Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Winning or Losing or just trying to Get Out in One Piece?


As Statistics begin to come in and the Focus of forces outside Afghanis control, the question is whether we have an exit strategy in place at all.

You can clone DNA but there are problems when you try to clone America around the World: some people groups don't want us and if anyone would read the lesson from History of Afghanistan over the centuries, it is obvious, we are in over our head.-MjS

Bowing out gracefully we aren't good at. We usually just walk away. Given the timetable, it will happen this year that our present Administration walks away from Afghanistan and they go back to opium trade....,

Michael James Stone




US looks for progress in Afghanistan

US Marines search a compound in the Garmsir district of Helmand Province, Afghanistan, 12 July 2009
By the end of this summer more than 90,000 US and Nato troops will be deployed in Afghanistan
By Adam Brookes
BBC News, Washington

The news from eastern Afghanistan is, on examination, mixed.

In Gardez and Jalalabad, at least six Afghan security personnel were killed in a series of coordinated attacks by suicide bombers and gunmen on Tuesday.

The bombers strapped explosives to their chests and then tried to run into government offices. One blew himself up, killing three members of the Afghan security forces. Two others were shot by police.

One tried to get into the office of the provincial governor, but was shot. Another attacked a police station. He was shot, too.

The attacks suggest a high degree of organisation and coordination, and a measure of fanatacism. But the police response suggests that the authorities are far from helpless when under attack.

Stripped mountains

News of these incidents in Gardez caught my eye.

I remember reporting on heavy fighting between Afghan and US forces near Gardez. I remember the US gunships swooping low over the plains and rocketing the mountainsides. American bombing stripped the trees in mountain villages of all their leaves.

I was reminded of those spectral images of denuded forests from World War I. The bodies of young Taleban fighters lay amid the rubble, stiffening in the dry, crisp air.

That was seven years ago.

Yet, here we are in 2009, and the same war is being fought in the same place by the same people.

We know what we need to do. I think we know how to do it. It's now a matter of resourcing it and executing it
Adm Mike Mullen
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

In the course of those seven years, nothing conclusive has happened in Afghanistan.

The Obama administration is now trying to act conclusively - or at least in a fashion which will tip this conflict towards a conclusion.

By the end of this summer more than 90,000 US and Nato troops will be deployed. That is not as many as are in Iraq, but it is starting to be a military effort of comparable dimensions.

The president's strategy review - which he announced in March - reworked some of the war's basic assumptions.

We are now in the middle of another review - this time conducted by the new commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.

Resigned

We expect that General McChrystal will find that without an even greater expansion in the number of Afghan security forces, the success of the overall military effort will remain in the balance.

The current plan is to expand the Afghan from 85,000 to 134,000 in the next two years or so. General McChrystal may well seek more than that - with the funding to match.

And that will prompt a further round of political soul-searching in Washington.

The increase in coalition and troop numbers have a clearly stated purpose: to provide security for the Afghan people, and to open up a space in which development and governance can start to take root.

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Afghanistan last week. He said his troops were "the finest counterinsurgency force in the world".

Graph showing all US casualties in Afghanistan for 2009 only

"We know what we need to do," he said. "I think we know how to do it. It's now a matter of resourcing it and executing it."

Some officials, though, remain concerned that Afghan capacity in development and governance will never rise to American expectations, even reduced expectations.

Even if US and Nato troops succeed in bringing a measure of security, "where is this Afghan official who will step in?", asked one.

American and British officials seem resigned to the idea that Hamid Karzai will retain the presidency in next month's elections, and they will have to put up with what they often describe as his corrupt and ineffectual administration.

One source close to Afghan policy-making says the hope is no longer for a "single writ of government country-wide". Rather, he says, "local arrangements are the key".

In practice, that may mean shoring up local power structures based on tribes or mayors or governors, rather than hoping for a central government whose power flows through the entire country; a patchwork of politics, rather than a pattern.

This intensification of the war by the Obama administration in part explains why the coalition casualties are rising.

July has seen more US, British and Nato troops die than any other month since the invasion; 56 fatalities. Two-thirds of them were from roadside bombs.

The number of attacks on coalition forces has risen precipitately. In the first five months of this year the number of attacks by "Improvised Explosive Devices" - mainly roadside bombs - were up 64% over the previous year.

Attacks using 'direct fire' - that means mainly automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades - were up 61%.

These are frightening numbers for a war-weary American public - though popular support for the Afghan war seems to remain relatively solid. In a recent Gallup poll, 54% of respondents said things were going well in Afghanistan.

So is the Obama plan for Afghanistan working? It is too early to say.

"Check back in a year. Or two," said one military officer.

Graph showing all US casualties in Afghanistan 2001-2009

Israel In Prophesy~Jennifer Sides


Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Israel In Prophesy

Israel in Prophecy
By: Jennifer Sides

Declaring their dependence on May 14, 1948; Israel is the world’s only Jewish state with Jerusalem being the capital and largest city. They are the 100th smallest country in the world. Speaking of Israel; Ezekiel 36:11 says, “I will multiply upon you man and beast, and they shall increase and bear young; I will make you inhabited as in former times, and do better for you than at your beginnings. Then you shall know that I am the Lord.” I believe many of the links my blog provides in the “Israel” section confirm the Lord is bestowing blessings upon His chosen people beyond measure. I will be using a few of those links as examples but I encourage you to be zealous and search out these truths in scripture first hand.

Proof that man would be multiplied upon the land just as Ezekiel 36:11 described began taking place soon after Israel declared their dependence in 1948 with the population increasing from 800,000 to 2,000,000 by 1958. Currently as of 2009 the population of Israel is 7,411,000. In 1952 an estimated 200,000 Jews who infiltrated back into Israel brought with them no possessions and lived in tents. Recently there has been even more confirmation the prophecy of Ezekiel 36:11 is being fulfilled with the “American Dream” slowly slipping away from the fingertips of North Americans as many of them have begun seeking refuge in Israel. For the first time in history the Israeli economy is doing better than the American economy with the Israeli economy growing an average of 5% a year for the past five years. Israel now has the second-largest number of startup companies in the world after the United States and the largest number of NASDAQ-listed companies outside North America. In 2007, Israel had the 44th-highest gross domestic product and the 22nd-highest gross domestic product per capita (at purchasing power parity) at US$232.7 billion and US$33, 299, respectively.

Among other list of impressive accomplishments Israel is considered one of the most advanced countries in Southwest Asia and the Middle East in economic and industrial development. Their chief exports are fruits, vegetables, pharmaceuticals, military technology, and diamonds. Israel is a world leader in water conservation, geothermal energy, cutting edge technology and much more! Israel ranks highest among Middle Eastern countries on the UN human development index and also freedom of the press. Tourism, especially religious tourism, plays another important part in Israel with 2008 being a record breaking year with over 3,000,000 tourists. That is a 30% increase from the year 2007.

Now we all know how bad the global economy is doing as a whole yet Israel seems to be picking up steam at a steady pace. They even have a company called “Agritech” which has taken on a major role to solve the global food crisis. I would say that is quite a huge feet for the 100th smallest state in the world! Israel is like David taking on Goliath in the midst of this global economic turmoil! The list of Israel’s accomplishments goes on and on. I encourage you to read the links provided about Israel and really try to understand what is taking place right before the world’s very eyes. I have no doubt you will see first hand the Lord at work during these very troublesome and uncertain times. If you think about it Israel has only been a state for 61 years yet they are doing exceedingly well for such a small country. “Why is that?” some might say. It is because the Lord promised He would do it! Remember that 200,000 Israelis started out with no earthly possessions and lived in tents?!?! That is simply a miracle! Amen!

Now I have heard it said and it makes sense to me that when Matthew 24:32 says, (“Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near”) that the fig tree represents Israel becoming a state. Chapter 24 as a whole refers to the tribulation, coming of the Son of man and no one knowing the day or the hour. In verse 34 it says that, “This generation will by no means pass away until all these things take place.” I personally believe this means the generation which saw Israel become a state will not pass away until the 7 years of Tribulation takes place that is mentioned in the book of Revelation.

There is more scriptural confirmation that Israel will be the productive country foretold about in Ezekiel 36:11. It can be found just two chapters over in Ezekiel 38:12, 13 with chapters 38 and 39 being the main focus as a whole. I encourage you to read those chapters since I am not going to cover it all…just the main points I am trying to make. There will be countries who will invade Israel in verses 12 and 13 of Chapter 38. There mission will be to attack the Israeli people and acquire their earthly goods. It says in verse 4 of Chapter 38 that those countries will have a hook in their mouths and be lead out with all their armies. I am not sure how those armies will be lead out but I do have three scenarios.

First of all, it may have to do with the global economy getting much worse for those countries and Israel being much more productive. Remember; Israel is already one of the most productive countries in the Middle East. This is no different than the Palestinians coveting and trying to take land from the Israelites that does not belong to them; which brings me to my second point. Many countries have taken it upon themselves to tell Israel how to run their country by giving them ultimatums on how they need to stop building settlements in their own God given territory. Even more disheartening is an article dated June 22, 2009 on the www.america.gov website proclaiming the results of a poll taken recently by Americans. It claims the percentage of Americans growing impatient with the Israeli people building settlements on their own territory is on the rise. This is just another example of how America has been shaken off the foundation of its’ Godly heritage. A world-wide percentage of people along with so many of the countries leaders who are already rallying against Israel to divide their land may spark a war far greater than one that may occur with Iran.

Third, there is no doubt tensions are flaring up in Israel like never before. Recent developments confirm Israel is working on offensive and defensive strategies to face whatever might happen in the not so distant future. On May 31, 2009 Israel held its biggest civil defense drill in their history. In recent weeks Benjamin Netanyahu has been asking world leaders for permission to fly over their countries to invade Iran over their nuclear facilities. Israel wants to take out those areas of Iran before Iran tries to take them out. God only knows; Israel could fly over air space that a country did or did not grant them permission to fly over and that country along with several others may use it as an excuse to attack Israel and attempt to take everything they own. A good example to illustrate this point would be how it was said recently that Saudi Arabia granted Israel permission to fly in their air space to attack Iran. On July 7, 2009 Saudi Arabia denied the claims. So what would’ve happened if Israel had flown over Saudi Arabia before the claims had been denied? Also, on July 18, 2009 Israeli warships rehearsed for Iran attacks in the Red Sea.

I have every reason to believe there is the grave possibility that Israel will follow through with their plans to disarm Iran. Those beliefs stem from previous attempts in Israel’s past to launch similar attempts. Here are a few examples. On June 7, 1981, Israel heavily bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in Operation Opera, disabling it. Israeli intelligence had suspected Iraq was intending to use it for weapons development. In 1982, Israel intervened in the Lebanese Civil War to destroy the bases from which the Palestine Liberation Organization launched attacks and missiles at northern Israel. On September 6, 2007, the Israeli Air Force launched Operation Orchard in Syria, bombing what it suspected to be a nuclear site.

There are many signs to focus on when it comes to end times events. Most importantly remember that the main focus will revolve around Jerusalem, Israel which is the center point of much of Bible prophecy. With those things said, I believe there will be at least two major wars between Israel and those countries mentioned in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 during our lifetime or generation. Yes, the Bible says, “There will be wars and rumors of war” in Mark 13:7 but there are specific wars to watch for. No doubt there will be the war of Daniel 9:25-27 which takes place in the middle of the 7 ½ years that will mark the beginning of the “Great Tribulation” spoken of in Matthew chapter 24. Reference is also made to it in Luke 21:20-24. It states, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know the desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which were written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”

As I mentioned in the previous paragraph; Luke 21:20 says that once Jerusalem is surrounded by armies the desolation will be near. The desolation it is referring to can be found in Daniel 9:27 (see also Matthew 24:15) after the middle of the 7 years of tribulation which will also be in the middle of the 7 year peace covenant Israel makes with many. After Jerusalem is made desolate the Antichrist will be revealed as stated in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3-4. He will do so by sitting as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2nd Thessalonians states in verse 2:2,3 that Christ will not come until the falling away comes first, and the son of man is revealed. “Falling away” in the Greek means military rebellion. Therefore, Christ will not return until the armies have surrounded and made Jerusalem desolate. Without knowing what “falling away” means I believe it is
still clear those events have to take place before Jesus returns. I believe Matthew, Mark and Luke all give the exact order of the events which will take place.

I promise I am not trying to be confusing on this next example. I just see a couple of different scenarios on the following two verses. The second or first war, it is really hard to say, is the one I referred to in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39 which may also be tied into the final war in Revelation 20:6-10 where God and Magog surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city Jerusalem. I have heard it said those two wars are one in the same. Whatever the case may be that war could happen after the 7 ½ years of tribulation. One thing is for sure – we need to be watching for the signs of Jesus coming. They were given to us when the disciples ask Jesus specifically in Matthew 24:3, “What will be the sign of Your coming and the end of the age?” Jesus answered them at that moment because He did not want them to be blind about what the future would hold. Now I know the things I have written about in this article did not take place during their lifetime but each of them did have to face great personal tribulations of their own as 11 out of 12 of them were martyred. We may not know the day or the hour in which Jesus will return just as He does not; but in Matthew chapter 24 we are cautioned to watch and be ready.

In closing, just remember Luke 21:35-36 says, “It will come as a snare on all those who dwell, on the face of the earth. Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.” Whatever you do don’t be like the scoffers who in 2nd Peter 3:3 walked according to their own lusts saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?” We are living in a day and age where we can’t afford to rule out what may be the very signs we were instructed to watch for! We are also instructed in Psalm 122:6 to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. The first 3 ½ years of the tribulation may seem like Jerusalem has peace once and for all but it will really be like a smokescreen. Satan is running out of time and is devising a plan in which he will use the antichrist along with many others to try and fulfill his evil schemes. You can’t be a Christian and not be for the Jews. We as Christians have been grafted into the vine as described in Romans Chapter 11 having become one in Christ ultimately known as the “Bride of Christ.” So I encourage you to pray for the peace of Jerusalem which will not be until all things are made new in Revelation Chapter 21 when the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven. He will then wipe away every tear, there will be no more death, no more pain, or sorrow, nor crying! Amen!

In the meantime -
Watch and pray,
Jennifer

Did God "Murder" His Son?~Ray Comfort


Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Did God "Murder" His Son?

"Sorry Ray, I do not take my morals from a God who drowns opposing armies in the ocean, killed every living thing on Earth in a global flood, punished humanity for all time for eating a piece of fruit, rained fire and brimstone on entire cities because he didn't like their behavior, killed the first born of an entire nation, and murdered his own son. Thank God he does not exist." askegg

It seems that you don’t know your Bible. God didn’t "kill every living thing on earth in a global flood." He allowed all the fish, and a family of eight people to be saved. He didn’t punish humanity "for all time for eating a piece of fruit." Adam was punished for his "disobedience" (see Romans 5:19). If you refuse God’s mercy, you too will be punished for your disobedience, not for Adam’s.

You are also wrong when you said that "God murdered His own Son." The Bible says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Jesus of Nazareth was the Creator in human form (see John 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:16). The reason God became a Man was to suffer for the sin of the world (taking the punishment that is due to us). We violated God’s Law (the Ten Commandments), and Jesus paid our fine. That means you can have your case dismissed. It means you can escape Hell, and receive everlasting life as a gift from God (see Romans 6:23).

God warned the Pharaoh ten times that He would judge Egypt, and you pin-pointed the reason for God drowning his army. It was because it was an "opposing" army. That's a good lesson for us: oppose and you lose. Like Pharaoh, you have been warned (through the Ten Commandments) that God will judge the world because it is at war with Him (see James 4:4). If you refuse to surrender and carry on with your rebellion, God will give you over to what the Bible calls a "reprobate mind." I would hate that to happen to you.

You are right though about the fire and brimstone. The same Justice of God that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah abides on you (see John 3:36), believe it or not. Please, think about your eternal salvation. There's nothing more important.

Health Care Bill Force Christians Participate in Sin ~ Bible Prophecy Today(Well No-Update Michael James Stone)


Health Care Bill Would Force Christians to Participate in Sin ~ Bible Prophecy Today

Health Care Bill Force Christians Participate in Sin ~ Bible Prophecy Today(Well No-Update Michael James Stone)

This is sensationlizing a post but bad theology.

If you sin, you are responsible.
If a Nation Sins, the Nation is responsible.

No one can "Force" you to sin, you participate in the sin out of Choice whether you admit it or not.

Or you abstain from it.

We who are Spiritual, bear the infirmities of others by indentfying with the Sin as a Nation, then like Daniel prayed, admitting it is our Sin and My sin then for myslef and for the nation we pray.

The poster got a little excited and forgot scripture presuming to create a environment that hinders the gospel and makes Christians look foolish.

We may be made fools for the gospel sake, but the post is foolish to think a political solution can solve a spiritual dilema.

Michael James Stone

We pray, because Jesus told us to.

Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?~MEQ

Middle East Quarterly

SUMMER 2009 • VOLUME XVI: NUMBER 3

Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

Print Send RSS

"There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam."[1] So announces former nun and self-professed "freelance monotheist," Karen Armstrong. This quote sums up the single most influential argument currently serving to deflect the accusation that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant: All monotheistic religions, proponents of such an argument say, and not just Islam, have their fair share of violent and intolerant scriptures, as well as bloody histories. Thus, whenever Islam's sacred scriptures—the Qur'an first, followed by the reports on the words and deeds of Muhammad (the Hadith)—are highlighted as demonstrative of the religion's innate bellicosity, the immediate rejoinder is that other scriptures, specifically those of Judeo-Christianity, are as riddled with violent passages.

Medieval times: The Crusades were violent and led to atrocities by the modern world's standards under the banner of the cross and in the name of Christianity. But the Crusades were a counterattack on Islam. Muslim invasions and atrocities against Christians were on the rise in the decades before the launch of the Crusades in 1096.

More often than not, this argument puts an end to any discussion regarding whether violence and intolerance are unique to Islam. Instead, the default answer becomes that it is not Islam per se but rather Muslim grievance and frustration—ever exacerbated by economic, political, and social factors—that lead to violence. That this view comports perfectly with the secular West's "materialistic" epistemology makes it all the more unquestioned.

Therefore, before condemning the Qur'an and the historical words and deeds of Islam's prophet Muhammad for inciting violence and intolerance, Jews are counseled to consider the historical atrocities committed by their Hebrew forefathers as recorded in their own scriptures; Christians are advised to consider the brutal cycle of violence their forbears have committed in the name of their faith against both non-Christians and fellow Christians. In other words, Jews and Christians are reminded that those who live in glass houses should not be hurling stones.

But is that really the case? Is the analogy with other scriptures legitimate? Does Hebrew violence in the ancient era, and Christian violence in the medieval era, compare to or explain away the tenacity of Muslim violence in the modern era?

Violence in Jewish and Christian History

Along with Armstrong, any number of prominent writers, historians, and theologians have championed this "relativist" view. For instance, John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, wonders,

How come we keep on asking the same question, [about violence in Islam,] and don't ask the same question about Christianity and Judaism? Jews and Christians have engaged in acts of violence. All of us have the transcendent and the dark side. … We have our own theology of hate. In mainstream Christianity and Judaism, we tend to be intolerant; we adhere to an exclusivist theology, of us versus them.[2]

An article by Pennsylvania State University humanities professor Philip Jenkins, "Dark Passages," delineates this position most fully. It aspires to show that the Bible is more violent than the Qur'an:

[I]n terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. … If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery.[3]

Several anecdotes from the Bible as well as from Judeo-Christian history illustrate Jenkins' point, but two in particular—one supposedly representative of Judaism, the other of Christianity—are regularly mentioned and therefore deserve closer examination.

The military conquest of the land of Canaan by the Hebrews in about 1200 B.C.E. is often characterized as "genocide" and has all but become emblematic of biblical violence and intolerance. God told Moses:

But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God.[4]

So Joshua [Moses' successor] conquered all the land: the mountain country and the South and the lowland and the wilderness slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord, God of Israel had commanded.[5]

As for Christianity, since it is impossible to find New Testament verses inciting violence, those who espouse the view that Christianity is as violent as Islam rely on historical events such as the Crusader wars waged by European Christians between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. The Crusades were in fact violent and led to atrocities by the modern world's standards under the banner of the cross and in the name of Christianity. After breaching the walls of Jerusalem in 1099, for example, the Crusaders reportedly slaughtered almost every inhabitant of the Holy City. According to the medieval chronicle, the Gesta Danorum, "the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles."[6]

In light of the above, as Armstrong, Esposito, Jenkins, and others argue, why should Jews and Christians point to the Qur'an as evidence of Islam's violence while ignoring their own scriptures and history?

Bible versus Qur'an

The answer lies in the fact that such observations confuse history and theology by conflating the temporal actions of men with what are understood to be the immutable words of God. The fundamental error is that Judeo-Christian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which commands violence. Of course, the three major monotheistic religions have all had their share of violence and intolerance towards the "other." Whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike men merely wished it thus is the key question.

Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. God clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God's will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In short, biblical accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence and intolerance have become standardized in Islamic law and apply at all times. Thus, while the violence found in the Qur'an has a historical context, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Qur'anic verses, better known as the "sword-verses":

Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way.[7]

Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day, and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.[8]

As with Old Testament verses where God commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, the sword-verses also have a historical context. God first issued these commandments after the Muslims under Muhammad's leadership had grown sufficiently strong to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors. But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Old Testament, the sword-verses became fundamental to Islam's subsequent relationship to both the "people of the book" (i.e., Jews and Christians) and the "idolaters" (i.e., Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc.) and, in fact, set off the Islamic conquests, which changed the face of the world forever. Based on Qur'an 9:5, for instance, Islamic law mandates that idolaters and polytheists must either convert to Islam or be killed; simultaneously, Qur'an 9:29 is the primary source of Islam's well-known discriminatory practices against conquered Christians and Jews living under Islamic suzerainty.

In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur'anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam's learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam's relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur'an's earlier and more tolerant verses, such as "no compulsion is there in religion."[9] Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his "progressive" insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force ... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense ... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[10]

Modern authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad" by Emile Tyan states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated." Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that "jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community."[11] And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.[12]

Qur'anic Language

When the Qur'an's violent verses are juxtaposed with their Old Testament counterparts, they are especially distinct for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay nonbelievers today no less than yesterday. God commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did God give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their Jewish descendants, to fight and kill gentiles. On the other hand, though Islam's original enemies were, like Judaism's, historical (e.g., Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians), the Qur'an rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—"until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled"[13] and to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them."[14]

The two Arabic conjunctions "until" (hata) and "wherever" (haythu) demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous nature of these commandments: There are still "people of the book" who have yet to be "utterly humbled" (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and "idolaters" to be slain "wherever" one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa). In fact, the salient feature of almost all of the violent commandments in Islamic scriptures is their open-ended and generic nature: "Fight them [non-Muslims] until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. [Emphasis added.]"[15] Also, in a well-attested tradition that appears in the hadith collections, Muhammad proclaims:

I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and that they establish prostration prayer, and pay the alms-tax [i.e., convert to Islam]. If they do so, their blood and property are protected. [Emphasis added.][16]

This linguistic aspect is crucial to understanding scriptural exegeses regarding violence. Again, it bears repeating that neither Jewish nor Christian scriptures—the Old and New Testaments, respectively—employ such perpetual, open-ended commandments. Despite all this, Jenkins laments that

Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions … all are in the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Qur'an. At every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, and certainly whether they should have any relevance for later ages. But the fact remains that the words are there, and their inclusion in the scripture means that they are, literally, canonized, no less than in the Muslim scripture.[17]

One wonders what Jenkins has in mind by the word "canonized." If by canonized he means that such verses are considered part of the canon of Judeo-Christian scripture, he is absolutely correct; conversely, if by canonized he means or is trying to connote that these verses have been implemented in the Judeo-Christian Weltanschauung, he is absolutely wrong.

Yet one need not rely on purely exegetical and philological arguments; both history and current events give the lie to Jenkins's relativism. Whereas first-century Christianity spread via the blood of martyrs, first-century Islam spread through violent conquest and bloodshed. Indeed, from day one to the present—whenever it could—Islam spread through conquest, as evinced by the fact that the majority of what is now known as the Islamic world, or dar al-Islam, was conquered by the sword of Islam. This is a historic fact, attested to by the most authoritative Islamic historians. Even the Arabian peninsula, the "home" of Islam, was subdued by great force and bloodshed, as evidenced by the Ridda wars following Muhammad's death when tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword by the first caliph Abu Bakr for abandoning Islam.

Muhammad's Role

Moreover, concerning the current default position which purports to explain away Islamic violence—that the latter is a product of Muslim frustration vis-à-vis political or economic oppression—one must ask: What about all the oppressed Christians and Jews, not to mention Hindus and Buddhists, of the world today? Where is their religiously-garbed violence? The fact remains: Even though the Islamic world has the lion's share of dramatic headlines—of violence, terrorism, suicide-attacks, decapitations—it is certainly not the only region in the world suffering under both internal and external pressures.

For instance, even though practically all of sub-Saharan Africa is currently riddled with political corruption, oppression and poverty, when it comes to violence, terrorism, and sheer chaos, Somalia—which also happens to be the only sub-Saharan country that is entirely Muslim—leads the pack. Moreover, those most responsible for Somali violence and the enforcement of intolerant, draconian, legal measures—the members of the jihadi group Al-Shabab (the youth)—articulate and justify all their actions through an Islamist paradigm.

In Sudan, too, a jihadi-genocide against the Christian and polytheistic peoples is currently being waged by Khartoum's Islamist government and has left nearly a million "infidels" and "apostates" dead. That the Organization of Islamic Conference has come to the defense of Sudanese president Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, is further telling of the Islamic body's approval of violence toward both non-Muslims and those deemed not Muslim enough.

Latin American and non-Muslim Asian countries also have their fair share of oppressive, authoritarian regimes, poverty, and all the rest that the Muslim world suffers. Yet, unlike the near daily headlines emanating from the Islamic world, there are no records of practicing Christians, Buddhists, or Hindus crashing explosives-laden vehicles into the buildings of oppressive (e.g., Cuban or Chinese communist) regimes, all the while waving their scriptures in hand and screaming, "Jesus [or Buddha or Vishnu] is great!" Why?

There is one final aspect that is often overlooked—either from ignorance or disingenuousness—by those who insist that violence and intolerance is equivalent across the board for all religions. Aside from the divine words of the Qur'an, Muhammad's pattern of behavior—his sunna or "example"—is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: "You have had a good example in God's Messenger."[18] And Muhammad's pattern of conduct toward non-Muslims is quite explicit.

Sarcastically arguing against the concept of moderate Islam, for example, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world's support per an Al-Jazeera poll,[19] portrays the Prophet's sunna thusly:

"Moderation" is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women.[20]

In fact, based on both the Qur'an and Muhammad's sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded.[21] And the concept of sunna—which is what 90 percent of the billion-plus Muslims, the Sunnis, are named after—essentially asserts that anything performed or approved by Muhammad, humanity's most perfect example, is applicable for Muslims today no less than yesterday. This, of course, does not mean that Muslims in mass live only to plunder and rape.

But it does mean that persons naturally inclined to such activities, and who also happen to be Muslim, can—and do—quite easily justify their actions by referring to the "Sunna of the Prophet"—the way Al-Qaeda, for example, justified its attacks on 9/11 where innocents including women and children were killed: Muhammad authorized his followers to use catapults during their siege of the town of Ta'if in 630 C.E.—townspeople had refused to submit—though he was aware that women and children were sheltered there. Also, when asked if it was permissible to launch night raids or set fire to the fortifications of the infidels if women and children were among them, the Prophet is said to have responded, "They [women and children] are from among them [infidels]."[22]

Jewish and Christian Ways

Though law-centric and possibly legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though described in the Old Testament, never went on to prescribe Jewish law. Neither Abraham's "white-lies," nor Jacob's perfidy, nor Moses' short-fuse, nor David's adultery, nor Solomon's philandering ever went on to instruct Jews or Christians. They were understood as historical acts perpetrated by fallible men who were more often than not punished by God for their less than ideal behavior.

As for Christianity, much of the Old Testament law was abrogated or fulfilled—depending on one's perspective—by Jesus. "Eye for an eye" gave way to "turn the other cheek." Totally loving God and one's neighbor became supreme law.[23] Furthermore, Jesus' sunna—as in "What would Jesus do?"—is characterized by passivity and altruism. The New Testament contains absolutely no exhortations to violence.

Still, there are those who attempt to portray Jesus as having a similarly militant ethos as Muhammad by quoting the verse where the former—who "spoke to the multitudes in parables and without a parable spoke not"[24]—said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword."[25] But based on the context of this statement, it is clear that Jesus was not commanding violence against non-Christians but rather predicting that strife will exist between Christians and their environment—a prediction that was only too true as early Christians, far from taking up the sword, passively perished by the sword in martyrdom as too often they still do in the Muslim world. [26]

Others point to the violence predicted in the Book of Revelation while, again, failing to discern that the entire account is descriptive—not to mention clearly symbolic—and thus hardly prescriptive for Christians. At any rate, how can one conscionably compare this handful of New Testament verses that metaphorically mention the word "sword" to the literally hundreds of Qur'anic injunctions and statements by Muhammad that clearly command Muslims to take up a very real sword against non-Muslims?

Undeterred, Jenkins bemoans the fact that, in the New Testament, Jews "plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the Devil."[27] It still remains to be seen if being called "children of the Devil" is more offensive than being referred to as the descendents of apes and pigs—the Qur'an's appellation for Jews.[28] Name calling aside, however, what matters here is that, whereas the New Testament does not command Christians to treat Jews as "children of the Devil," based on the Qur'an, primarily 9:29, Islamic law obligates Muslims to subjugate Jews, indeed, all non-Muslims.

Does this mean that no self-professed Christian can be anti-Semitic? Of course not. But it does mean that Christian anti-Semites are living oxymorons—for the simple reason that textually and theologically, Christianity, far from teaching hatred or animosity, unambiguously stresses love and forgiveness. Whether or not all Christians follow such mandates is hardly the point; just as whether or not all Muslims uphold the obligation of jihad is hardly the point. The only question is, what do the religions command?

John Esposito is therefore right to assert that "Jews and Christians have engaged in acts of violence." He is wrong, however, to add, "We [Christians] have our own theology of hate." Nothing in the New Testament teaches hate—certainly nothing to compare with Qur'anic injunctions such as: "We [Muslims] disbelieve in you [non-Muslims], and between us and you enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever until you believe in God alone."[29]

Reassessing the Crusades

And it is from here that one can best appreciate the historic Crusades—events that have been thoroughly distorted by Islam's many influential apologists. Karen Armstrong, for instance, has practically made a career for herself by misrepresenting the Crusades, writing, for example, that "the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam."[30] That a former nun rabidly condemns the Crusades vis-à-vis anything Islam has done makes her critique all the more marketable. Statements such as this ignore the fact that from the beginnings of Islam, more than 400 years before the Crusades, Christians have noted that Islam was spread by the sword.[31] Indeed, authoritative Muslim historians writing centuries before the Crusades, such as Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri (d. 892) and Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (838-923), make it clear that Islam was spread by the sword.

The fact remains: The Crusades were a counterattack on Islam—not an unprovoked assault as Armstrong and other revisionist historians portray. Eminent historian Bernard Lewis puts it well,

Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation. But unlike the jihad, it was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory. It was, with few exceptions, limited to the successful wars for the recovery of southwest Europe, and the unsuccessful wars to recover the Holy Land and to halt the Ottoman advance in the Balkans. The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule. … The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.[32]

Moreover, Muslim invasions and atrocities against Christians were on the rise in the decades before the launch of the Crusades in 1096. The Fatimid caliph Abu 'Ali Mansur Tariqu'l-Hakim (r. 996-1021) desecrated and destroyed a number of important churches—such as the Church of St. Mark in Egypt and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem—and decreed even more oppressive than usual decrees against Christians and Jews. Then, in 1071, the Seljuk Turks crushed the Byzantines in the pivotal battle of Manzikert and, in effect, conquered a major chunk of Byzantine Anatolia presaging the way for the eventual capture of Constantinople centuries later.

It was against this backdrop that Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099) called for the Crusades:

From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians [i.e., Muslim Turks] … has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion.[33]

Even though Urban II's description is historically accurate, the fact remains: However one interprets these wars—as offensive or defensive, just or unjust—it is evident that they were not based on the example of Jesus, who exhorted his followers to "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."[34] Indeed, it took centuries of theological debate, from Augustine to Aquinas, to rationalize defensive war—articulated as "just war." Thus, it would seem that if anyone, it is the Crusaders—not the jihadists—who have been less than faithful to their scriptures (from a literal standpoint); or put conversely, it is the jihadists—not the Crusaders—who have faithfully fulfilled their scriptures (also from a literal stand point). Moreover, like the violent accounts of the Old Testament, the Crusades are historic in nature and not manifestations of any deeper scriptural truths.

In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the Crusades ironically better help explain Islam. For what the Crusades demonstrated once and for all is that irrespective of religious teachings—indeed, in the case of these so-called Christian Crusades, despite them—man is often predisposed to violence. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved—who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute them—how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill, and plunder nonbelievers?

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum and author of The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007).

[1] Andrea Bistrich, "Discovering the common grounds of world religions," interview with Karen Armstrong, Share International, Sept. 2007, pp. 19-22.
[2] C-SPAN2, June 5, 2004.
[3] Philip Jenkins, "Dark Passages," The Boston Globe, Mar. 8, 2009.
[4] Deut. 20:16-18.
[5] Josh. 10:40.
[6] "The Fall of Jerusalem," Gesta Danorum, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[7] Qur. 9:5. All translations of Qur'anic verses are drawn from A.J. Arberry, ed. The Koran Interpreted: A Translation (New York: Touchstone, 1996).
[8] Qur. 9:29.
[9] Qur. 2:256.
[10] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958,) vol. 1, p. 473.
[11] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 60.
[12] See, for instance, Ahmed Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi'l-Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar University, 2003).
[13] Qur. 9:29.
[14] Qur. 9:5.
[15] Qur. 8:39.
[16] Ibn al-Hajjaj Muslim, Sahih Muslim, C9B1N31; Muhammad Ibn Isma'il al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Lahore: Kazi, 1979), B2N24.
[17] Jenkins, "Dark_Passages."
[18] Qur. 33:21.
[19] "Al-Jazeera-Poll: 49% of Muslims Support Osama bin Laden," Sept. 7-10, 2006, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[20] 'Abd al-Rahim 'Ali, Hilf al Irhab (Cairo: Markaz al-Mahrusa li 'n-Nashr wa 'l-Khidamat as-Sahafiya wa 'l-Ma'lumat, 2004).
[21] For example, Qur. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50.
[22] Sahih Muslim, B19N4321; for English translation, see Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), p. 140.
[23] Matt. 22:38-40.
[24] Matt. 13:34.
[25] Matt. 10:34.
[26] See, for instance, "Christian Persecution Info," Christian Persecution Magazine, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[27] Jenkins, "Dark_Passages."
[28] Qur. 2:62-65, 5:59-60, 7:166.
[29] Qur. 60:4.
[30] Bistrich, "Discovering the common grounds of world religions," pp. 19-22; For a critique of Karen Armstrong's work, see "Karen Armstrong," in Andrew Holt, ed. Crusades-Encyclopedia, Apr. 2005, accessed Apr. 6, 2009.
[31] See, for example, the writings of Sophrinius, Jerusalem's patriarch during the Muslim conquest of the Holy City, just years after the death of Muhammad, or the chronicles of Theophane the Confessor.
[32] Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years (New York: Scribner, 1995), p. 233-4.
[33] "Speech of Urban—Robert of Rheims," in Edward Peters, ed., The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), p. 27.
[34] Matt. 5:44.

Jerusalem Arab caught aiding city's takeover~Aaron Klein



WND Exclusive FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Jerusalem Arab caught aiding city's takeover
Palestinians working on 3 fronts to capture Israel's capital
Posted: July 20, 2009
10:51 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Jerusalem

JERUSALEM – A Jerusalem court yesterday sentenced an Arab resident of the city to 42 months in prison after he was convicted of working in Israel's capital as an agent of the Palestinian Authority's General Intelligence Service.

WND exclusively reported last year the PA had established an intelligence apparatus in Jerusalem in part to stop Israeli Arabs from selling their homes to Jews in strategic areas of the city, according to informed security sources.

The Jerusalem court sentenced Muhammad Jayusi, 21, who had been convicted of working for the PA's intelligence service since 2006. He was also convicted of illegally carrying arms.

According to a security source with knowledge of the case, Jayusi was involved with helping the PA discover which Jerusalem Arabs were vulnerable to possibly selling their homes to Jews.

In May, the PA sentenced three Arabs to death for selling their Jerusalem property to Jews. According to Palestinian sources, PA President Mahmoud Abbas personally had signed all death warrants.

Over the past few months, the PA increased its efforts to stop Jerusalem Arabs from selling property to Jews. A contingent of Jewish groups, including an organization called Ateret Kohanim, work to strengthen the Jewish presence in Jerusalem by purchasing properties from Arabs, primarily in eastern neighborhoods, including in Jerusalem's Old City. Some of the purchased properties were Jewish until Jews fled during Arab riots in the early 1900s.

Informed security sources in Jerusalem told WND the PA is acting on three fronts to increase its presence in Jerusalem and to thwart property sales to Jews. First, the PA is leading a campaign to terrorize Arabs thinking of selling land to Jews. Second, the PA is attempting politically to become a larger player in Jerusalem, competing with Jordan for influence over strategic Arab areas. The PA also is attempting to fund popular Israeli religious leaders associated with Jerusalem, such as Islamic Movement chief Raed Shallah. Third, the PA has increased its intelligence activities in Jerusalem to thwart property sales to Jews.

WND last year was first to report the PA's Preventative Security Services had re-established an intelligence arm in Jerusalem originally formed in the 1990s by the late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat to frustrate Jewish attempts at purchasing property from Arabs.

The intelligence arm consists of activists who work in Jerusalem to identify Israeli Arabs willing to sell land to Jews, security sources told WND last year. A potential Arab seller is warned against doing business with Jewish groups. The sources did not specify particular measures the PA might take against any Arabs working to sell property to Jews. But in the past, cases have been made public in which Arabs have been killed or tortured for such activity.

According to security sources, to ensure against land sales, the PA put together a list of wealthy Palestinian and Arab donors willing to purchase property from Jerusalem Arabs who must sell their land due to financial desperation.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount – Judaism's holiest site – during the 1967 Six Day War.

A number of Arab-majority eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods widely regarded as slated for a Palestinian state include large numbers of Arabs – over 100,000 – who live on Jewish-owned land illegally. The Jewish National Fund, a U.S.-based nonprofit, owns hundred of acres of eastern Jerusalem land in which tens of thousands of Arabs illegally constructed homes the past few decades. Arabs are now the majority on the Jewish-owned land.

Obama protests Jewish construction

The PA is not the only agency actively working to thwart Jewish residency in eastern sections of Jerusalem.

The State Department over the weekend summoned Israel's ambassador to Washington to demand a Jewish construction project in eastern Jerusalem be immediately halted, it has been confirmed.

The Obama administration has called for a halt to Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank in line with Palestinian claims on eastern Jerusalem as a future capital, even though the city was never a part of any Palestinian entity.

The construction project at the center of attention, financed by Miami Beach philanthropist Irving Moskowitz, is located just meters from Israel's national police headquarters and other government ministries. It is a few blocks from the country's prestigious Hebrew University, underscoring the centrality of the Jewish real estate being condemned by the U.S.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly rejected the State Department demand, telling a cabinet meeting Sunday that Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem was not a matter up for discussion.

"Imagine what would happen if someone were to suggest Jews could not live in or purchase [property] in certain neighborhoods in London, New York, Paris or Rome," he said.

"The international community would certainly raise protest. Likewise, we cannot accept such a ruling on East Jerusalem," Netanyahu told ministers.

Netanyahu explained an open city does not discriminate against Jewish housing and that Israel would not accept a stance that counters that civil right.

"Israeli Arabs are not forbidden from buying houses in west Jerusalem, and Jews must be granted the same right in the eastern part of the city," he added.

WND has confirmed that over the weekend the State Department summoned Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren to urge him to reject a permit granted to Moskowitz's housing project.

Moskowitz purchased an eastern Jerusalem hotel. He plans to tear it down and build housing units in its place. The Jerusalem municipality earlier this month granted approval to the project, allowing for the construction of 20 apartments plus a three-level underground parking lot.

Historically, there was never any separation between eastern and western Jerusalem. The terminology came after Jordan occupied the eastern section of the city, including the Temple Mount, from 1947 until it used the territory to attack the Jewish state in 1967. Israel reunited Jerusalem when it won the 1967 Six Day War.

While the U.S. strongly protests any Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem, it has been actively aiding Palestinians building illegally upon Jewish-owned land in eastern sections of the city, WND has exposed.

Obama and Israel, Into the Abyss~Daniel Pipes


Obama and Israel, Into the Abyss

by Daniel Pipes
Philadelphia Bulletin
July 21, 2009

http://www.danielpipes.org/7464/obama-israel-into-the-abyss

Send Comment RSS

What I dubbed the Obama administration's "rapid and harsh turn against Israel" has had three quick, predictable, and counter-productive results. These point to further difficulties ahead.

First result: Barack Obama's decision to get tough with Israel translates into escalating Palestinian demands on Israel. In early July, Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas and Saeb Erekat, his top negotiator, insisted on five unilateral concessions by Israel:

  • An independent Palestinian state;
  • Israel shrunk to its pre-June 1967 borders, minus a Palestinian land-bridge between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip;
  • A Palestinian "right of return" to Israel;
  • Resolution of all permanent status issues on the basis of the 2002 Abdullah plan; and
  • A complete stop to building by Jews in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Palestinians and Americans are the intended audience for this preemptory list; such exorbitant demands, the record shows, only reduces Israeli willingness to make concessions.

The former Shepherd Hotel in eastern Jerusalem.

Second result: The U.S. government takes marching orders from Abbas and passes them along to the Israelis. Abbas complained to the Americans that the construction of 20 apartments and an underground garage in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Shimon Hatzadik, 1.4 kilometers north of the Old City, would shift Jerusalem's demographic balance. The State Department promptly summoned Israel's ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren on July 17 and instructed him to halt the building project.

Some background: Zionists founded the Shimon Hatzadik neighborhood in 1891 by purchasing the land from Arabs, then, due to Arab riots and Jordanian conquest, abandoned the area. Amin al-Husseini, Jerusalem's pro-Nazi mufti, put up a building in the 1930s that later served as the Shepherd Hotel (not to be confused with the renowned Shepheard's Hotel in Cairo). After 1967, the Israelis designated the land "absentee property." Irving Moskowitz, an American businessman, bought the land in 1985 and rented the building to the border police until 2002. His company, C and M Properties, won final permission two weeks ago to renovate the hotel and build apartments on the land.

Third result: The U.S. demand has prompted an Israeli resolve not to bend but to reiterate its traditional positions. Oren rejected State's demand. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who confessed to being "surprised" by the U.S. demand, assured colleagues "I won't cave in on this matter."

Publicly, Netanyahu closed the door on concessions. Insisting that Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem "cannot be challenged," he noted that "residents of Jerusalem may purchase apartments in all parts of the city" and pointedly recalled that "in recent years hundreds of apartments in Jewish neighborhoods and in the western part of the city have been purchased by – or rented to – Arab residents and we did not interfere.

"This says that there is no ban on Arabs buying apartments in the western part of the city and there is no ban on Jews buying or building apartments in the eastern part of the city. This is the policy of an open city, an undivided city that has no separation according to religion or national affiliation."

Then, his blistering finale: "We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem. I can only describe to myself what would happen if someone would propose that Jews could not live in certain neighborhoods in New York, London, Paris or Rome. There would certainly be a major international outcry. Accordingly, we cannot agree to such a decree in Jerusalem."

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman asserted this same point while Yuli Edelstein, minister of Information and Diaspora, added that the U.S. demand "proves how dangerous it is to get dragged into talks of a settlement freeze. Such talks will lead to a demand to completely freeze our lives in the entire State of Israel."

From May 27, when the Obama administration began its attack on Israeli "settlements," it has displayed an unexpected naivet̩; did this administration really have to relearn for itself the well-known fact that Washington fails when bossing around its main Middle Eastern ally? It then displayed rank incompetence by picking a fight on an issue where an Israeli consensus exists Рnot over a remote "outpost" but a Jerusalem quarter boasting a Zionist pedigree back to 1891.

How long until Obama understands his error and retreats from it? How much damage will he do in the meantime?

DanielPipes.org