would only accelerate the decline of Christians in the Middle East, and limited mentions of the dangers of Islamism. But if the Catholic Church hopes to preserve Christianity in the Middle East, it will have to take a far more active role than that. For the moment its policies are aimed at trying to preserve Christians as a minority in a Muslim Middle East. That is understandable, for the reasons laid out above, but also unsustainable.

Middle Eastern Christians are taking any chance they can get to leave for Europe and America where they will be able to enjoy freedom of religion, without persecution. The Vatican is concerned over this exodus, yet it is inevitable. The Jews fled the Muslim world in the same way. Few people will remain persecuted, if they can find another way out. The only way to reverse that exodus is to forcefully work against persecution and discrimination. Most Middle Eastern Christians have deep ties to the region, they do not want to leave. But creating a safe space for them will require more than just dialogue, but a demonstration that the Muslim world must respect the rights of Christians. Not that it should, because it's the right thing to do.

The Catholic Church has demonstrated before that it has the power to impact politics in the West. In the United States alone, it has had its impact in the debate on amnesty for illegal aliens and nationalized health care. It may be time for it to begin telling the real story of Christians in the Middle East, and countering the Islamist narrative that Sharia promotes tolerance. And to take a strong position against Muslim migration to Europe, until the Muslim demonstrates a willingness to grant full legal equality to Christians under their rule.

Standing up for oppressed Christians around the world, would be a meaningful and moral act, that could actually make a difference and prevent the fall of Europe. It would not be without its risks. Such a move would alienate American and European liberals and increase attacks on Christians in the short term. However it is the only step that has any chance of checking both the Islamization of Europe and the DeChristianization of the Middle East.

Israel Defense Force - Official Movie

2010-10-04T19:19:00.002-05:00

Humble Thyself In The Sight Of The Lord

2010-09-30T11:04:00.000-05:00

The subject of humility is punctuated throughout Scripture. It is of paramount significance that we understand what the Lord says, for there are many blessings associated with humility.

1. Grace is given to all those who humble themselves (James 4:6).
Grace is essential to living out the Christian life. The Apostle Paul clearly states that grace was bestowed upon him in order to carry out what God had called him to do (I Cor. 15:10).

2. Exaltation is the next gift granted to the humble.
Exaltation is not to be confused with being rich and famous. That would contradict what Scripture deems important. To be exalted is to be lifted up but not for the sake of glory. We are to be lifted up above the fallen ways of man and protected by the power of God. How desperately we need this (Daniel 4:34-37).

3. Honor is another blessing associated with humility.
To honor someone is to admire and respect them. Have you ever wished to honor a proud, arrogant individual? We are repulsed by the thought. Robert E. Lee was a humble God-fearing man, who was deeply respected by his friends as well as his enemies. To this day he is honored and highly respected (Prov 15:33).

4. God hears the cry of the humble.
A humble person sees God as his all in all. He realizes that without Christ he can do nothing. God will not listen to the proud, after all they don't need Him, for their strength is fully in control and God's help is a crutch for the weak. God does mighty works through humble people because He is their only source of strength, and when His strength is active, we will surely see what He and only He is capable of (Psalm 9:12).

5. The Lord speaks to the humble.
It is of great significance that the Apostle John in his own gospel never mentions himself. Guess who wrote the book of Revelation? John as a humble self-effacing man was entrusted with the final revelation. All 160 verses in Psalm 119 is a humble cry to hear from God (Psalm 119:145).

The world has yet to see what the Lord would do through a humble church. His power would be displayed in ways that are unimaginable. A humble church is made up of humble individuals. Could we collectively admit to any pride and ask the Lord to take inventory of our hearts and reveal to us that which is not pleasing to Him? I joyfully anticipate having His glory displayed. That's the way I see things.

Least in the Kingdom by Henry Morris, Ph.D. | Sep. 29, 2010

2010-09-29T11:03:00.001-05:00

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19)

The Lord Jesus was evidently speaking here not of the differences between saved and unsaved people, but rather of degrees of reward in His future kingdom. The criterion for achieving "greatness" in the future life is simply to believe, teach, and obey the complete Word of God in this life, not just the major doctrines and general principles. Those who undermine any part of God's Word, either in teaching or practice, will be relegated to "least in the kingdom of heaven." In the words of the apostle Paul, such a person "shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" (1 Corinthians 3:15).
Thus no Scripture is unimportant, for "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable" (2 Timothy 3:16). In fact, the verse just previous to our text, providing the basis for the Lord's warning about breaking even the least commandment, is His remarkable assertion about the verbal inerrancy of Scripture: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).

There are many Christians (especially among intellectuals) who say they believe the Bible, but are nevertheless quick to adapt their interpretations of Scripture to the latest speculations of scientists or to current fads of world living. This is insulting to God who surely can say what He means! "Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

If we aspire to greatness in the coming kingdom, then clearly we must believe and teach "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), according to His revealed Word. HMM

The Fellowship of the Mystery
"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 3:9) More...

The Discerner
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12) More...

Be Patient
"Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." (James 5:8) More...

His Truth
"And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master's brethren." (Genesis 24:27) More...

More Articles

The First Christian
Many Called, Few Chosen
The Comfortable Church
Revival through the Word
God's Foundation
Adam and the Animals
Redeemed!
Bounty from the Word
The Writing of God
Thou Shalt Be Saved!
The Imperatives of Redemption
The Way of Man
Understanding the Times
To Be or Not to Be

Institute for Creation Research