I AM ISRAEL , TRUE VERSION

JERUSALEM – TOO HEAVY TO LIFT - The Jerusalem Connection Blog

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

Prager University: The Middle East Problem

AFI Responds to Archbishop’s Statements Regarding Gaza

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.”