McChurch - Following John Hagee Into Armageddon

Holding out a hand for Jews who missed Jesus Sarah Posner | October 3, 2007 http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fundamentalist_100307
1. A Third Party Christian Right Candidate? Not a Chance. Over the weekend, well-placed leaks to The New York Times, Salon, ABC News, and WorldNetDaily spread a story that the clandestine Council for National Policy (CNP) would rather get behind a third-party candidate than back current front-runner Rudy Giuliani. A seat of power for ideological purists, media moguls, and the Christian right’s fundraising aristocracy, the CNP can pull all the necessary strings -- for the right candidate. Back in 1999, George W. Bush sealed the deal with the Christian right with a speech which, eight years later, is still subject to the organization’s double-super-secrecy rules. The idea that the Christian right would endorse a third-party candidate is ludicrous, given its pathological need to defeat Hillary Clinton and ultimately maintain sway over the White House. Focus on the Family's James Dobson has a history of threatening defection from the GOP to endorse a third-party candidate. He has never followed through because he's savvy enough to know it would render him irrelevant. No doubt the leaks were designed to put pressure on the GOP, not to nominate Giuliani. But it was Romney's camp that really took offense. The Evangelicals for Mitt blog reacted angrily to the leak as a diss of Romney as well. "Thankfully though, and despite popular opinion, James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Richard Land don't speak for the entire evangelical movement. We're actually capable of making difficult political judgments on our own." Tell that to John McCain, who this week gave new meaning to desperation. The courting of the Christian right vote continued. Romney made nice with Pat Robertson's TV camera and later reiterated his commitment to nominating justices "in the strict constructionist mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas." (No surprise given that his chief evangelical advisers have been knee-deep in every judicial nomination fight and key Supreme Court case relating to core Christian right issues for the past decade. Fred Thompson reportedly wowed the CNP with his speech last spring, but many evangelicals have since withheld judgment. Huckabee, declared the GOP's "dark horse" candidate this week by both Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton, broke into double digits in a Newsweek poll of likely GOP caucus-goers (albeit with a large margin of error), overtaking Baptist-come-lately McCain for the first time. But Bishop Harry Jackson, whose High Impact Leadership Coalition is co-sponsoring this month's Values Voters Summit along with Dobson's Focus on the Family Action, downplayed Huckabee's ability to raise the campaign cash needed to surge ahead. Jackson told me this week that Dobson's endorsement, while "a plus," especially among older evangelicals, is not required to win the GOP nomination. Many social conservatives would "hold their nose" and vote for Giuliani in the general election -- and some may well be impressed with his perceived post-9-11 tough guy reputation. What's more, Jackson added, continued fragmentation of support among some of the second and third tier candidates -- Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and the newly announced Alan Keyes -- could work to Giuliani’s benefit in the primaries. As an added bonus, he would not have to answer charges in the general election that he pandered to the religious right. (Jackson himself may have been lighting fires under some chairs in advance of the Values Voters Summit, where the straw poll could prove to be "a defining moment.") While a Gallup poll showed strong support for Giuliani among Republican voters who regularly attend church, Hizzoner demonstrated why -- in addition to his positions on gay rights and abortion -- that's not translating into love from James Dobson or any other evangelical power hitters. In his interview with CBN's David Brody last week in Santa Barbara (where he was also skipping the All-American Presidential Forum so he could attend a fundraiser with Bo Derek), Giuliani boasted, "I pray to Jesus." Any student of the Dobson Endorsement Protocol knows that praying is so mainline and that real evangelicals have a personal relationship with Jesus. 2. The March to World War III Continues Looks like John Hagee might be good at prophesying war after all. After the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution last week, Seymour Hersh reported that Iran war plans continue apace at the White House. According to former Israeli government insider Greg Levey, if the Bush administration doesn't act militarily against Iran, Israel may see its own window of opportunity closing in January 2009. With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York last week, Rod Parsley, who is a regional director for Hagee's Christians United for Israel (CUFI), pumped up the anti-Ahmadinejad rhetoric on his television broadcast. He juxtaposed this century's Hitler with a sermon in which he rejected land for peace as "appeasement," adding that Israel's "boundaries, my Christian friends, are found in your bible." He regurgitated the end-times scenario from Hagee's Jerusalem Countdown, which includes the Rapture, which could happen at any time: For example, you might be flying across the Atlantic with a suicide bomber on board when suddenly you are whisked away to heaven. Shouting that no one should fear the war that he says is predicted in the book of Ezekiel, Parsley added, "There's nothing that can stop our final flight into the realms of glory!" 3. Hagee Claims His New Book Will Reshape Christian Theology Hagee has a new book out this week, In Defense of Israel. In a promotion on his television show, Hagee claimed that the book "will expose the sins of the fathers and the vicious abuse of the Jewish people. In Defense of Israel will shape Christian theology. It scripturally proves that the Jewish people as a whole did not reject Jesus as Messiah." Wow! Does this guy love the Jews, or what? You see, according to Hagee, Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah. How then "can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?" Eschatology or Life of Brian? 4. Evangelicals in Jerusalem Speaking of missing the Messiah, Jews have another chance right now! Last week marked the start of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, which many evangelical followers of biblical prophecy see as the time at which the Second Coming will take place. Evangelicals, including both Hagee and Parsley will host "Feast of Tabernacles" celebrations at their churches in the coming weeks during which they purport to celebrate the Jewish holiday as a return to their "Jewish roots," but in fact promote their prophesies of the Second Coming. (More on this in my forthcoming God's Profits.) The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (which is not an embassy at all but a Christian Zionist group with its eye on Armageddon) held its annual Feast of Tabernacles celebration in Jerusalem this week, hosting some big American evangelical names like Jack Hayford, a pastor to influential leaders and one of the overseers of Ted Haggard's "restoration" from homosexuality. Another big name was Robert Stearns, who is also a regional director of CUFI, which has pledged not to proselytize to Jews. The Chief Rabbinate Council's Committee for the Prevention of Missionary Work in the Holy Land issued an order forbidding Jews from attending the ICEJ event because "some of the bodies gathering there are active, inter alia, in attempting to convert us from our faith." Quoting a well-known Hebrew saying adapted from Proverbs 22:5, the committee added, "One who fears for his soul will stay far away." 5. Can Evangelicals Be Swayed on Global Warming? Last spring, Harry Jackson was part of a group of Christian right leaders who wrote a letter to the National Association of Evangelicals attacking the organization's vice president for government affairs, Richard Cizik, for taking a stand on global warming. Now that Jackson has been to Alaska and seen the effects of climate change firsthand, he has warmed to the idea of motivating evangelicals to get involved. In Jackson's view evangelicals have a moral responsibility to reduce dependency on foreign oil and instead rely on cleaner fuels (which includes nuclear power). Setting himself apart from his conservative brethren, Jackson envisions a role for both the U.S. government and the U.N. in addressing global warming, and hopes to persuade fellow conservative evangelicals to join him in viewing the issue as one of both environmental justice and national security. As much as this is a positive sign, I don't think Jackson (who is a registered Democrat) will be making any joint appearances with Al Gore anytime soon. Several times during our interview, Jackson (who is behind ramping up hysterical opposition to the Matthew Shepard bill) labeled An Inconvenient Truth "alarmist." And, he said, he worried that Gore's discussion of population growth suggested a promotion of abortion and euthanasia. Alarmist, indeed. Next week: More presidential politics, the Day of Prayer for Peace in Jerusalem.
Sarah Posner is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in the Prospect, The Washington Spectator, AlterNet, and other publications. Her book, God's Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters will be published by PoliPoint Press next year.

McChurch - Israeli Lobby Under Attack

Two Knights and a Dragon

The Power of the Israel Lobby

By URI AVNERY

There are books that change people's consciousness and change history. Some tell a story, like Harriet Beech Stowe's 1851 "Uncle Tom's Cabin", which gave a huge impetus to the campaign for the abolition of slavery. Others take the form of a political treatise, like Theodor Herzl's "Der Judenstaat", which gave birth to the Zionist movement. Or they can be scientific in nature, like Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species", which changed the way humanity sees itself. And perhaps political satire, too, can shake the world, like "1984" by George Orwell.

The impact of these books was amplified by their timing. They appeared exactly at the right time, when a large public was ready to absorb their message.

It may well turn out that the book by the two professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", is just such a book.

It is a dry scientific research report, 355 pages long, backed by 106 further pages containing some thousand references to sources.

It is not a bellicose book. On the contrary, its style is restrained and factual. The authors take great care not to utter a single negative comment on the legitimacy of the Lobby, and indeed bend over backwards to stress their support for the existence and security of Israel. They let the facts speak for themselves. With the skill of experienced masons, they systematically lay brick upon brick, row upon row, leaving no gap in their argumentation.

This wall cannot be torn down by reasoned argument. Nobody has tried, and nobody is going to. Instead, the authors are being smeared and accused of sinister motives. If the book could be ignored altogether, this would have been done--as has happened to other books which have been buried alive.

(Some years ago, there appeared in Russia a large tome by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the world-renowned laureate of the Nobel Prize for Literature, about Russia and its Jews. This book, called "200 Years Together", has been completely ignored. As far as I know, it has not been translated into any language, certainly not into Hebrew. I asked several of Israel's leading intellectuals, and none of them had even heard of the book. Neither does it appear on the list of Amazon.com, which includes all the author's other works.)

* * *

THE TWO professors take the bull by the horns. They deal with a subject which is absolutely taboo in the United States, a subject nobody in his right mind would even mention: the enormous influence of the pro-Israel lobby on American foreign policy.

In a remorselessly systematical way, the book analyzes the Lobby, takes it apart, describes its modus operandi, discloses its financial sources and lays bare its relations with the White House, the two houses of Congress, the leaders of the two major parties and leading media people.

The authors do not call into question the Lobby's legitimacy. On the contrary, they show that hundreds of lobbies of this kind play an essential role in the American democratic system. The gun and the medical lobbies, for example, are also very powerful political forces. But the pro-Israel lobby has grown out of all proportion. It has unparalleled political power. It can silence all criticism of Israel in Congress and the media, bring about the political demise of anyone who dares to break the taboo, prevent any action that does not conform to the will of the Israeli government.

In its second part, the book shows how the Lobby uses its tremendous power in practice: how it has prevented the exertion of any pressure on Israel to for peace with the Palestinians, how it pushed the US into the invasion of Iraq, how it is now pushing for wars with Iran and Syria, how it supported the Israeli leadership in the recent war in Lebanon and blocked calls for a ceasefire when it didn't want it.

Each of these assertions is backed up by so much undeniable evidence and quotations from written material (mainly from Israeli sources) that they cannot be ignored.

* * *

MOST OF these disclosures are nothing new for those in Israel who deal with these matters.

I myself could add to the book a whole chapter from personal experience.

In the late 50s, I visited the US for the first time. A major New York radio station invited me for an interview. Later they cautioned me: "You can criticize the President (Dwight D. Eisenhower) and the Secretary of State (John Foster Dulles) to your heart's content, but please don't criticize Israeli leaders!" At the last moment the interview was cancelled altogether, and the Iraqi ambassador was invited instead. Criticism was apparently tolerable when it came from an Arab, but absolutely not coming from an Israeli.

In 1970, the respected American "Fellowship of Reconciliation" invited me for a lecture tour of 30 universities, under the auspices of the Hillel rabbis. When I arrived in New York, I was informed that 29 of the lectures had been cancelled. The sole rabbi who did not cancel, Balfour Brickner, showed me a secret communication of the "Anti-Defamation League" that proscribed my lectures. It said: "While Knesset Member Avnery can in no way be considered a traitor, his appearance at this time would be deeply divisive" In the end, all the lectures took place under the auspices of Christian chaplains.

I especially remember a depressing experience in Baltimore. A good Jew, who had volunteered to host me, was angered by the cancellation of my lecture in this city and obstinately insisted on putting it on. We combed the streets of the Jewish quarters--mile upon mile of signs with Jewish names--and did not find a single hall whose manager would agree to let the lecture by a member of the Israeli Knesset take place. In the end, we did hold the lecture in the basement of the building of my host's apartment--and functionaries of the Jewish community came to protest.

That year, during Black September, I held a press conference in Washington DC, under the auspices of the Quakers. It seemed to be a huge success. The journalists came straight from a press conference with Prime Minister Golda Meir, and showered me with questions. Almost all the important media were represented--TV networks, radio, the major newspapers. After the planned hour was up, they would not let me go and kept me talking for another hour and a half. But the next day, not a single word appeared in any of the media. Thirty-one years later, in October 2001 I held a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, and exactly the same thing happened: many of the media were there, they held me for another hour--and not a word, not a single word, was published.

In 1968, a very respected American publishing house (Macmillan) brought out a book of mine' "Israel Without Zionists", which was later translated into eight other languages. The book described the Israeli-Arab conflict in a very different way and proposed the establishment of a Palestinian state next to Israel--a revolutionary idea at the time. Not a single review appeared in the American media. I checked in one of the most important book stores in New York and did not find the book. When I asked a salesman, he found it buried under a heap of volumes and put it on top. Half an hour later it was hidden again.

The book dealt with the "Two States for Two peoples" solution long before it became a world-wide consensus, and with my proposal for Israel's integration in "the Semitic Region". True, I am an Israeli patriot and was elected to the Knesset by Israeli voters. But I criticized the Israeli government--and that was enough.

* * *

THE BOOK by the two professors, who criticize the Israeli government from a different angle, cannot be buried anymore. This fact, by itself, speaks volumes.

The book is based on an essay by the two that appeared last year in a British journal, after no American publication dared to touch it. Now a respected American publishing house has released it--an indication that something is moving. The situation has not changed, but it seems that it is now possible at least to talk about it.

Everything depends on timing--and apparently the time is now ripe for such a book, which will shock many good people in America. It is now causing an uproar.

The two professors are, of course, accused of anti-Semitism, racism and hatred of Israel. What Israel? It is the Lobby itself that hates a large part of Israel. In recent years is has shifted even more to the Right. Some of its constituent groups--such as the neo-cons who pushed the US into the Iraq war--are openly connected with the right-wing Likud, and especially with Binyamin Netanyahu. The billionaires who finance the Lobby are the same people who finance the extreme Israeli Right, and most of all the settlers.

The small, determined Jewish groups in the US who support the Israeli peace movements are remorselessly persecuted. Some of them fold after a few years. Members of Israeli peace groups who are sent to America are boycotted and slandered as "self-hating-Jews".

The political views of the two professors, which are briefly stated at the end of the book, are identical with the stand of the Israeli peace forces: the Two-State Solution, ending the occupation, borders based on the Green Line, and international support for the peace settlement.

If this is anti-Semitism, then we here are all anti-Semites. And only the Christian Zionists--those who openly demand the return of the Jews to this country but secretly prophesy the annihilation of the unconverted Jews at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ--are the true Lovers of Zion.

* * *

EVEN IF not a single bad word about the pro-Israel lobby can be uttered in the US, it is far from being a secret society, hatching conspiracies like the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". On the contrary, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, the Zionist Federation and the other organizations vociferously boast about their actions and publicly proclaim their incredible successes.

Quite naturally, the diverse components of the Lobby compete with each other--Who has the biggest influence on the White House, Who scares the most senators, Who controls more journalists and commentators,. This competition causes a permanent escalation--because every success by one group spurs the others to redouble their efforts.

This could be very dangerous. A balloon that is inflated to monstrous dimensions can one day burst in the face of American Jews (who, by the way, according to the polls, object to many positions adopted by the Lobby that claims to speak in their name.)

Most of the American public now opposes the Iraq war and considers it a disaster. This majority still does not connect the war with the actions of the pro-Israel lobby. No newspaper and no politician dares to hint at such a connection--yet. But if this taboo is broken, the result may be very dangerous for the Jews and for Israel.

Beneath the surface, a lot of anger directed against the Lobby is accumulating. The presidential candidates, who are compelled to grovel at the feet of AIPAC, the senators and congressmen, who have become slaves of the Lobby, the media people, who are forbidden to write what they really think-- all these secretly detest the Lobby. If this anger explodes, it may hurt us, too.

This lobby has become a Golem. And like the Golem in legend, in the end it will bring disaster on its maker.

* * *

IF I may be permitted to voice some criticism of my own:

When the original article by the two professors appeared, I argued that "the tail is wagging the dog and the dog is wagging the tail". The tail, of course, is Israel.

The two professors confirm the first part of the equation, but emphatically deny the second. The central thesis of the book is that the pressure of the Lobby causes the United States to act against its own interests (and, in the long run, also against the true interests of Israel.) They do not accept my contention, quoted in the book, that Israel acted in Lebanon as "America's Rottweiler" (to Hizbullah as "Iran's Doberman").

I agree that the US is acting against its true interest (and the true interests of Israel)--but the American leadership does not see it that way. Bush and his people believe--even without the input of the Lobby--that it would be advantageous for the US to establish a permanent American military presence in the middle of this region of huge oil reserves. In my view, this counter-productive act at was one of the main objectives of the war, side by side with the desire to eliminate one of Israel's most dangerous enemies. Unfortunately, the book deals only very briefly with this issue.

That does not diminish in any way my profound admiration for the intellectual qualities, integrity and courage of Mearsheimer and Walt, two knights who, like St. George, who have sallied forth to face the fearful dragon.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is o a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

McChurch - Supporting the Unsupportable

September 25, 2007

The Yom Kippur War Today

Foam on the Water

By URI AVNERY

Today is Yom Kippur, and almost automatically my thoughts, like those of everybody else who was around at the time, go back 34 years, to that Yom Kippur.

I was sitting at home, deep in conversation with a friend, when the sirens suddenly started to wail.

The sound of sirens is always frightening, but sirens on Yom Kippur are something from another world. After all, this is a day of total silence, the day when not a single car moves on the streets of Israel.

Outside, a flurry of unusual activity. Military vehicles speeding by, people in uniform rushing out with kitbags on their shoulders, the roar of airplanes overhead.

We gathered round the radio, which is normally silent on Yom Kippur. It announced that a war had started.

* * *

I WAS not called up, but on the following days I saw the war from several different angles. I was at the time a Member of the Knesset and the editor-in-Chief of the Haolam Hazeh news magazine, but the Knesset was on vacation (it all happened in the middle of an election campaign) and the editorial staff of the magazine was almost incapacitated, since most of its members had been called up. Rami Halperin, a young photographer who had just been released from army service and started to work for the magazine, did not wait to be called up but rushed to join his former unit, in time for the battle for the "Chinese Farm", where he was killed.

A well-known German TV director came to the country and asked for advice about filming the war. While we talked, the idea came to him of making a film about me covering the war.

That way I saw all the fronts. We were searching for Ariel Sharon in the South and followed him to the Suez Canal. A few kilometers from the canal we came under heavy Egyptian shelling. We were stuck in a huge traffic jam - a whole division with its troop carriers, cannon, tanks, ambulances and whatever else was on the move towards the canal. On the way we entered a mobile field hospital, where a military doctor, Ephraim Sneh - now a prominent Member of the Knesset - was operating.

Next we hurried to the Northern Front. We passed large numbers of burned-out tanks, theirs and ours, and reached a village about a dozen kilometers from Damascus. Somehow I remember a conversation with a small boy about cats.

In between we inspected a refugee camp near Nablus and the Old City of Jerusalem. From every coffee shop blared the voice of the Egyptian president, Anwar al-Sadat, explaining his war aims. The members of the German team were flabbergasted. They remembered stories from World War II and found it incredible that the occupied population was allowed to listen freely to the enemy radio

* * *

BUT THE event that is engraved in my memory - and in the memory of most Israelis who lived through that time - did not happen on the front.

We were sitting in a neighbor's apartment, when an image appeared on the TV screen: dozens of Israeli soldiers crouching on the ground, hands over bowed heads, with terrifying Syrian soldiers towering over them.

Never before had we seen Israeli soldiers like this: dirty, unshaven, obviously frightened, miserable as only prisoners of war can be.

There was silence in the room. At that moment the myth of the Israeli superman, of the invincible Israeli soldier, which had dominated our lives for a generation, died. This myth was the ultimate victim of the Yom Kippur War.

True, the Israeli army proved itself. In three weeks of war it snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. At the beginning of the war, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan was muttering about the "destruction of the Third Temple" (meaning the State of Israel), at the end, the army was threatening both Cairo and Damascus.

But the legend of the invincible Israeli army was shattered. The picture of the helpless and humiliated Israeli prisoners refuses to be eradicated from memory. Right after the war, the Battle of the Generals broke out. Their quarrels destroyed the prestige of the military leaders, who until then had been the idols of the public. It has never fully recovered. (But, contrary to the expectations of many, the stranglehold of the army on Israeli policy was not diminished.)

This psychological rupture was followed by a political break. The generation of Golda Meir left the stage, the generation of Yitzhak Rabin took its place. Only three and a half years later, the unbelievable happened: Menachem Begin, the eternal opposition leader, assumed power.

* * *

BEGIN'S MAIN achievement, the peace with Egypt, was a direct result of the Yom Kippur War, which the Arabs call the Ramadan War. The crossing of the canal and the breaking of the Bar-Lev Line restored Egyptian pride, and that made peace possible. I was one of the first five Israelis to reach Cairo after Sadat's visit to Jerusalem, and I vividly remember the hundreds of posters hanging over the streets: "Sadat - Hero of War, Hero of Peace!"

In Israel, too, many remember Begin as a hero of peace. After all, he was the first Israeli statesman to make peace with an Arab country - and not just any Arab country, but the most central and important one. In spite of all that has happened in the meantime, this peace has held.

Some people are berating Bashar al-Assad and King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia for not following Sadat's example. Why don't they dare to come to Jerusalem?

This line of reasoning is based on a misreading of the facts. Sadat did not just decide to come. It did not happen the way he described it so many times (in a conversation with me, too): that he was coming back from a visit to Europe and, while flying over Mount Ararat, was suddenly inspired to do something unparalleled in history: to visit the enemy's capital while still in a state of war

The truth is that before the visit, emissaries of Sadat and Begin had held secret meetings in Morocco. Only after Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan had promised, on Begin's behalf, to give back all the occupied Egyptian territories, did Sadat make his decision.

Where is the Israeli leader today who is ready to promise Assad the return of all the Golan, to promise Mahmoud Abbas a withdrawal to the Green Line?

* * *

HOW DID Begin decide to give Egypt "parts of our fatherland"?

Very simple: for him, they were not "parts of our fatherland".

Begin had before his eyes a clear map of the Land of Israel. He had inherited it from his master and teacher, Zeev Jabotinsky: the map of the country at the beginning of the British Mandate, on both banks of the Jordan.

In the course of history, the borders of this country have changed hundreds of times. There were the borders of the Divine Promise, from the Nile to the Euphrates. There were the borders of the "Kingdom of David" (which never existed), reaching to Hamat in northern Syria. There were the borders of the tiny enclave around Jerusalem at the time of Ezra and Nehemia. There were the borders of Roman Palaestina, which changed from time to time. There were the borders of "Jund (military zone) Filastin" of the Muslim conquerors. And many more.

Like all the preceding borders, those of the British Mandate were fixed by accident. In the South, they were agreed upon before World War I between the British (who ruled Egypt) and the Turks (who ruled Palestine). In the North, they were agreed upon - after that war - between the French colonial government in Syria and the British colonial government in Palestine. In Transjordan, a long sleeve was stretched to Iraq, in order to allow for the free flow of oil from Mosul (then also under British control) to Haifa on the Mediterranean.

It was this accidental map that was sanctified by Jabotinsky, who wrote the famous song: "The Jordan has two banks / this one belongs to us, and the other one too." It was part of the emblem of the Irgun underground and appeared on the masthead of the newspaper of Jabotinsky's Revisionist Party, the forerunner of today's Likud. Begin's conclusion: the Sinai Peninsula does not belong to the Land of Israel and so can be given up without moral scruples. The purpose was to get Egypt out of the war, which for Begin had only one aim: possession of the whole of the Land of Israel, which others call Palestine.

Begin would have had no problem with giving up the Golan, which, according to this map, also does not belong to the country. But he was captivated by Ariel Sharon, who seduced him to invade Lebanon in order to annihilate the PLO, hiding from him his second objective: to knock out Syria. (As is well known, both objectives failed.)

In the meantime, a new generation has grown up, one that does not know Jabotinsky and his map. In the consciousness of the Israeli Right, a new map has taken shape: the East Bank of the Jordan has been taken out, the Golan has been put in. But in its center there lies, as always, the West Bank.

* * *

BEFORE THE Six-Day War, the British historian of the Crusades, Steven Runciman, told me that we live in a paradox: "Israel was founded in the land that once belonged to the Philistines, while the Palestinians, who got their name from the Philistines, live in the land that belonged to the ancient Kingdom of Israel." The borders between the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were laid down by the war of 1948.

Since then, The State of Israel has been working hard to eliminate this paradox.

Everything significant that is happening nowadays is a part of the Israeli effort to take over the West Bank and to turn it into a part of the State of Israel. All else is but foam on the water.

The pathetic Condoleezza Rice keeps coming and going. Ehud Olmert is formulating a document without content in order to create the illusion of progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel. Israeli airplanes bombard a Syrian area in order to eliminate a threat of "weapons of mass destruction". Israel prepares to bomb or not to bomb nuclear installations in Iran. President Bush is calling for an "international meeting" at an unknown date, with unknown participants for an unknown purpose.

All this is imagined reality. The real reality is unfolding on the ground, every day, every hour: nightly incursions in West Bank towns, frantic building in the settlements, enlargement of the "Israelis only" road network, further additions to the 600 or so existing roadblocks, worsening of the living conditions in the Palestinian ghettos in the West Bank and turning life in the Gaza Strip into hell.

This is the real war: the war for "the whole of the Land of Israel" - a war that has disappeared from public discourse, but that is being waged energetically, far from the eyes of Israelis living only 20 minutes drive from there. The Palestinians are fighting with their meager means but with dogged obduracy.

If a historic compromise between the peoples is not achieved, this war will go on for generations. A boy born today will join the war on his 18th birthday, like the boys born 18 years ago, and his father, like those before him, will bury him.

The Yom Kippur War was only a small episode in this campaign. It was fought in the North and the South, against the Syrians and the Egyptians. The Palestinians were not involved. But no one doubted for a moment that it was a part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is o a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

McChurch - The 2M Guys With the Microphone and the Mammon

Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007

Posted on Wed, Sep. 05, 2007

Israel doesn't enrapture all evangelicals

By BOB RAY SANDERS
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

When it comes to how this country deals with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, some evangelical Christians think our administration is in need of a revival -- or at least a refocus.

Before you jump to conclusions, please understand that all evangelicals don't think alike, and our foreign policy position in the Middle East is beginning to expose a great divide among Christians that many of us had never imagined.

Perhaps you've heard about some of the prominent ministers, particularly several high-profile televangelists, who have sworn allegiance to the state of Israel because of their views on biblical prophecy. They include Pat Robertson, John Hagee and the late Jerry Falwell.

This week, a small group of evangelical leaders, including a well-known North Texas pastor, will meet in the offices of the U.S. State Department to discuss their concerns about the continuing crisis surrounding Israel and the Palestinians.

That meeting is a direct result of a letter that 33 evangelical leaders sent to President Bush in July. One of the signatories, and one of the main architects of the message, is Bob Roberts, pastor of NorthWood Church in Keller and a veteran of extensive mission work in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan.

The letter began by complimenting the president for trying to "reinvigorate" negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis and for his recommendation of a "two-state" solution.

"We also write to correct a serious misperception among some people including some U.S. policymakers that all American evangelicals are opposed to a two-state solution and creation of a new Palestinian state that includes the vast majority of the West Bank," they wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth. We, who sign this letter, represent large numbers of evangelicals throughout the U.S. who support justice for both Israelis and Palestinians. We hope this support will embolden you and your administration to proceed confidently and forthrightly in negotiations with both sides in the region."

Unless you're one of those Christians who spends a lot more time thinking about the "rapture" than I do, you probably don't know the word eschatology. Roberts defines it as "the study of the last days -- how we view the second coming of Christ."

The interpretation of eschatology is at the center of the divide among evangelical Christians.

For about 18 centuries, Roberts explains, theologians taught that Jesus was coming back and that Christians should get ready. That's pretty simple.

In more recent times, however, many evangelicals have preached that Israel had to be a state again, possessing the land that is Palestine. And if you don't love and protect the Israeli state, you are, in effect, delaying Christ's return.

A lot of people who believe that helped elect George W. Bush president.

But other evangelicals, some of whom may also have voted for Bush, have a different interpretation of Scripture. Such views led to the letter to the president on this very divisive issue.

"Historical honesty compels us to recognize that both Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine," the letter stated. "Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed violence and injustice against each other. The only way to bring the tragic cycle of violence to an end is for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a just, lasting agreement that guarantees both sides viable, independent, secure states. To achieve that goal, both sides must give up some of their competing, incompatible claims. Israelis and Palestinians must both accept each other's right to exist."

Before Roberts left for Washington, he told me that he had spoken at the U.S-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, earlier this year and had emphasized that people of God need to get along with one another. He was well-received by Islamic leaders, he said.

"I told them I support the Jews, but I also support the Palestinians," he said.

Roberts believes that the Bush administration has been listening too much to that other group of evangelicals.

"I believe it's scary -- real scary," he said. "When you have speculative theology pushing our foreign policy, that's real scary."

Noting that the religious leaders who will meet in Washington this week are not going there to develop policy, Roberts said: "Faith leaders have to be involved in this process.

"These are faith issues, and the reason diplomats can't deal with them is that they don't understand faith."

In his efforts in southern Afghanistan -- building water projects, schools and clinics -- Roberts has worked with many imams. And although he said he doesn't agree with Muslims on everything, politically or spiritually, he insists that the Christian community must work with the Islamic community to bring about peace in the Middle East.

"We're doing a pathetic thing of showing God's love, and we've got to do a massive redirect," he said.

I pray that they can change some hearts and minds in Washington, and that this administration once again will become seriously engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Otherwise, all of us should get prepared for Armageddon.

Beating McChurch With Culture!

Cultural Resistance

by Sani P. Meo (Excerpts)
Augu st 2007 This Week in Palestine

Palestine was culturally alive and kicking this past July. Most warm summer
nights in East Jerusalem, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Nablus were filled with
shows that were performed not only by some of the best local Palestinian
music and dance groups but also by renowned international groups from
Europe, South Africa and other countries.

Festivals were frozen last year because of the tensions caused by the
Israeli-Hezbollah war. This year , however, the festivals are back in full
swing and contribute to the conscious effort that is being made to break
down barriers and reach out to the world at large through culture.
International groups expressed their spirit of solidarity through welcoming
speeches and the interviews that they granted to the media. For instan ce,
when Nigel Kennedy, the renowned English violinist, was asked by an Israeli
newspaper why he had accepted the invitation of the Jerusal em Festival 2007
and declined several Israeli invitations, he had this to say: “Today I was
really shocked when I saw the Wall here. It's a new type of apartheid,
barbaric behavior. How can you impose collective punishment and divide
people from one another? We are all residents of the same planet. I would
think that the world learned something from South Africa. And the world
should boycott a nation that didn't learn. That's why I won't perform in
your country.” Later in the same interview, Kennedy also added: “The
concert tonight is very emotional because I am performing for people who are
imprisoned. To give them two hours of fun and show them that the world has
not forgotten about them.”

Despite the “regular” Israeli harassment of some of the groups upon their
arrival in the countr y, which required intense intervention from top foreign
diplomats who represent the countries of each group, the feisty
international bands also played a big role in breathing life into all the
cities and towns in which they performed.

The message of the festivals to all concerned parties was loud and clear; as
long as the Palestinian people aspire to cultural excellence, they will not
be defeated.

McChurch - Rudy Falls Short Except in Zion

Imperfect people and high office

---

Shmuley Boteach , THE JERUSALEM POST

Aug. 26, 2007

---

Last week I spent time at the Christian Broadcasting Network headquarters in Virginia with Pat Robertson, who, amid some understandable disagreements on important issues, is not only a friend but, I believe, one of the best friends Israel has in the entire United States.

In discussing the US presidential race, we focused on Rudy Giuliani, who is extremely popular in the Jewish community for his stalwart support of Israel and hard line on Islamic fundamentalism - but somewhat less so among Evangelicals, given his two divorces. Indeed, many Christians have written to me that they cannot vote for Rudy for president because of their wish to uphold family values. They wish for me to concur.

I cannot.

In looking at how the two communities approach a candidate like Giuliani, we can discern important differences between Judaism and Christianity.

When Rudy, as mayor of New York, announced his separation from his wife, Donna Hanover, at a hastily summoned press conference without first informing her, I wrote a column stating that, as a child of divorce, I had to protest the way the announcement was handled.

Couples sometimes have to split up. But decisions as to the future of a marriage should be taken between husband and wife in concert, and with the children being informed before anyone else.

And yet, my criticism of Rudy's actions as a husband had no bearing on my strong endorsement of his leadership as mayor. Here is why.

JUDAISM believes two things. First, that people are flawed, and that what is important, therefore, is struggle rather than perfection (hence, the name Israel which translates as "he who wrestles with God").

My Christian brothers and sisters believe that because people are sinful they must therefore accept the grace of Christ for salvation. But Jews believe that because people are imperfect they must therefore define their own righteousness by their willingness to struggle to do the right thing amid a predilection for doing otherwise. Inevitably, we will sometimes come up short. But wrestle we must.

Second, Judaism believes that we flawed people must still devote ourselves to the public good and that the idea that our mistakes should keep us from positions of leadership is not only ludicrous, but deeply sinful.

Should a philanthropist who cheats on his wife not feed the poor? Should a woman who is mean to her cleaning lady not be a doctor who can heal the sick? Yes, it would be wonderful if we were all more consistent. But we must strive to do good in one area even when we fall short in others.

WHEREAS CHRISTIANITY focuses on personal salvation, Judaism focuses instead on world redemption. In Judaism, the question of personal righteousness is always subordinate to that of communal improvement. In Judaism our goodness is defined not by faith, meditation and reflection, but by good deeds. The focus is on the community rather than on ourselves.

The contribution one makes to the lives of others is much more important than how perfect one is in one's own life.

My Christian brothers and sisters, amid their stellar record of charity and social services throughout the world, are still often fixated on the question of whether or not they are going to heaven. In Judaism such questions, rarely, if ever, come up. The real question is: Have you left the world in a better condition than you found it?

The Talmud relates the famous story of how, as Rabbi Yochanan lay on his death bed, he cried out, "I don't know where I am going (to heaven or hell)." Now, how could such a righteous man not be sure as to whether he had earned a place in eternity? The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that his confusion was due to having never once focused on himself. What he focused on throughout his life was on doing good deeds for others, and not whether he had become personally righteous in the process.

THE OTHER reason that the Jewish community has no real issue with Giuliani's divorces are the biblical heroes to whom we look up. Christians venerate Jesus, who is portrayed as perfect in the New Testament. When Christians ask, "What would Jesus do?" they are holding up a model of flawlessness which they seek to emulate.

But in the Hebrew Bible our heroes are righteous men rather than perfect gods. They struggled to the do the right thing, but being men, they did not always succeed. Abraham is faulted for his parenting with regard to Ishmael. Jacob favored Joseph over his other children. Moses, the greatest of prophets, is punished with not being allowed to enter the promised land because he failed to sanctify God to the Jewish people at a critical moment in their history.

Indeed, the fact that these men were not perfect is what makes them the perfect model for emulation. Like us, they struggled to do the right thing amid an inclination do otherwise. And it was in the context of their herculean efforts to act righteously when it didn't always come naturally to them that they became role models.

FEW IN the Jewish community believe that Bill Clinton's personal failures made him unqualified for the public position of president. His betrayal, with Monica Lewinsky, of his marriage did not mean that he could not do a great deal of good for the country. On the contrary, the principal Jewish criticism of Clinton was that he did nothing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, when, as the most powerful man in the world, there were many remedies available to him to stop the indiscriminate slaughter of defenseless Africans.

Finally, my Christian brothers and sisters define a hypocrite as someone who says one thing and practices another. But Judaism argues that this is not hypocrisy, but inconsistency. The hypocrite is he who says something and does not believe it even as he says it.

Few of us, thankfully, are in that category. What we are, however, is inconsistent, believing strongly in family values, but not always being strong enough to live in accordance with those values.

The writer is about to launch 'The Jewish Values Network,' dedicated to the dissemination of Jewish values in the mainstream media. www.shmuley.com

---

Copyright 1995- 2007 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

McChurch - Land of the Theologically-Challenged

MELBOURNE, Florida (CNN) -- Sondra Oster Baras is an Orthodox Jew doing an unorthodox job.

Pastor Gary Christofaro: "If it wasn't for what the Jews brought to Christianity, there would be no Christianity."

This fine fellow could certainly not have made this statement...It is one of the most non-Christian statements I have read in many a year...It is one thing to deny the sovereignty of God and keep your mouth shut; it is quite another to deny the sovereignty of God and kick Him out of the heavens...

The Creator of all living things is the Second Person of the Trinity...It is not Abraham or his sons, of whom Jesus said, "I could raise up these stones as sons of Abraham."

Imagine the apostasy of a Christian minister saying that Christianity could not have happened were it not for the Jews, who came out of Egypt kicking and screaming every inch of the way to the Promised Land and who denied the deity of the Christ whom Pastor Christofaro professes to serve...

The only way his statement could possibly be read is, "Thank God that the Jews messed up with the Old Covenant of the Law...Because of that, a New Covenant (Christianity) was necessary." If that is what he is saying, he has developed a nice way to be an anti-Semite without paying the price."

Playing to theologically-challenged people like this is a piece of cake for Zionists who could care less about the Second Coming of a Christ in whom they do not believe: Playing the Billy-Bob churches like a violin!

My money is on the Jewish lobby that has, at long last, found a reliable cadre of support...Warning: Don't turn your back on Billy-Bob; he is emoting over the wonderful prospect of Armageddon, depicted as making the Holocaust look like a Sunday School picnic!

Stan Moody is the author of "Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship" and "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry

"If you had asked me 10 years ago what I would be doing with my life, I don't think I would have told you I'd be in church," she said.

Baras stumps for money from evangelical Christians to support Jewish settlements in the occupied territories -- land she calls biblical Israel.

A recent stop finds her in Melbourne, Florida, visiting Pastor Gary Christofaro at his First Assembly Church of God.

Christofaro and his flock take their Jewish roots so seriously that on Friday nights they observe the Jewish Sabbath with Hebrew prayers.

This is not just religious ritual. They support Israel -- which to them includes Jewish settlements on the occupied West Bank. Church members tour settlements with Baras and have donated more than a $100,000 to support them.

"If it wasn't for what the Jews brought to Christianity, there would be no Christianity," Christofaro said. "There is a promise to those who bless Israel to be blessed. Those who curse it will be cursed."

Christofaro and Baras are part of a growing alliance between evangelical Christians and Israelis. Watch the bond between observant Jews and evangelical Christians »

A recent poll found that 59 percent of American evangelicals believe Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimates 85 million evangelicals believe God tells them to support Israel -- more than six times the world's Jewish population.

One of the most successful Jewish fundraisers, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, raised $39 million last year from Christian Zionists to fund human services and humanitarian work in Israel and the settlements.

Christian Zionists often converge on Washington by the thousands to lobby members of Congress in support of Israel.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut, was among the speakers at last month's convention of Christians United for Israel.

"There are a lot more Christian Zionists in America than Jewish Zionists," the former Democratic vice presidential candidate told the group. "The support of Christian Zionists today is critical to Israel's security and strength and to America's security and strength." Watch behind-the-scenes with CNN's Christiane Amanpour for the making of the TV special "God's Warriors"

Back in church, Baras told the congregation: "We need to stand together so that our governments will believe that the land of Israel, the entire land of Israel, belongs to the Jewish people."

Baras said God called her to this work. She left her high-powered, high-paid job as a Wall Street lawyer and moved to Israel in 1984.

"I was never fully American," she explained. "I was Jewish." Judaism was not only her religion but also her nationality.

"We learned how to read Hebrew before we learned how to read English," she said.

Her parents, who narrowly escaped the Holocaust, sent her to Zionist summer camps that championed the Jewish homeland.

"My parents felt very safe in America ... but there was always a part of them that said there needs to be an Israel in the event that we have another Hitler. Put it all together and I couldn't help but be a Zionist."

Don't Miss

• In Depth: God's Warriors
• How strong is your faith?
• Albright: Ignore religion 'at our own peril'

Baras moved her family to Karnei Shomron, a settlement deep inside the West Bank.

"Just by building my house ... I was strengthening the Jewish presence here in Samaria," she said, referring to a biblical name for the northern part of the West Bank.

In 2002, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up inside a pizza parlor in her neighborhood, killing three children. She said she fought back by encouraging support from evangelical Christians in America.

"If we give any part of that land to the Arabs, we are looking at terrorism," she told a church audience.

Christofaro's Florida congregation responded with money -- all while singing a prayer for peace in perfect Hebrew.

Their money builds parks, child care centers and music therapy programs -- projects that make Jewish life in the settlements more comfortable. And more permanent.

"If you don't live somewhere, if you don't take possession of it, it is not yours," Baras said.

Some people say Jews and evangelical Christians make strange bedfellows, given historical anti-Semitism.

"Because of this doctrine of a Jew being a Christ-killer ... so much hatred and anti-Semitism has been propagated throughout the Earth," Christofaro said.

Now such historic anti-Semitism has given way to an urgent support of Israel among some evangelicals, many of whom believe that when Jews live in all of the Holy Land -- what they call Greater Israel -- only then will Christ return and true believers be raptured up to heaven.

"It is a controversial issue here in Israel as to whether we should be partnering with the Christians in any way," Baras said.

It's controversial in part because in the judgment day scenario embraced by some evangelicals, Jews who don't convert to Christianity burn in hell. But Baras said she isn't worried.

"I know that I'm not going to burn in hell because I didn't accept Jesus, because I don't believe Jesus is the Messiah," she said. "So how could I possibly be threatened?"

Baras concedes the alliance between God's Jewish and Christian warriors may seem odd to some people. But if Baras is anything, she's practical.

"Israel has many enemies," she said. "We have to take advantage of every single one of our friends." E-mail to a friend

CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour contributed to this report, along with CNN producers Andy Segal, Jen Christensen and Steve Goldberg.

Exercise in National Hypocrisy

Christians Laud Historic U.S. Bill Tackling India's Caste Problem

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a historic resolution that calls caste discrimination illegal and prohibited and that is likely to have an outcome on organizations in India that do business with or receive funding from the U.S. government.

Mon, Jul. 30, 2007 Posted: 19:46:18 PM EST

It is interesting how the Congress of the United States can pass these non-binding resolutions that either send messages to nations that have no political clout or reward those that do have political clout…

On June 23, 2004, the House of Representatives passed by a vote of 407 x 9, HCR 460, a ratification of the Israeli wall through the West Bank and East Jerusalem…Thus, the Congress of the United States put its imprimatur on apartheid in the Middle East…This is a caste system that has rendered the original inhabitants of the Holy Land virtually homeless…This was done with under pressure from the Jewish lobby (AIPAC) and the Christian Right (McChurch)…

It depends, I would guess, on whose camel is being gored!

Stan Moody is the author of "Crisis in Evangelical Scholarship" and "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry

---

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a historic resolution that calls caste discrimination illegal and prohibited and that is likely to have an outcome on organizations in India that do business with or receive funding from the U.S. government.

The House Concurrent Resolution 139 (HCR 139), which passed last week, highlights the fact that caste discrimination affects over 200 million people categorized as Dalits (untouchables) and Tribals (indigenous peoples) and that although Article 17 of the Indian Constitution outlaws untouchability, in reality the practice still exists and is widespread.

The resolution further states that organizations receiving U.S. funding through the Indian government must not engage in caste discrimination or discourage Dalits from working in their organizations.

“It is in the interests of the United States to address the problem of the treatment of the Dalits and Tribals in India in order to better meet mutual social development and human rights goals…,” stated the resolution.

Congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who introduced the bill, said that "untouchability is an unacceptable practice in America’s largest trading partner and close ally. This resolution will ensure that we as a government and as a people in no way encourage or enforce untouchability through our policies with India or through our foreign direct aid."

Franks declared that the adoption of the resolution "marks a victory for the cause of human freedom, and sheds a new light of hope on the 250 million souls who continue to suffer the abuses of caste discrimination in India."

Nanci Ricks, executive director of the Dalit Freedom Network, an evangelical Christian missionary organization, said, “We have seen history made in this resolution. This resolution should encourage all Dalits suffering under caste discrimination in India.”

“The United State Congress has heard of the atrocities of caste and has responded. We hope that the United States Government and U.S. businesses working in India will heed this statement by the House and will join with the Dalit Freedom Network in fighting the effects of caste across India.”

Dr. Joseph D’souza, president of the Dalit Freedom Network, praised the leadership of Congressman Franks and the many others whose active support of the Dalit cause made HCR 139 possible.

“[W]ithout the leadership of Members of Congress like Congressmen Franks, Wolf, Smith, Sali, Tancredo, Pitts, and Congresswoman Kilpatrick in sponsoring Dalit events, film screenings, and hearings and directing their staff to advocate on this issue with vigilance, this historic moment would have never happened,” D’souza stated. “They and the many others who have worked to make this resolution a reality have earned the gratitude of millions of Dalits across India.”

Christians in India too have welcomed the resolution. Fr. Cosmon Arokiaraj, executive secretary of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in India (CBCI) said "the Indian Church whole heartedly welcomes this resolution and the church is pleased that the resolution has been passed.”

The resolution now goes to the U.S. Senate for a concurring vote.

Bei Chatlai Beita
Christian Post Correspondent

---

Copyright 2006 Christianpost.com. All rights reserved.