OBAMA: THERE WAS NO IRS SCANDAL – IT WAS JUST MADE UP BY THE MEDIA

From Gateway Pundit and iBloga:

The IRS Scandal involves:

• At least 292 conservative groups targeted
• At least 5 pro-Israel groups targeted
• Constitutional groups targeted
• Groups that criticized Obama administration were targeted
• At least two pro-life groups targeted
• A Texas voting-rights group was targeted
• Conservative activists and businesses were targeted.
• At least 88 IRS agents were involved in the targeting scandal
• At least one conservative Hispanic group was targeted
• IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed

Last night during his interview with Chris Matthews, Barack Obama denied there was a so-called IRS scandal and said it was just something sensationalized by the media.

“If on the other hand, you’ve got an office in Cincinnati, an IRS office, that I think for bureaucratic reasons, is trying to sreamline a difficult law to begin with, and interpret whether a non-profit is a political organization, deserves a tax exempt agenc, ant they’ve got a list. Suddenly, everyone’s outraged… And, I’ll point out that there are some so-called progressives and perceived to be liberal commentators during that week that were just outraged at the possibility that these folks had in some way been discriminated against. And, that is what gets news.”

When news of the scandal broke Obama promised to get to the bottom of it.
IRS investigators have still not interviewed one single Tea Party group. There is evidencethe White House and IRS exchanged confidential taxpayer information.

Will the IRS finally get its day in court?

Lori Lowenthal Marcus, the founder of Z Street who filed a lawsuit against the IRS, notes that “the very first hearing in Z STREET v IRS was recently scheduled for the afternoon of Tuesday, July 2, [2013] in the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia.” If Marcus were not a lawyer herself and very persistent, there would be no appeal for Z Street. And need I point out that justice delayed is justice denied?

I don’t know what official reasons were given by the IRS to Tea-Party related organizations — as well, ironically, as those with the word ‘patriot’ in their names — for holding up their applications, but Z Street’s lawsuit claims that

21.   [IRS] Agent [Diane] Gentry also informed Z STREET’s counsel that the IRS is carefully scrutinizing organizations that are in any way connected with Israel.
22.   Agent Gentry further stated to counsel for Z STREET: “these cases are being sent to a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.”

Could the violation of the First Amendment be more clear? An affadavit from the IRS official in charge of the “special unit” referred to was even more Orwellian:

a. The application indicated that Z Street could be providing resources to organizations within Israel or facilitating the provision of resources to organizations within the state of Israel;
b. Israel is one of many Middle Eastern countries that have a “higher risk of  terrorism.” (LR.M. 7.20.6.7.5.2(1). See also http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122433.htm); and
c. A referral to TAG is appropriate whenever an application mentions providing resources to organizations in a country with a higher risk of terrorism.

This is like saying that we shouldn’t support the Boston Marathon, because terrorism happens there! And it is reminiscent of the US refusal to give refuge to Jewish victims of the Nazis because, as Germans, they were enemy nationals.

Marcus notes that the Z Street charter specifically condemns terrorism, and that Z Street has never provided funds or ‘resources’ to anyone in Israel or anywhere else.  And she adds that Z Street is not the only Jewish organization to receive ‘special treatment’ from the IRS:

And at least one purely religious Jewish organization, one not focused on Israel, was the recipient of bizarre and highly inappropriate questions about Israel.  Those questions also came from the same non-profit division of the IRS at issue for inappropriately targeting politically conservative groups. The IRS required that Jewish organization to state “whether [it] supports the existence of the land of Israel,” and also demanded the organization “[d]escribe [its] religious belief system toward the land of Israel.”

Three years ago, long before this week's scandal broke, (Carl) reported that the IRS was holding up the registration of the pro-Israel group Z Street as a tax-exempt organization. Z Street sued the IRS, and in court it introduced a letter from the IRS asking whether it supported Israel. The next court date in that case is July 2, but in the meantime the IRS is facing a much larger scandal in which pro-Israel organizations may only be a small part (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). 

In a conference call with reporters last week, the IRS official responsible for granting tax-exempt status said that it was a mistake to subject Tea Party groups to additional scrutiny based solely on the organization's name. But she said ideology played no part in the process.
"The selection of these cases where they used the names was not a partisan selection," said Lois Lerner, director of exempt organizations. She said progressive groups were also selected for greater scrutiny based on their names, but did not provide details. "I don't have them off the top of my head," she said.

The IRS did not respond to follow-up questions Tuesday.

Congressional critics say the IRS's actions suggest a political motives: "This administration seems to have a culture of politics above all else," said Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas. "A lot of the actions they take have a political side first, and put government second."

Flores complained to the IRS last year after the Waco Tea Party's tax-exempt application was mired in red tape. The IRS asked the group for information that was "overreaching and impossible to comply with," Flores said: Transcripts of radio interviews, copies of social media posts and details on "close relationships" with political candidates.

When Flores complained last year -- asking pointed questions about the IRS treatment of Tea Party groups -- the IRS response didn't acknowledge that it had treated conservative groups differently. "They did more than sidestep the issue," he said. "They flipped me the finger."

Before the IRS started separating out Tea Party applications, getting tax-exempt status was routine -- even for conservative groups. The Champaign Tea Party's treasurer, Karen Olsen, said the process was smooth, with no follow-up questions from the IRS.

Politico suggests that pro-Israel groups were also targeted.  

The same Internal Revenue Service office that singled out Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny also challenged Israel-related organizations, at least one of which filed suit over the agency’s handling of its application for tax-exempt status.

The trouble for the Israel-focused groups seems to have had different origins than that experienced by conservative groups, but at times the effort seems to have been equally ham-handed.

...

Legal filings show that the problems for Z Street — and apparently for other Israel-related groups — stemmed from an obscure unit in the Cincinnati IRS office: the “Touch and Go Group.” One of the so-called TAG Group’s duties was to weed out applications that might be coming from organizations which might be used to fund terrorism.

In response to Z Street’s lawsuit, an IRS manager acknowledged that applications mentioning Israel were getting special attention.

“Israel is one of many Middle Eastern countries that have a ‘higher risk of terrorism,’” wrote Jon Waddell, manager of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Determinations Group. “A referral to TAG is appropriate whenever an application mentions providing resources to organizations in a country with a higher risk of terrorism.”

However, Z Street and other groups reported getting unusual inquiries from the IRS. A Z Street lawyer was contacted by a Jewish religious group, which detailed inquiries from the IRS that the group’s leaders thought had treaded too far.

“Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel? Describe your organization’s religious belief system towards the land of Israel,” the IRS asked in a letter sent to the religious group, which asked not to be named.

“If they’re asking that of that group, what else are they asking?” Lowenthal Marcus asked.
She said basing the review for terrorism on where an organization did business was strange and ineffective.

“If their policy was to look at any organization that had anything to do with a country where terrorism exists, I don’t see how that limits anything,” Lowenthal Marcus said. “There’s been terrorism in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in Canada, in Malaysia….and in Boston. Is that now going to be on the list?”

In court filings in the Z Street case, the Obama administration has denied that the IRS is discriminating against groups that disagree with Obama administration policies.

In court papers, the IRS denied that its personnel ever told Z Street that there was a special review for groups that might be at odds with Obama administration policy. The tax agency contended that the issue was whether the groups might violate “public policy” — a legal term of art for the notion that the government shouldn’t bestow a benefit on an individual or organization engaged in illegal activity like terrorism, or in an officially disfavored activity such as racial discrimination.

“The application was not transferred to TAG because of an ‘Israel special policy’ or because Z Street’s views on Israel contradict the Obama administration’s views on Israel,” the Justice Department wrote in a brief seeking dismissal of Z Street’s lawsuit.

TAG was originally set up by the Bush administration in 2005 to target terror funding. The Obama administration vowed to change TAG in 2009, but of course, Muslim groups are still claiming that it targets them as well.

Words of Zionist Visionary Ze’ev #Jabotinsky: Instead of Excessive #Apology

This article is one which anyone concerned about Israel should read.  Is a translation of an article written by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the Zionist prophet.

via rightwingnews.com

“We constantly and very loudly apologize… Instead of turning our backs to the accusers, as there is nothing to apologize for, and nobody to apologize to, we swear again and again that it is not our fault… Isn’t it long overdue to respond to all these and all future accusations, reproaches, suspicions, slanders and denunciations by simply folding our arms and loudly, clearly, coldly and calmly answer with the only argument that is understandable and accessible to this public: ‘Go to Hell!’?
Who are we, to make excuses to them; who are they to interrogate us? What is the purpose of this mock trial over the entire people where the sentence is known in advance? Our habit of constantly and zealously answering to any rabble has already done us a lot of harm and will do much more. … The situation that has been created as a result, tragically confirms a well known saying: “Qui s’excuse s’accuse.” We ourselves have acquainted our neighbors with the thought that for every embezzling Jew it is possible to drag the entire ancient people to answer, a people that was already legislating at the time when the neighbors had not even invented a bast shoe. Every accusation causes among us such a commotion that people unwittingly think, ‘why are they so afraid of everything?’ Apparently their conscience is not clear.’ Exactly because we are ready at every minute to stand at attention, there develops among the people an inescapable view about us, as of some specific thievish tribe. We think that our constant readiness to undergo a search without hesitation and to turn out our pockets, will eventually convince mankind of our nobility; look what gentlemen we are–we do not have anything to hide! This is a terrible mistake. The real gentlemen are the people that will not allow anyone for any reason to search their apartment, their pockets or their soul. Only a person under surveillance is ready for a search at every moment…. This is the only one inevitable conclusion from our maniac reaction to every reproach–to accept responsibility as a people for every action of a Jew, and to make excuses in front of everybody including hell knows who. I consider this system to be false to its very root. We are hated not because we are blamed for everything, but we are blamed for everything because we are not loved…
We may apologize only in rare, unique and extremely important moments when we are completely confident that the Areopagus in front of us really has just intentions and proper competence. We do not have to apologize for anything. We are a people as all other peoples; we do not have any intentions to be better than the rest. As one of the first conditions for equality we demand the right to have our own villains, exactly as other people have them. Yes, we do have provocateurs and draft dodgers, and it is even strange that we have so few of them under current conditions. Other people have also these kind of “good,” and, in addition, they have embezzlers, and pogrom-makers, and torturers–so what– the neighbors live and are not ashamed…. Do our neighbors blush for the Christians in Kishinyov who hammered nails into Jewish babies’ eyes?” Not in the least,– they walk with head raised high and look everybody in the face; they are absolutely right, and this is how it must be, as the persona of a people is royal, and not responsible and is not obliged to apologize…
We do not have to account to anybody, we are not to sit for anybody’s examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change and we do not want to.”
These are the words of Ze’ev Jabotinsky.

If Iran kills two million Jews in an afternoon they will find a way to blame George W. Bush

On orders from Moscow, American Jewish Communists suspended criticism of Hitler during the August 1939-June 1941 period of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. Violation of that edict was called “premature antifascism” and men died for it. The left-wing group-think party line far outranks Zionism for many, many Jews. You are going to see this in the immediate future, as Mr. Obama lines up his many Jewish friends and supporters to back Mr. Hagel.

Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai, Zionism's Sephardic Father

(EOZ) This is extraordinarily cool. From Michael Freund in JPost:

This month’s anniversary of the passing in October 1878 (4 Tishrei on the Hebrew calendar) of Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai, a Sephardi Jew from Serbia, presents an opportunity to correct the record and restore the Sephardi impact on Zionist renewal to its rightful place.
While his name may not be overly familiar to most Israelis, his intellectual legacy laid the groundwork for the modern rebirth of Israel.
Though he was born in Sarajevo in 1798, Alkalai’s formative years were spent in Jerusalem, where he delved into ancient Jewish texts and became steeped in Jewish mysticism.
At the young age of 27, he was offered the post of rabbi in the town of Zemun, which is today part of the Serbian capital of Belgrade. At the time, however, it fell within the boundaries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and straddled the border of Turkish-occupied Serbia.
[...]
Within a decade, in 1834, he produced a booklet called Shema Yisrael (Hear, O Israel) proposing something which at the time was considered radical: to create Jewish colonies in the land of Israel as a prelude to redemption.
In other words, Rabbi Alkalai advocated that man take action to bring about Jewish national emancipation.
This notion ran counter to conventional wisdom, which primarily believed that Jews should wait passively for Messianic deliverance.
Nonetheless, he developed the concept further, writing additional books and pamphlets and traveling throughout Europe to spread his message.
IN HIS 1845 work Minhat Yehudah, Rabbi Alkalai wrote, “In the first conquest, under Joshua, the Almighty brought the children of Israel into a land that was prepared: its houses were then full of useful things, its wells were giving water, and its vineyards and olive groves were laden with fruit. This new Redemption will – alas, because of our sins – be different: our land is waste and desolate, and we shall have to build houses, dig wells, and plant vines and olive trees.”
“Redemption,” he wrote, “must come slowly. The land must, by degrees, be built up and prepared.”
To accomplish this, Rabbi Alkalai offered novel, and highly prescient, suggestions, which included the launch of a national fund to purchase land in Israel, the convening of a “Great Assembly” to oversee Jewish national affairs, and a redoubling of efforts to revive Hebrew as a spoken language.
At a time when many Jews were beginning to despair after centuries of persecution, Rabbi Alkalai offered concrete hope.
More importantly, by highlighting practical measures that Jews could take, he empowered people throughout the Jewish world to become involved in a national act of self-redemption which would engender Divine mercy. In 1874, at the age of 76, Rabbi Alkalai and his wife made aliya, settling in Jerusalem to fulfill his life-long dream. He passed away four years later.
[...]
In one of those curious twists of fate that even the most inventive novelist could not contrive, one of Rabbi Alkalai’s faithful congregants and most ardent disciples was a man named Simon Loeb Herzl, whose grandson Theodor would later alter the course of Zionist and Jewish history.
Is it possible that Simon Loeb came home from synagogue on the Sabbath, fired up by the rabbi’s sermon about the need for Jews to head to Zion, and shared this passion with his offspring?...
“We, as a people, are properly called Israel,” he once wrote, “only in the land of Israel... Though this venture will begin modestly, its future will be very great.”

Here is a passage from one of Rabbi Alkalai's works:

Now we pray every day: Let our eyes behold Thy return to Zion in mercy, and if we believe our own words, then upon whom will the Divine Presence become manifest? Upon the trees and the rocks?
Therefore, as the first step to the beginning of redemption of our souls we must return to the Land twenty-two thousand (Jews), the Holy One Blessed Be He to cause the Divine Presence to descend upon them. This most certainly will be followed by His showing us and all of Israel beneficial signs.
Such an idea is hinted at in the Torah: And Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem... and he bought the parcel of ground where he spread his tent. Why did Jacob buy the land if his only intention was to rest there for a time and then continue on to see his father, Isaac? It is apparent that this act was realized to teach his descendants that the redemption would come about by purchasing the land from its inhabitants. Because he bought the parcel of land it was as if he lived (permanently) on it.
More so, the redemption from Egypt brought the people of Israel to a good and spacious land, one whose wells were already dug, and whose vineyards and olive groves were already planted. Yet, because of our sins, the Land is now empty and desolate and we must, for this redemption, build the houses and dig the wells and plant the vineyards and the olive groves.

According to this article at The Jewish Agency, the town of Ohr Yehuda near Tel Aviv is named after Alkalai.

The Last Jews of Cairo

(Guernica) Comfort in the Past

In a part of the world where religion had become a defining element of ongoing conflict, there may be even greater reason to cling — consciously or subconsciously — to a distant past.

It’s clear that to these last members of the Egyptian Jewish community that Jewish heritage is immensely important. But amid shrinking numbers and increasing assimilation, their ability to evoke this heritage has withered to a few tangible remnants: the people, the Torah, the food. Ultimately, it isn’t religion at all to which this small remaining cluster of Jews is clinging; it’s to each other.
In a part of the world where religion had become a defining element of ongoing conflict, there may be even greater reason to cling—consciously or subconsciously—to a distant past, to the common identity found in traditions and in ceremony. Yet here, the substance of the religions themselves buried any political identities they bequeath. We had come to the synagogue expecting to find a religious fervor hidden amid a thriving and often hostile Muslim environment. Instead we found little more than a cluster of the elderly, the last of a dying breed—too old and too tired to make any real attempt at a Jewish revival.

...God bless Mubarak; God bless Israel; God bless the Palestinians. Insha’allah, there will be peace.

Sounds like a lot of Jews outside of Egypt. Is it because the rest of the world is getting like Egypt? How many of us still think we can bless the Palestinians for Peace? How many of us are still clinging to Mubarak and the past? These Egyptian Jews sound a lot like the Jews who voted for Obama.

There is no Zionism without Zion (Jerusalem)

Here's a video I know you're going to like.
It's a video by Im Tirtzu about the centrality of Jerusalem to the Zionist cause. Subtitles by Elder of Ziyon, translated by Nevet Basker of BroaderView,org .
Let's go to the videotape.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

If Only the Left Would Abandon Israel

(Ted Belman) Shaul Magid, professor of Jewish Studies at Indiana U, asks, "What if the Left Abandonned Israel?" and suggests that Israel would go to hell in a handbasket.  "Be careful what you wish for," he warns.

For him, the left are "basically liberal-minded and believers in civil rights and the rights of the oppressed -- at least in the abstract."  He suggests that the "messianics and revisionists" of the right, on the other hand, aren't.  Everyone believes in civil rights in the abstract.  It's when you deal with reality other considerations and values come into place.

I also believe in the "rights of the oppressed," but I differ with the left in that I see the Jews in Israel as the oppressed ones, not the Palestinians (at least, the Palestinians are not oppressed by the Jews).
We Israelis are oppressed by everyone, including the U.N., the State Department, the EU, and the Muslims, including the Palestinians.  We are oppressed by 60,000-plus rockets aimed at us by our immediate neighbors and by threats of annihilation.  And for what?  It's either because we exist, which the left and the Arabs think is a crime, or because we are "occupiers," which much of the world finds unconscionable.  They forget that UNSC Res. 242 authorized Israel to remain in occupation until she had recognized and secure borders.  They argue that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies, even though Israel is not occupying the land of another signatory to the treaty as provided therein.
But even if the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply, Israel's primarily obligation is to treat the people occupied humanely.  In this regard, 95% of the Palestinians are totally governed by the Palestinian Authority.  Nowhere in the treaty does it say that the occupier must end the occupation.  In any event, the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is fully set out in the Oslo Accords or 1995.  There is no suggestion in it that Israel must end the occupation without a negotiated agreement.  So spare me the crocodile tears about the "occupation."
The condemnation of Israel is based on the belief that the disputed territories are Palestinian.  How so?  They have never exercised sovereignty over said lands. 
The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan in 1948 that would have led to their sovereignty and invaded Israel instead.  For the next nineteen years the West Bank was under Jordanian control, and no one ever called for a Palestinian state.  In 1967, the Arabs were utterly defeated in a war they began.  As a result, the UNSC passed Res. 242, which does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories. At the Khartoum Conference, the Arabs rejected Res. 242 and agreed on the three nos: no recognition, no negotiations, and no peace.  Arafat accepted Res. 242 because such acceptance was a precondition to entering the Oslo Accords, but he never agreed to its terms.  And now they reject negotiations.
Israel, on the other hand, can claim sovereignty over these lands, pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 1919 and the Palestine Mandate of 1922 which granted the Jews  the right to reconstitute their homeland in Palestine and the right to close settlement of the land.  She can also claim sovereignty over these lands by virtue of a continuous presence in the land for 3,000 years, by virtue of 1,000 years of sovereignty, by virtue of acquiring the land in a defensive war, or by insisting that only the Jordan River would constitute secure borders.
Magid quotes Zachary Braiterman with approval:

I used to think that American Jews had the right and obligation to stake ideological claims in Israeli politics. I was wrong. I don't have anything to say. Legalize outposts? Go ahead. Beat the hell out of Hamas or Hezbullah? I won't object. Hit the Iranians? I hope you all know what you're doing, because the mess is yours if you make it, and there is not a lot that the American Jewish community will be (able) to do if things go south. Desecrate mosques, uproot olive trees, beat up a Danish demonstrator, pass racist legislation, muzzle criticism, harass people at the airport?

Each one of these complaints shows a profound ignorance of the law or the context. Each one can be rebutted to the satisfaction of a fair minded person.

Historically, the Zionism of Braiterman was the norm. Even given the less-than-charitable things Ben-Gurion had to say about the Arabs and the ways in which Israel treated its Arab population during times of conflict, the Zionist mainstream was committed to a humanistic and liberal ethos, even as it failed in significant ways.

This is true, but why did it fail?  Because the Arabs would have none of it.  And that's the point: why it is no longer the norm.  The Jewish left prefer to ignore the reality.  The Arabs are dedicated to destroying the Jewish state, in phases if necessary.  The charters of both Hamas and Fatah say so.  Sharia says so.  The incessant preaching of hatred says so.  The support for terrorism says so.  The unwillingness to compromise their maximalist demands says so.  Yet the left blame Israel for the lack of peace.

Megid complains:

The unspoken merger of the messianic and neo-revisionist right, coupled with the politicization of the haredi has given rise to an increasingly uncompromising ethnocentrism and, arguably, a redefined Zionism.

True enough.  But by characterizing the new Zionism as "ethnocentric," Megid is opening up a can of worms.  He is embracing the canard that Zionism is racism.  He is arguing against the Jewish particular in favor of universalism or multiculturalism.  Those values might be appropriate for America, though I prefer the melting pot to multiculturalism.  In fact, so do most Americans and Europeans.  Multiculturalism has proven a failure, and its bitter fruits have yet to be realized in full.
Megid regrets that Israel was not able to "attain a balance necessary for its rightful place as a society among the nations of the free world."  But why must Israel be like everyone else?  Why can't it remain a pumpernickel in a store of white bread?  Besides, Israel is in the Middle East, which is not part of the free world.  The Arabs are barring Jews and Christians from Arab countries.  In Egypt and Nigeria and elsewhere, they are killing Christians and burning churches.  No multiculturalism for them.  No universalism for them, except when Islam dominates the world.
While the Jewish left embraces the Muslim Brotherhood at home and abroad -- and, I believe to America's detriment -- Israel prefers to keep her distance from the forces which are bent on destroying her.  In order to defend herself, she must embrace her ethnicity, not eschew it.
I accept that many Jews who embraced the Zionism of their youth "understand quite well and are deeply informed -- not only about the political realities but about the underlying history of the conflict."  But so are the Jews who embrace the new Zionism.  The difference being that the former want Israel to be a state of all its citizens rather than a Jewish state.
The latter apparently is too Jewish for them.
In the end, it's not about old and new Zionism, but rather about survival.  The left wants Israel to give in to the demands of the Arabs and the international community in order to survive, though history does not support this belief.  The right believes that doing so would lead to Israel's destruction.  The right prefers peace through strength.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/if_only_the_left_would_abandon_israel.html#ixzz1w519464x

via docstalk.blogspot.com

Anyone left in the left who isn't dealing with these issues is in denial.

Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.

When Kermit Jr. was 27, his father, a man who tended to drink heavily, committed suicide in Alaska where he had been stationed as an intelligence officer with the U.S. Army. In the late 1940s he was on the board of directors of an organization called the Institute of Arab American Affairs. This organization republished an article by him in Foreign Affairs in pamphlet form that made the argument that "US support of Zionism will be detrimental to long term US interests in the Middle East."

The irony is that this Kermit was who botched Iran up when the country tried to nationalize their resources to protect itself from abuse. The end result of Roosevelt's actions ironically brought in the Ayatolahs... Israel's greatest nemesis.

Amideast, formerly American Friends of the Middle East, originally the Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land, an organization created to oppose the creation of Israel. Its co-founder Kermit Roosevelt Jr had come out of the board of the Institute of Arab-American Affairs, which was headed by the same man who headed the Arab League's office in the United States

Christian Biblical ethicists claim God didn't promise Israel to Jews

(EOZ) In September, David P. Gushee and Glen H. Stassen, two Christian ethicists, wrote "An Open Letter to America's Christian Zionists." The main point of this letter was to dispute the biblical idea that God gave Israel to Jews alone:

Not to put too fine a point on it, we wish to claim here that the prevailing version of American Christian Zionism—that is, your belief system—underwrites theft of Palestinian land and oppression of Palestinian people, helps create the conditions for an explosion of violence, and pushes US policy in a destructive direction that violates our nation’s commitment to universal human rights. In all of these, American Christian Zionism as it currently stands is sinful and produces sin. We write as evangelical Christians committed lifelong to Israel's security, and we are seriously worried about your support for policies that violate biblical warnings about injustice and may lead to the outcome you most fear—serious harm to or even destruction of Israel.
We write as evangelicals to you, our fellow evangelicals. On the shared basis of biblical authority, we ask you to reconsider your interpretation of Scripture, for the sake of God, humanity, the United States, and, yes, Israel itself, the Land and People we both love.
We acknowledge that your evangelical-fundamentalist American Christian Zionism (henceforth simply “Christian Zionism”) is a product of a Christian community that loves and reads the Bible. This is on its face a good thing--for there appear to be fewer and fewer American Christians whose love of the Bible and whose devotion to reading it can be taken for granted. We commend your love for the scriptures.
Both now and in the past, whenever Christian Zionism emerges its essential origin is simply Christian reading of the Hebrew Bible, or what Christians call the Old Testament. Our love of the Bible takes Christians into the pages of the Old Testament; there we cannot help but discover the centrality of a Promised Land for the Jewish people. The trajectory of the canonical Old Testament moves inexorably toward and away from the Promised Land—the patriarchal narratives in which a people and land are promised despite humble origins; enslavement in Egypt; the miraculous Exodus and grim wilderness wanderings under Moses; the conquest of the Promised Land; the establishment, split, and eventual conquest of Israel as a political entity; the Babylonian exile and dispersion of the Jewish people; and a partial return to the land, at which point the OT historical narrative ends.
...
We suggest to you that contemporary Christian Zionism is well-intentioned but needs correction at some very important points. This requires some careful biblical and theological work—from within the basic framework of evangelical Christianity. This means that the relevant scriptural texts need to be studied in detail, and that Christian theology needs to do its proper work with those texts.
For example, we suggest that Christian Zionists who move from a generalized love of Israel to a specific claim that the contemporary state of Israel has divine title to the entire Holy Land, need to take more seriously the complexity of what the Bible actually says about God’s promises to Abraham.
Genesis 15:18 reads: “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates.” The next verse goes on to name the various peoples to whom the land belonged at the time.
The territory denoted by the space between these two rivers includes modern-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, half of Iraq, half of Egypt, parts of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the modern state of Israel, as well as the occupied Palestinian territories.
A literal reading of the text that assumes that the descendants of Abram are only the Jewish people faces a problem here. Either God is not very good at keeping his promises, or God’s plan is for contemporary Israel ultimately to conquer all of these other countries and occupy their land. That would result in an Israel ruled by its 90% majority Arabs, or an Israel attempting to subjugate that 90% by force.
But the promise looks very different if we take seriously all of the offspring of Abraham. Genesis 15:4-5 has God taking Abram outside and telling him that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars of the heavens. Genesis 17:4, probably the pivotal text, has God saying to Abraham: “This is my covenant with you: You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations.” Many nations, a multitude of nations; many offspring, many kings—read Genesis 17 again and see the plural nouns here.
Close readers of Scripture will know that in fact Abraham did become the father of many nations. With Sarah he became the father of Isaac and the ancestor of all in his line, via Jacob and Esau. With Hagar he became the father of Ishmael and all in his line. And with the long-forgotten Keturah (Gen. 25:1) he became the father of Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. The Old Testament clearly positions Abraham as the father/ancestor of not only the Jewish people but of a vast number of other peoples, all scattered through the territories promised in Genesis 15. Abraham becomes the father of dozens of peoples, exactly as the Bible says! It is certainly true that the Old Testament primarily tells the story of the line of Isaac and therefore of what became the Jewish people, but that cannot cancel the significance of the promises to Abraham and the many peoples credited to him in Genesis.
...Perhaps you will respond by saying that God promises the land of Canaan specifically to the Jewish people. You might cite here Genesis 17:8: “I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding.” This interpretation would require restricting the “offspring” in question to Abraham’s offspring through Sarah via Isaac and then on to Jacob and excluding Esau. But the promise to possess the land includes the offspring of Isaac, and the offspring of Isaac includes Esau, with his five Edomite sons and their offspring, as Genesis 36 states, and that includes multitudes of Canaanites, not only Jews. It would also require the assumption that we know what Gen. 17 means territorially with the term “Canaan” and that it corresponds with the Zionist’s version of the proper boundaries of the modern state of Israel.

In a later letter, published November 12, the same two wrote:

The responses that disagreed did not discuss the biblical passages, but shifted the topic to the politics of the present government of Israel and the West Bank, and Hamas, and whether Israel forced Palestinians out of their homes or not.
These are important topics, but we are hoping for biblical discussion.
What we are asking is whether our readers see Genesis 15 and 17 saying that Abraham is the father of many nations, with descendants as many as the stars of the universe. And whether the territory includes all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates, which of course includes many nations, most all Arab. We believe ours is the plain, literal reading. No one has explained a different reading in response.

I have no idea why no Christian Zionist took it upon themselves to answer this letter within the worldview of Christian theology. Honestly, if it is true, it is a bit disappointing.
So, even though I am not a Christian nor a Jewish Biblical scholar by any means, I would like to make a point.
It seems strange that the authors' arguments that God's promises apply to all of Abraham's descendants do not take into account later declarations by God.
For example, God explicitly told Jacob in Genesis 28:13 that "I am the LORD, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac. The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed."
This happened at Bet El (Bethel). One can argue about the size of the land promised by God at that point, but one cannot argue that the promise was made to anyone but the Jewish people. And Bet El is on the "wrong" side of the Green Line. Would the authors admit that, Biblically, this must remain a part of Israel?
More explicitly, in Exodus 23, God tells the Israelites:

But if thou shalt indeed hearken unto his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. For Mine angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Canaanite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; and I will cut them off. ...And I will set thy border from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness unto the River; for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.

And in Deuteronomy chapter 1:

The LORD our God spoke unto us in Horeb, saying: 'Ye have dwelt long enough in this mountain; turn you, and take your journey, and go to the hill-country of the Amorites and unto all the places nigh thereunto, in the Arabah, in the hill-country, and in the Lowland, and in the South, and by the sea-shore; the land of the Canaanites, and Lebanon, as far as the great river, the river Euphrates. Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD swore unto your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.'

The straight translations of these passages are somewhat contradictory and without further study I imagine it is difficult for Christians to know how to reconcile them. But it is extraordinarily dishonest to interpret only one of God's promises to Abraham and his children in a vacuum without even considering the more explicit promises He made later to Jacob, Moses and the children of Israel. Is it not the same God who made all of these promises? Are not all of them of equal weight? If so, then the issue is not interpreting one of them, but reconciling and interpreting all of them together.
Beyond that, it seems to me that the entire Biblical narrative would be problematic if most of the peoples who were God's covenental partners simply disappeared from the story or played only bit parts. If the children of Israel were not the main intended recipients of God's promises, then why would the Bible spend so much time only dealing with them and all but ignoring the Ishmaelites and the Edomites?
The writers make other arguments about whether today's Jews should still be considered to be within the same covenant, but that is a much bigger topic. And before I spend time on that, I would love to know how they interpret and reconcile the many other Biblical verses tying the Land of Israel with, specifically, the Jews.

---

(Parenthetically, I think it is not clear at all that you can consider Esau's progeny to be "Canaanites." While Gen. 38 says they lived in Canaan, the Canaanites were presumably the descendants of Canaan, Noah's grandson through Ham. Which means, ironically, that Canaanites are not Semites, but rather "Hamites." So don't accuse me of anti-Semitism :) )

---

I am afraid that this might turn into a very big theological thread, and I am not really comfortable with that here; Christian theology is not a topic that belongs on this blog. Hopefully  it will spark discussion among Christians that will take place elsewhere.

Worldwide 'Caravan' Set to 'Liberate Jerusalem' for Assholes

March on Majdal Shams, May 15 (israel National News h/t Sarah Leah Lawent) Israeli security officials are keeping a wary eye out on several groups that are planning mass marches on Jerusalem. One march is scheduled for November 25, and is being organized by the group that tried to conduct a mass march to Jerusalem last September.
This time, however, organizers – and Israeli security officials – believe that the group may attract larger numbers. The group is set out from three locations – Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon – on November 25, with the objective of reaching Jerusalem on November 29, the anniversary of the adoption of the UN partition plan for Mandatory Palestine. Officials said that the group was encouraged by the recent attempt – and temporary success – of Syrian Druze who “invaded” the Golan Heights for several hours, tearing down a border fence to enter the country. Several sources claimed that some of the Syrian Druze were able to enter the interior of Israel, with several claiming to have reached Tel Aviv.
But even more worrisome is another march is scheduled for March 2012, Israeli officials said. That march is being organized by Indian activist Feroze Mithiborwala, who said in a recent press conference in Pakistan that the march will unite people from all over the world, and of all faiths - including Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Jews - "to participate in the march towards the Jerusalem and liberate it from the Zionists.” The march would be in the form of a “caravan” which would start from three directions – Asia, Europe, and Africa, originating in India, Turkey and Morocco respectively. The caravans would stop in all the countries on the way and pick up more participants. The objective is to gather hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people at the borders of Israel who would simply push their way through, reaching Jerusalem and “liberating” it.
A group helping to organize the March event, the International Committee of the Global March towards Al-Quds, said in a statement this week that “since the Zionist occupation of 78% of Palestine in 1948, and the subsequent occupation of Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine in 1967, we have witnessed growing efforts to Judaize Jerusalem and colonize Palestine. These crimes against humanity are done under the political protection and full support of successive American administrations and enforced by its veto at the United Nations.
“Jerusalem and all of Palestine need to be liberated, redeemed and restored as a land of freedom and coexistence by people of the world from all religious and cultural backgrounds. As part of this movement and at the invitation of Palestinians, we decided to organize a Global March to Jerusalem (GMJ) aimed at raising awareness of the mortal threat to Jerusalem and all of Palestine by the hands of Zionists and helping us move closer to the day of freedom.”
Mithiborwala is the head of Indian radical political group Awami Bharat, which bills itself as conducting “an international struggle against imperialism, Zionism, and Brahmanism.”

If it were shear numbers that were the issue then Israel would of fallen a long time ago. I suppose it might be a public relations nightmare to shoot a million people, but Israel has little to lose in that forum. Sounds less like a peace march and more like Night of the Living dead.

#GoldStoneReport flashback! Bayefsky - Meet the UN's anti-Israel 'anti-discrimination' czar, Navi Pillay

The UN's top human rights official, Navi Pillay, attempted on Monday to block further defections from the UN's racist "anti-racism" bash scheduled for New York City on Sept. 22. The United States, Canada, Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands have already announced a boycott of "Durban III," a UN event designed to "commemorate" the 10th anniversary of the UN anti-Semitic hatefest held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. Pillay said she was "disappointed" with these pullouts, labeling them a "political distraction."

The barb was no accident for a UN high commissioner for human rights who has been distracted by her anti-Israel and anti-American agenda since taking office in 2008. Pillay is perhaps best known for her unremitting defense of the notorious Goldstone report and for having questioned the legality of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

For Pillay, championing the Durban conference and its manifesto, the Durban Declaration, is a personal crusade. A native of Durban herself, shortly after her appointment she explained to a Geneva audience that the city's mayor asked her to "rescue the name of Durban," given its unflattering association with anti-Semitism. In response, she helped launch both Durban II in Geneva in 2009 and Durban III.

Unfortunately, her efforts to legitimize the Durban Declaration have little to do with the most basic of human rights: equality. The Durban Declaration charges only one country with racism among all 192 UN states - Israel. It calls Palestinians "victims" of Israeli racism, a 21st century reincarnation of the Zionism-is-racism libel. When Durban II ended with an "outcome document" that reaffirmed the Durban Declaration, Pillay gloated in a news conference on April 24, 2009, that Palestine is indeed "mentioned in the Durban Declaration and the word 'reaffirm' carries those paragraphs into this document."

While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the "anti-racism" crowd at Durban II, Pillay remained glued to her seat. UN videotape shows her simply watching democratic states walk out in disgust, although she and her secretariat colleagues had a copy of his Holocaust-denying speech in advance. Despite her later scramble, when under pressure, to distance herself from his comments, she issued a flowery thank-you to the Organization of the Islamic Conference for their role in Durban II - which included warm applause for Ahmadinejad.

Pillay's enthusiasm for the Durban "anti-racism" agenda goes hand in hand with her single-minded pursuit of the demonization of Israel throughout her tenure. In January 2009, Pillay called for the creation of what became the Goldstone inquiry. In August 2009, she issued a report that lauded Hamas for having "made public statements that it is committed to respect international human rights and humanitarian law." After Goldstone claimed that Israel had intentionally targeted civilians, Pillay said on Sept. 30, 2009, "I lend my full support to Justice Goldstone's report and its recommendations." Goldstone has since recanted the veracity of his slur; Pillay has not.

In July 2010, she made a rare appearance before the Security Council on "situations where the protection of civilians has been and remains of great concern" around the world - and made only two pleas to the council, both about Israel. Referring to Gaza, she said: "I urge the council . . . to ensure the lifting in full of the blockade" - which would stymie Israel's ability to limit the flow of arms to Hamas. And she made this plea: "I urge the Security Council to support the recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" - that is, the Goldstone report.

After a visit this past February to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, she said this at her final Jerusalem news conference: "The clearest manifestation of institutional discrimination is the fact that during all my meetings with government and state officials, I do not believe I met a single Palestinian citizen of Israel." She could have easily determined that Israeli Arabs are members of Israel's parliament, in the diplomatic corps and on the Supreme Court. The discrimination that was apparently unclear to Pillay was the institutional charter of the Hamas government in Gaza, which calls for the annihilation of the Jewish citizens of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority's refusal to recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist at all.

The antagonism between Pillay's political priorities and the interests of Americans was most evident in her reaction to the death of Bin Laden. On May 3, Pillay expressed concern about his treatment. She demanded to know "the precise facts surrounding his killing" for the purpose of determining its legality. According to Pillay, "counterterrorism activity . . . in compliance with international law" means "you're not allowed . . . to commit extrajudicial killings." And this requirement would be satisfied only if the Americans had stuck by what she claimed was their "stated . . . intention . . . to arrest Bin Laden if they could."

Her concern for Bin Laden was remarkable both for its flagrant contradiction with the laws of war justifying lethal force in his case, and for being three times as fast as her expressions of concern in March about the victims of lethal terror in Syria.

It is little wonder, therefore, that Pillay should be a fan of Durban III. On Monday, she confirmed that she will be coming to New York to participate in Durban III, which she described as an "important event . . . to combat discrimination." Discrimination defined by the sponsors of discrimination itself.

Anne Bayefsky
For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.

info@eyeontheun.org
August 10, 2011 For Immediate Release:
This article by Anne Bayefsky appears on NY Daily News
via calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com

CNN Poll Shows Highest Support for Israel; Lowest for Palestinians in History

According to a new CNN Poll Americans sympathize more with Israelis than Palestinians by 67 to 16%.

...who is going to tell these back-up singers

that dressed that way in a "Palestine"

is not the most advisable way to go about? 

And [the Pro Palestinian] fellow
just above would also be

very unhappy with that cleavage.

via myrightword.blogspot.com

Free Palestine is CODE for KILL THE JEWS!

It’s the Coalition Of The Dumb –
and all the usual suspects are here –
Mark Thomas,
ultra-Marxist alleged ‘comedian’,
anti-Semitic fake charity lefties War on Want,
together with a host of nonentities
from the music business,
and, ahem, Coldplay:

...The ferocity of the purge
in which they were subsequently
purged was such that the word "purge"
doesn't really convey it.
Imagine pigbreathed men
wandering blindfolded through
the crowd at a Coldplay concert,
swinging chainsaws, flamethrowers and yetis
about in a random but deadly fashion,
and you're getting close.

The fact-free, indoctrinating fluff of
‘Crime Against Humanity’
proves once again that pop musicians
should, in general, stick to making music
and not trouble their already low brain cell counts
with the history and problems of a region
that most of them would have trouble
pointing out on a map.

more via
rubinreports.blogspot.com

and via
undhimmi.com
image via backseatblogger.com
and image of
Gwyneth Paltrow
with pigs head
in

Sympathy with Israel is up from 60% in 2009. While 65% says the U.S. should not take either side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, 35% say the U.S. should take Israel's side while just 1% favors backing the Palestinians.