Christian Zionism – part 4

Christian Zionism – part 4

Christian Zionism – part 4

Zionism and Judaism – The Missing Link

If I was to write what is contained in this post then I would be attacked and accused of being an Antisemite.

Let me rather keep quiet then and hear the truth from a highly respected Jewish Rabbi – Yaakov Shapiro

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro is a Rabbi of Bais Medrash of Bayswater and Spokesman for ‘Natruna’ and the “True Torah Jews” group. He is an expert in Jewish history and law on which he is the author of several books. His most recent book is titled The Empty Wagon.

‘Israel doesn’t exist to serve the Jewish people. the Jewish people exist to serve Israel.’

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro

Zionism Has Nothing to Do with Judaism

An interview with Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro

Adriel Kasonta: You are a Rabbi, scholar in Jewish history and law born in America to a Jewish father from Poland and Jewish mother from England. Has this had any impact on the path that you’ve chosen and what does it mean to you to be a Rabbi?

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro: “Rabbi” literally means “teacher of Torah” in Hebrew, but nowadays it’s used to refer to someone who learns and is committed to follow the dictates of the Torah. But “rabbi” is only a title. I believe in the truth of Hashem’s Torah and Judaism, and so it follows that I would uphold it, defend it, and oppose its misrepresentation. Regarding whether my parents’ background affects the path I’ve chosen, I assume by that you mean my outspokenness about the incompatibility between Judaism and Zionism. If that is the question, then the answer is, from a religious perspective, no; but from a self-interest perspective, yes. My or my parents’ background don’t make any difference to regarding my commitment to uphold and defend Judaism, as that religious obligation applies equally no matter where a Jew is from. However, even setting religion aside, Israel’s referring to itself as the “Jewish state” poses a danger to me and my fellow Jews all over the world. It is crucial, when trying to understand Zionism, that it is different than all other nationalisms – and Israel is different than all other countries – in that it claims to represent millions of people all over the world who never were citizens of their country, nor were their family members, nor do they ever plan to be. Israel claims to be the “nation-sate of the Jewish people”; Netanyahu referred to himself as the representative of all Jews; even his opposition leader, Herzog, referred to Netanyahu as the “Prime Minister of all the Jews.” This is insane. I am an American – how does Netanyahu claim to be my leader and Israel my state? If I don’t like my country, I can move to another one, but wherever I go, wherever I run, Israel will tell the world they are my country and Netanyahu is my representative because I was born into
a certain religion. The result of this delusion of grandeur that Israel is infected with is that Jews all over the world are held responsible for the actions of Israel, the same way citizens are held responsible for their own countries’ actions. Data shows that whenever Israel gets into some controversy, Jews all over the word are blamed and anti-Semitic acts skyrocket. And when this happens it’s not as if Israel is going to send its army to protect the Jews that they put into danger. We’re left to be used as Israel’s human shields. So it is imperative for Jews – and non-Jews – all over the world to know that Israel does not represent world Jewry – the claim that they do is their own unilateral delusionary ideology, part of Zionist thought. But it’s insane. And dangerous to me and my fellow Jews. Israel is morally obligated to stop this nonsense of calling itself the Jewish state, meaning the state of all Jews, because that’s just a lie, and a harmful one at that. And if Israel still insists that they are my state, I will loudly tell the world that is not so.

What is a Jew? What constitutes a Jewish person?

First, let’s start with what a Jew is not. A Jew is not a nationality or a race or an ethnicity or a culture. We have Jews of all races, nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures. Around the corner from me lives a Yemenite Jew, a nice fellow named Yichye. Our parents didn’t speak the same language, live the same culture, eat the same food, or share the same experiences. The only thing we have in common is our religion. For centuries, our families have had almost no shared historical experiences – his family in Yemen, and mine in Poland. Jewishness is a concept defined by the Jewish religion. Whoever the Jewish religion defines as Jewish is Jewish, since Jewishness is a concept created by – and defined by – the Jewish religion. Just as the religion defines what kosher food is; and defines at what age a boy becomes Bar Mitzvah and what day is Shabbos, the religion also defines what a Jew is. And that definition is: Those who were present at the revelation at Mt. Sinai when G-d gave the Torah and accepted it willingly, became Jews by virtue of that acceptance. Our tradition tells us that not only the Jews who were in the desert coming from Egypt accepted the Torah but also the souls of many as-yet unborn Jews were there and accepted it as well. We recognize those souls because, our tradition says, they will be born from a Jewish mother. In other words, that the Jewish people even exist, that there is such a thing as the Jewish people, is
a Jewish religious tenet of faith. Like the existence of angels who overturn cities, prophets who speak to G-d, manna that falls from heaven, and a snake that spoke to Adam, Jewishness is also something that the Bible informs us exists. As it says, “Today you have become
a nation unto Hashem your G-d” (Deuteronomy 27:9), which Judaism teaches refers to the day the Jews accepted the Torah from G-d. The only thing that makes the Jewish people into a group is their acceptance of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. If someone does not believe in the truth of the Bible – if he does not believe that manna fell from the sky, that the Red Sea split, that 10 plaques were meted down upon the Egyptians, he also does not believe that a few million ragtag refugees from Egyptian slavery became bound to G-d’s Torah by accepting it on Mt. Sinai, and since he does not believe that, he does not believe in the existence of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are regular people – with no identifiable common characteristics, save for their religion. If you do not believe in the religion, you have no logical basis to consider Jews an identifiable category.

Although there are non-religious people who identify as Jews, their understanding of their Jewishness is logically problematic. All secular definitions of Jewishness (ethnicity, race, culture, tribal etc.) are later innovations and are not self-consistent. Converts are full-fledged Jews; there are black Jews, white Jews, brown Jews, all sorts of Jews – the only common denominator is that the religion defines them as Jews.

Historically, the secular self-definition of Jewishness is the result of anti-Semitism: the gentiles refused to allow them to be part of their society, and kind of gave them no choice – they weren’t accepted as non-Jews, so they were forced to call themselves Jews even though they were secular. Jean Paul Sartre was right when he said that it is not the existence of Jews that results in anti-Semitism but it is anti-Semitism that causes the existence of Jews. What I mean when I say he was right is that this is the only viable and honest definition of Jewishness from a secular perspective. Many people do not know this but Sartre’s definition of Jewishness – i.e. whoever the anti-Semites persecute – was invented by Theodor Herzl, who said it before Sartre. He was asked by the British Royal Commission on Alien Immigration what Jewish Nationalism is, considering that the Jews aren’t a nationality. Herzl answered that a nation is, in his opinion, a historical group of men in “a recognizable cohesion, which is held together by a common enemy” — they then asked him who the enemies of the Jews are? He said “the anti-Semites.” The Zionists have not come up with a more viable definition of Jewishness since. Ben Gurion was once asked what the definition of a Jew is and he said Jews have no definitions. Shlomo Sand writes that he was once asked by a Christian friend why her husband is considered Jewish even though he doesn’t believe in the Jewish religion, but she is not considered Christin because she doesn’t believe in the Christian religion. Sand answered: “Hostility toward them in modern times has given Jews a specific identity as victims of segregation …” That’s the best secular definition of a Jew that exists: whoever is persecuted because he is a Jew.

The seculars will never find a feasible definition of Jewishness because the existence of Jews is an article of religious faith. If you refuse to accept that religious definition, you’re not going to find a viable substitute. Trying to find a political or social definition of Jewishness is like trying a political definition of kosher meat, or a mezuzah. Jewish identity is religious, period. Of course, the anti-Semites who don’t accept the Torah’s narrative have to concoct some definition of Jewishness – but whatever they come up with will not withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny. Trying to figure out what a Jew is without believing in the Torah is like trying to figure out what 1+1 is without believing in the number 2. No matter how hard you try, your answer won’t work.

Is Zionism a Jewish invention? What is the role of the Evangelical Protestantism in shaping the Jewish secular thought?

Rabbi Shapiro: No, Zionism is not Jewish in origin. Centuries before Hess or Herzl were born the Evangelicals already created and pursued Zionist ideology. Prof. Yakov Rabkin (History, University of Montreal) got it right in the Glossary of his book “What is Modern Israel,” where he defined Zionism as “Ideology of protestant Christian origin that propounds the assembly of the Jews in Palestine. At the end of the 19th century, a group of activists of Jewish origin in Central Europe established the Zionist political movement etc.” Christian Zionism originated in the late 1500’s, early 1600’s. The Jews never wanted to return to the Holy Land en masse until the Messiah arrives and peace would reign in the world, and the universe would be ruled by a spirit of G-d. The idea that Jews should return, create a political sovereign state there was invented by the Christians. So many aspects of Zionism that we attribute to Jews were actually invented by the Christians. People attribute the idea that Jews should speak Hebrew to the ultra-Zionist, secular Jew, Ben-Yehuda. It was the idea of the Christian Zionist Benedetto Musolino, who preceded Ben Yehuda. The slogan “a land without a people for a people without a land,” which Abu Mazen recently quoted in the name of Theodor Herzl – that was a mistake – Herzl didn’t say it – it was really said by Israel Zangwill and common among Jewish Zionists at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century – was already used by Christian Zionists such as Lord Shaftesbury and Alexander Keith in the 1840’s before any Zionist ever thought of it. It was a Christian Zionist, Rev. William Hechler, who approached Herzl saying he was the fulfilment of his own prophetic interpretation of the scriptures. Hechler used his enormous political connections to introduce Herzl to the most powerful political leaders of Germany and England to lobby for Zionism, including the Grand Duke of Baden, and the Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany. Incredibly, Jewish Zionists have adopted Christian interpretation of the scriptures, abandoning Jewish ones, to garner support from Christian Evangelicals, Zionism’s strongest supporters. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of the so-called Jewish state, and self-proclaimed leader of world Jewry spoke at the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp and publicly repeated an interpretation of Ezekiel 37 – the prophecy of the “Dry Bones,” applying it to the state of Israel, an interpretation found in no Jewish source – indeed, it contradicts Judaic doctrine – and was invented by the Reverend Charles Haddon Spurgeon in 1864! And repeated by Evangelicals such as John Hagee. The ideology of modern Zionism is much more Christian Evangelical than it is traditional Jewish. In fact, a Pew survey done about 5 years ago concluded that while most Jews do not believe God gave Israel to the Jews, 80% of white evangelical Protestants do.

Why Jewish Zionists have embraced Zionism? Could it be a self-hate driven response to the anti-Semitism in Europe, which saw as rational to embrace the ‘enlightened and intelligent’ atheism in order to create a secular, gentile-alike, Jew?

The original Zionists were Jews who were influenced by, impressed with, and envied the lifestyle of the gentiles over that of the Jews. Jews always believed their collective mission was to be, as the Bible says, “a nation of priests and a holy people,” dedicated to studying the Torah, developing their morals, and giving up any possible role they could play in the history of nations. There was no Jewish art, science, or sports. Jews had no military heroes, no sports heroes, no national political heroes. Our heroes were the righteous and scholarly. The Zionists wanted to be secular. Many even absorbed the anti-Semitic hatred of the Jews that was so prevalent in those days. However, they attributed anti-Semitism to the priestly lifestyle of the religious Jews, looking at them as ugly, immoral, and debased. They figured if the Jews could become normal – meaning to change their lifestyle, and become indistinguishable from non-Jews, anti-Semitism would end. Herzl promised, in the last page of his book Der Judenstaat, that if Zionism takes off, anti-Semitism would immediately cease to exist. Stupid thinking, to be sure, but that’s what the Zionists believed. More than anything else, they hated the Jewish lifestyle and they wanted to become, in the worlds of Jabotinsky, the “diametrical opposite” of a Jew – everything that is a Jew, they wanted to be its polar opposite. That’s what Jabotinsky said. That’s how he defined a Zionist – as the exact opposite of a Jew. Well, they tried, they secularized themselves and acted very unJewish, but anti-Semitism didn’t end. They were rudely awakened to their Jewishness by anti-Semitic violence, especially the string of pogroms that began in Russia in 1881. Now they were stuck between a rock and a hard place – they refused to be Jews, and the gentiles refused to let them be gentiles. So Zionism was Plan B – basically, they figured if they can’t join the gentile nations, they’ll make a nation of their own, they’ll turn all the Jews into nationals, turn Jewish identity into a nationality. Anything to shed themselves of the traditional Jewish identity. So they tried to reengineer Jewish identity form religious to national.

Is Zionism a homogenic ideology or rather set of different intellectual ideas, like: Nitzsche’s ‘Übermensch’ philosophy, organic nationalism, Russian workers movements and German romanticism?

Because the Zionists were synthetically creating a new nationality from scratch, as opposed to their society just evolving organically, they could pick and choose any ideas or fads that they wanted. Some chose socialism and land-based philosophies, like Aron Dovid Gordon and his type – this group became the left-wing Zionists; others, like Jabotinsky, chose a large dose of militarism, largely fascist-influenced. They became the Revisionists, which evolved into what today is the Likud. They were creating an entirely new society, pretending they were scions of the “ancient people of the Book” – partly to garner support from the Evangelicals – remember Britain had the mandate, and Britain was largely Puritan, so dovetailing with Evangelical Christianity would serve them well – plus they needed to recruit Jews to populate their future state, so they couldn’t just abandon their claim to Jewishness. Instead, they claimed they are the authentic version of Jewishness. That was what I call the Zionist identity theft against the Jewish people. Also, to be the fulfilment of the Evangelical prophesies they had to present themselves not just as a group of Jews who want to be Zionists, but rather as the Jewish people in toto, “returning to their homeland.”

What is the impact of Zionism on Jewish history?

Well let’s hope Zionism becomes history soon. In the meantime, it’s just like other deviant movements among the Jews, or break-off religions, such as the Seducees, or the Karaites, or the assimilationists. The Zionists are unique among the deviant Jewish movements in many ways, not the least of which is their political success – they have a country, an army, and professional propagandists of the highest order. Their claim to represent all of world Jewry, too, is unique among the break-off movements, and uniquely dangerous to Jews all over the world.

Is Hebrew an official Jewish language?

First, we should not confuse modern Hebrew with the language of the Bible, which we call Lashon Hakodesh (The Holy Language). Today’s modern Hebrew has appropriated much of the Holy Language, but it is not the same language – not in its grammar, pronunciation, and especially not in its vocabulary. In fact, the architects of modern Hebrew deliberately inserted into their language phrases and words that mock the religion of Judaism. For example, we have a word in Rabbinic Hebrew Bitachon, which means trust in G-d. In Zionist Hebrew, it means Homeland Security. The implication is obvious: what we used to think G-d will do, today our army will. Or the phrase keren kayemes, which in Rabbinic literature means the accumulation of good deeds one acquires in this world for which he is rewarded in the afterlife. In Zionist Hebrew it means the JNF, a fund that goes to promote Zionist causes. So modern Hebrew is actually a mockery of Biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, just as Zionism is a mockery of traditional Judaism.

That said, although Jews spoke Hebrew (Loshon Hakodesh) in Biblical times, we eventually abandoned it, for various reasons. But most importantly to your question, although the Jews did speak Hebrew once upon a time, it was never the national language of the Jewish people. Meaning, language is normally one of the primary unifying factors of a nationality. Some say a common language is even more important than a common land to create a people. The Jewish people are unified only by dint of their religion. Hebrew was a language we happened to speak, for religious reasons (after all, it is a holy language) but not for nationalistic ones. Jews are not united because of Hebrew. The common language did not contribute to our peoplehood the way it does to others. The Zionists created modern Hebrew to change that. In their efforts to change Jewish identity form religious to national, they needed to provide for the Jews national symptoms like a language, and a land. Especially before 1948, when there was no Israel, Hebrew was vital for the Zionist cause, because it was the only national commonality available to Jews who wanted to be nationals.

What is Yiddish? What is Zionists’ approach towards Yiddish?

Yiddish is a dialect of German that Ashkenazi Jews developed within their society. (Oriental Jews – Sephardim – did not speak Yiddish; some of them spoke Ladino, a dialect of Spanish). Zionists hated Yiddish, because it represented the old-time traditional Jewishness that the Zionists wanted to eradicate.

Do Zionists believe in God? Are they observant Jews?

Some do and some don’t; some are and some aren’t. Because Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism, but is rather a political movement, it’s like asking if Sudanese believe in G-d. Many early Zionists repudiated belief in G-d, like ben Gurion, who claimed G-d gave the Jews the land, but he didn’t believe in G-d – at least not the G-d of the Bible, anyway. Early Zionists, such as Israel Zangwill, said that Jews could be Christians or Muslims by religion, since Jewishness would be a national, not religious identity. Today that sounds weird, but logically if a Zionist can be an atheist – and most of the founding fathers of Zionism were – and still consider himself Jewish, why can’t someone believe in the Christin religion and consider himself Jewish? That is one of the very many logical inconsistencies in Zionist ideology. As far as the observant Jews being Zionists, Zionism itself is like idolatry according to the Torah, and just as in Biblical times there were otherwise observant Jews who worshipped idols (such as the Baal worshippers), so too nowadays we have otherwise observant Jews who believe in Zionism. It is certainly a contradiction, just as Judaism and idol worship was in the days of the prophets, but human beings have an uncanny capacity to compartmentalize contradictions in their own beliefs, so it’s not shocking.

Bearing in mind that many Jews around the World are being blamed for Israel’s internal and external actions, can we assume that ideology of Zionism indirectly contributes to the rise of anti-Semitic sentiment among gentiles and thus pose an existential threat to the Jews living outside of Israel?

Yes, absolutely. Well, I’m not sure the threat rises to the level of existential, but yes, Israel – in particular its claim to be the Jewish state – endangers Jews all over the world. Tel Aviv University’s’ Kantor Center has the largest database of anti-Semitic data in the world – and they’re scientists, not activists with an agenda like the ADL. And every report that they release says the same story: because people conflate Israel with Jews, when people are upset with Israel, Jews all over the world get hurt.

Do you perceive this as an unintended outcome of Zionism or rather well-calculated policy aimed at forcing the Jewish diaspora to move to Israel and admit its statues of the Vatican for the Jewish people?

Part of it is calculated and part they don’t cause but they are certainly happy about. When Netanyahu goes to France or Denmark after anti-Semitic attacks against Jews and tells them the solution is the Jews should all come to Israel, he knows, unless he is a total idiot, that he is riling up anti-Semitism, casting the Jews as indigestible everywhere, and the Jewish communities of the countries he says this about – in the above cases, France and Denmark – invariably condemn Netanyahu’s remarks. But Zionists have been doing this for a century – trying to make the world uninhabitable for Jews in order to herd them into Israel. What about the Lavon affair? And their blowing up Jewish cafes and the Masouda Shem Tov synagogue in Iraq in order to herd Jews into Israel? And for what? Eighty times more Israelis were killed in Israel by suicide bombers and random acts of violence in the past 20 years than all Jews killed in Europe by terrorists in the same time period. Israel is like the most dangerous place where Jews live around the world. And I’m not even talking about the territories.

What is Israel’s approach towards the Orthodox Jews? How they are being treated by the Israeli regime?

Uch. Don’t ask. About 10 years ago, the Jerusalem Post published the results of a Gersher survey: The Chareidim are believed to be the most hated group in Israel. 37% of Israelis voted for them as the most hated group; in second place came the Russian immigrants with 15% and a close third, gathering13%, were the settlers. In my view, the reason is simple: Remember: The Zionists fought, died, and killed in order to “rehabilitate” the Jewish people, to transform them form ugly, sickly, decrepit Ultra-Orthodox Jews into proud, strong, bronzed, Hebrew Nationals. The early Zionists thought for sure that in a decade or so there would be no Ultra-Orthodox Jews left. And the state of Israel was supposed to be the agent of that social change. But now, a few generations after they created their state, they see the Ultra-Orthodox community flourishing at a remarkably greater rate than the secular community, and they have no desire to turn themselves into Zionists. In fact, they look at the Zionists as destroyers of Jewishness, not its saviours. The message the existence of the Ultra-Orthodox flourishing to the ZIonsits is: What you strove for, what you sacrificed for, what you killed and died for, was for nothing. We don’t want to be like you. You should have left us alone, you didn’t accomplish anything – you ruined a lot. Your lives, your mission, your whole life philosophy is a sham, and your sacrifices were for nothing. The Zionists can’t take that. If the Chareidim would prefer to be Chareidim than Zionists, and they in fact look down on Zionism and detest what it tried to do to them and their families, it infuriates them.

You are a U.S. citizen and a Jewish person, so what was your reaction to President Donald Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? Was it the right decision?

Mr. Trump is my president and it is his decision. That said, his statement that he is doing so because Jerusalem is the “eternal capital of the Jewish people” puts his decision beyond the realm of politics and into the realm of Judaic studies. And he is incorrect about that. Jerusalem is a holy city – not a political capital city, to the Jewish people. Two reasons: One, practitioners of a religion don’t have capitals – countries do. And the Jewish people are not a country. When King David made Jerusalem his capital, it wasn’t the capital of the Jews – it was the capital of David’s citizens. Non-Jews living in David’s country would have Jerusalem as their capital as well as the Jews; and a Jew living outside of David’s country would not have Jerusalem as their capital. Jews as Jews never had a capital. Second, even if Jerusalem would be the capital of the Jews, that does not mean that therefore it should be the capital of Israel. Israel is not the Jews.

What is Judaism? What is its relevance in the increasingly secular modern times?

Judaism is a religion that was given by G-d on Mt. Sinai and available to anyone who wants to be part of it. It represents the will of G-d. Just as G-d doesn’t change, neither does His will. Therefore, it makes no difference if the “times” are secular, idolatrous, barbaric, or whatever. Judaism is still as relevant now as it was when G-d gave it on Mt. Sinai. After all, G-d is just as relevant, and so His will is, as well.

Can Judaism co-exist with Islam and Christianity, or these three Abrahamic faiths (and their followers) are doomed to be antagonistic towards each other?

Judaism teaches to be at peace with everyone in the world. Even if we need to go out of our way to do so. Not long ago – and by that I mean before the advent of Zionism – Jews in the Holy Land got along very well with their Arab neighbours. When the Jewish women used to go to synagogue on Yom Kippur, they had Arab girls baby-sitting their children. The Zionists don’t represent Judaism. They represent Zionism. Netanyahu said publicly that he will – quote – “live by the sword” forever. He probably doesn’t know it, but the phrase living by the sword is Biblical, and it was the fate of Esav, the arch-enemy and the antithesis of Jacob, father of all Jews. Jews eschew the sword. Even when necessary to use. Judaism enjoins Jews to be at peace with their neighbours, loyal to their countries of residence, and to love peace and harmony.

Should the Palestinian question be of religious Jews’ concern? Can a God-fearing Jew turn a blind eye from this ongoing conflict in which Jewish people are involved?

The Palestinian question is no more or less the concern of religious Jews – I assume you are asking me about Jews outside of Israel – than any other human rights issues anywhere in the world. Remember: Israel has as much to do with me as a Jew as Bulgaria does. And therefore, for me as a Jew to be more involved in the Palestinian issue than other equally serious issues in other countries would be puzzling. You could have asked me about whether religious Jews can be concerned about many other issues, but you chose to ask me about Palestinians. That is because you believe as a Jew I should have an opinion about issues that involve Israel specifically. But I am an American, not an Israeli, and not a Zionist. So my answer is the Palestinian issue is as relevant to me as all human rights issues all over the world. Because Palestinians and Israelis are human beings, like all others all over the world. For a Jew to involve himself in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because he is a Jew, and the issue involves Israel, indicates that he believes his Jewishness somehow demands that he be involved in Israel’s issues more than those of other nations, and that’s Zionism. I am not a Zionist.

On June 3, 2018 more than 15,000 Jews attended the convention of Torah Jewry Against Zionism, which took place in the Nassau Coliseum. Can you tell us a bit more about the event and its outcome? How many young Jews are eager to learn about True Torah Jews and traditional Judaism? Can traditional Judaism even compete with Zionism in its appeal to young Jewish people?

Most definitely. Especially with younger Jews. It’s the older Jews who are mostly Zionists. The rally in the coliseum was an educational event. Judaism values education above all. The way to win the minds and hearts of young people – and old people – is through education: teaching, reasoning, giving them facts and figures; reasoning and sound judgement. Waving flags, singing songs, and throwing confetti may work in the short term, but our Torah teaches that nothing compares to sitting and working hard to understand. Through education – not emotional propaganda, we will, with the help of the Almighty, help bring the world back to peace and harmony.

Interview conducted by ADRIEL KASONTA – https://ahtribune.com/religion/2332-yaakov-shapiro.html

Zionism. The untouchable topic. “Lack of knowledge has led to very confused ideas about religion, even among the chareidim.” “Even talmidei chachamim, rabbonim, and tzaddikim are not imbued with the [proper] understanding.” “Sadly, even in our own circles, the mold for shaping public opinion lies in the hands of the state of Israel.” “Regardless of how much we talk about [Zionism] and people listen and understand, nevertheless, in their hearts, they still kiss the idol.” “There are only a few groups left that do not follow after the Eigel … But the rest of the chareidim travel on the train of Zionism …” These are some of the sentiments expressed by gedolei Yisroel specifically regarding Zionist hashkafos and the Torah community, both now and in the past. For those who find these statements more than a little disquieting, for those who can accept that what many think are Torah hashkafos are actually their opposite – and want to know the truth … The Empty Wagon will open that door.

I urge all who read here to please watch the following videos

Has Zionism Hijacked Judaism. – Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro

The event was held at the International Law Institute in Washington, D.C. Rabbi Shapiro is the rabbi of a congregation in Queens, New York. He is best known for his outspoken stance defending the historic Orthodox Jewish position that rejects the concept of Jewish nationalism and therefore opposes Zionism and does not recognize Israel as the Jewish State. He has represented this position on behalf of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community throughout the world to a remarkable variety of audiences, including those in the United States, the state of Israel and the EU in Brussels. Rabbi Shapiro is the author of three books and numerous articles dealing with Jewish philosophy and law. He is currently completing a three volume work on traditional Jewish opposition to Zionism.

The Real Reason that Netanyahu and Israeli Leader’s Claim to Speak for All Jews

In this interview, Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, rabbi of Beis Medrash of Bayswater, explains the motives behind the claims of Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders to represent all Jews. He explains how Zionism, starting from Theodor Herzl, unilaterally arrogated to itself the right to speak in the name of world Jewry. Rabbi Shapiro explains the motives behind this and the danger it poses to the Jewish people.

Identity Thieves: the Zionist Campaign to Transform “Jews” into “Israelis”

Welcome to the Israeli Army Melting Pot, the greatest spiritual equalizer that the world has ever seen. The early Zionist leaders created the state of Israel with the goal of eradicating religion and transforming “Jews” into Israeli nationalists. Until very recently Hareidi (ultra-orthodox) Jews were exempt from mandatory service. They were able to remain true to their faith and traditions without fear of legal repercussions. Recently that has changed. In 2014 the law exempting Hareidi Jews expired and was not renewed. Even though the IDF had a surplus of soldiers they decided that it was time to call the Orthodox to duty thus finally taking advantage of the opportunity to transform them from from “Jews” to “Israelis”. The Hareidi community has staged a number of peaceful protests and the Israeli police has responded with violence. Young men are being pulled from their beds in the middle of the night and thrown into military detention centers. We will continue to assert our right to be conscientious objectors according to Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. We will not give up our faith to serve in your military. We will not offer up our children’s lives on the alter of Zionism. We will protest until the end for our rights as Jews and human beings.

New York Schoolchildren Hold Anti-Zionist Gathering, and Protest Against Their Provocative Tactics

Children at an Orthodox Jewish school in Brooklyn gathered during the week of Israeli Independence Day to express their concern over the future of American Jewry, in the face of the dangerous climate created by the State of Israel and especially its prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu. One boy gave a short speech explaining traditional Torah opposition to Zionism, and addressing current events, such as the recent anti-Semitic killings in France and Denmark and Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, and the NYC M.T.A hate Ads.

Rabbi Shapiro Reacts to Jerusalem Announcement

In depth analysis! Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro reacts to Jerusalem being declared the capital of Israel, and explains that the Jewish people relate to Jerusalem as a holy city, not as a political capital city. Jerusalem as the capital of the “Jews” is a Zionist fiction, and conflicts directly with the teachings of Judaism. To all those countries considering moving their embassies, please know that this would only benefit Israel and the Zionists, and has no benefit to the Jewish people at large. Israel does NOT represent world Jewry.

Rabbi Shapiro at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, NY

On June 11, 2017, a massive protest took place at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, NY. Tens of thousands of Orthodox Jews gathered to protest the Israeli government’s laws relating to the drafting of yeshiva students into their army. In this passionate speech, given in front of thousands of our brethren, Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro outlines some of the reasons why serving in the IDF is incompatible with Judaism and Jewish values. The Israeli army is not a normal army, with the objective of protecting its citizens. Rather, the IDF is an indoctrination camp which seeks to turn the Jew into a Zionist. The Rabbi’s speech ends with constructive advice for the Israeli government: repeal all the draft laws and leave us be, or build more jails because Orthodox Jews will gladly go to jail rather than join the IDF.

Christian Zionism – part 3

Christian Zionism – part 3

Christian Zionism – part 3

More on Antisemitism

In my previous two posts I provided material on the subject of Zionism,  Christian Zionism and the charge of Antisemitism.

In my first post I shared material that provided evidence and highlighted the fact that most of Jewish religious Judaism groups are apposed to the establishment of the  State of Israel – as a sovereign Jewish State/homeland.

In the second post I shared material pertaining to Christian Zionism and the tremendous following Israel has from this Christian support base – both financiaal and moral. I show in this post the erroneous teaching from the Christian pulpits that has led to this support.

If you have not read these two previous posts then I would encourage you to do so in order for you to gain the broad understanding and implications of this predicament. Here are the links:

Jewish Opposition to Zionism

Christian Zionism

In this post I will provide additional content to illustrate how the charge of Antisemitism has eveolved into somewhat of a ‘witch hunt’ and now pursues anyone who even challenges the secular deeds of the political State of Israel in any manner whatsoever.

As mentioned in my previous posts, my interest is solely from the perspective of Biblical Truth. I have no interest in worldly politics from a secular viewpoint.I am however extremely interested in Biblical Prophecy and the signs of the times in which we now live.

I look forward with a desperate hope for the soon return of our Messiah Yahushua –  first to receive his bride and therafter to set up his Kingdom here on this earth.

I am neither herein commenting on the Jewish people’s rights to have their own homeland or the legality of the current State of Israel and it’s political affairs. My views on such matters are personal and fall outside the scope of the content and objectives of this article. This commentary is purely focused on Biblical exegesis.

My grave concern with regards to the State of Israel is how many tens of millions of Christain believers are decieved into believing that the establishment and the affairs of the State of Israel and/or it’s city Jerusalem is the fullfimnet of Bible Prophecy. The New Testament is clear on who and what the temple is today for believers and what the ‘New Jerusalem’ is according to the book of Revelation – i.e. the bride.

The parables and illustrations used in the Old Testament were mainly shadows of greater things to come through the Messaih, who came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets of Old – Matthew 5:17.

Why are Christians falling prey to this deception from the Christain Zionist movement and FOZ – Freinds of Zion?

Our correct interpretation and understanding of the New Testament message pertaining to Isreal and Jerusalem should however not lead to any anger or aggressive critisism on our part towards the Jewish people –  as a whole or individual Jews. This would be Antisemitism. The fact that there are a small number of individuals with unfounded Zionist political aspirations, those who hide behind a Jewish identity, should not motivate one to rise up against any other single or group of Jewish people in anger or resentment.

A New Testament believer should be humble and understand that we are the wild olive that has been grafted into the root and the new shoot – Y’shua. The old branches were broken off because of unbelief – Romans 11: 15 – 24

As I have said before, the Jewish people do not acknowledge the New Testament message and therefore only view Israel/Jerusalem and the temple from an Old Testament perspective. But we should know better and not follow their interpretation and deeds whcih contradict the New Testament revelation.

I beleive that most of the Jewish people will be converted to beleievers in the Messaih in a very short space of time when the ‘Two Witnesses’ reveal the True Gospel message at the coming day of Yom Teruah. For two thousand years now the Christain church has provided a Gospel message and New Testament messaage that is completely foreign to any informed religious Jew. The mainstream Christain message is a perverted message and appears as such to the Jews.

Listen to the critique of ‘Jews for Judaism’ – specifically Rabbi Michael Skobac and another Jewish Rabbi –  Tovia Singer. These are learned men. To them the Christain message, rather the Christain interpretation of the New Testament, is complete nonsense. Unfortunately I have to share their view. Christainity has misrepresented the Truth of the New Testament for 2000 years. Read my section entitled ‘Holy Cowfor some of the reasons why I say this.

Dear Christians, it really is time to wake up.

Let us also not follow the Jewish ways which lack New Testament guidance and understanding. Let us also stop critisising the Jewish people for their lack of understanding and let us shine the light of Truth.

Without the Messiah there is no way to the Father:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:6

The Jewish people don’t know this though because they dont read the New Testament.

They don’t know that we are the ‘temple’ – both individually and as a body.

They don’t know that a select body of believers. the ‘overcomers’, will be the ‘New Jerusalem’.

They don’t know that Israel was a name given to Jacob through submission to the Almighty and that this serves as a pattern for the New Testament ‘Israel’.

But we, as New Testament believers should know.

Old things are passed away – all things are become new:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

2 Corinthians 5:17  

What does the following verse from the book of 1 john have to say about those who deny that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah?

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 2:22

And who are these who deny that Jesus is the Christ?

Wake up Zionist Christians. Wake up.

I provided evidence through my previous posts how political Zionsim is rooted in Christainity and not Judaism. The history of Zionism goes back to England and the Plymouth brethren.  Theodor Herzl was clearly attracted to the opportunities contained within this Christain belief and became one of the founders of modern polical Zionsim.

One would probably ask what the thought process was behind this Christain Zionist teaching. It should be clear that these Christains understood certain end time Bible prophecy fulfilment being the Jewish people returning to ther land.  This interpretation assumed that this would then usher in the return of ‘Jesus’. The present Christian Zionist views are the same. In fact they believe that the supposed ‘prophetic’ events regarding Israel’s establishmnet and the imminent building of a third temple are all end time prophectic events.  Tens of billions of dollars are poured into Israel from the Church around the world as aid to support and expedite this claimed prophetic fulfilment. They see these events as ‘signs’ of the end times and the second coming of Messiah. But these are false, non-biblical signs.

These Christains, anxious to witness ‘signs’, are putting their hope in deception.

And what does our Messiah reveal regarding those who want a sign:

But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Mathew 12:39

A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.

Mathew 16:4

Has the Church become a wicked and adulterous generation – deperately looking for a sign which is non-biblical?

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

I have included another article written by Rev. Dr, Stephen Sizer on Antisemitism which describes his personal experince. He is a leading voice speaking out against Christian Zionsim with full Biblical support. He is a prime example of what happens to those who proclaim the Truth. One can begin to understand how the ‘Two witnesses’ of Revelation will be killed for their testimony – Revelation 11:7

The New Antisemitism

BY Rev. Dr Stephen Sizer

Ten years ago, in September 2008, an anonymous ‘Mordechai Maverick’ sent a defamatory message about me to everyone in our church Facebook group. The message drew attention to a new but anonymous blog called Seismic Shock (intended apparently to sound like my name), which described me as a “dangerous anti- Semite” and promised to publish articles to expose me. The anonymous author(s) then began to write articles about me on a weekly basis, sometimes daily. These were subsequently re-posted on other websites such as Rosh Pina Projectand Harry’s Place. In a one year period September 2008-to July 2009 well over one hundred articles about me were published on the Seismic Shockwebsite.

Surrey police took an interest and provided me and my family with additional security. On 29th November 2009, I received a report from West Yorkshire Police to advise that they had identified and visited an individual and asked him to desist writing defamatory material about me and remove from his website material of that nature. I was asked to contact them if I became aware of further articles by the same individual “causing you harassment”. Despite the fact that at the time I did not know the name of the author, he subsequently went public and then accused me of using the police to suppress free speech on the internet.

On 30thJune 2011, he wrote to each of my staff, drawing their attention to three defamatory videos about me on YouTube. He stated,

“I am concerned about the way your church is being used to form ties with extremists. I will be making a formal complaint to the Bishop of Guildford, but I want to alert your church leadership to these facts beforehand. I am keenly aware of how the Incumbent reacts to lay criticism.”

On the 4thJuly 2011, on Harry’s Place, a comment was left for ‘Mordechai’: “I understand that you are compiling a dossier on one of Saleh’s supporters, the Rev Sizer, to submit to the church authorities. Bishop Christopher of Guildford has written me to say that he will take action if proof of anti-Semitic views, whether in written form or verifiable spoken form, can be sustained.”[1]

In October 2012, Jonathan Arkush, on behalf of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, made a formal complaint to my Bishop, alleging “a clear and consistent pattern” of misconduct “unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders” Their complaint alleged that I had made “antisemitic statements”; that I was an “avid reader and publicizer of websites that are openly and virulently antisemitic”; of “trawling dark and extreme corners of the internet for material” to add to my website; of regularly publishing links on my website “to antisemitic websites, thereby re-publishing their anti-Semitism” in order to introduce readers to “racist and antisemitic websites.”[2]

To maximize the embarrassment, the complaint was published on their website the same day it was delivered to my Bishop, so that I and many others were aware of it before he was. A year later in October 2013, the complaint was resolved by conciliation.[3]I believe this was due in part to the robust support I received from several Jewish academics and rabbis, from leading politicians and several Anglican Bishops who spoke in my defence and challenged the allegations.[4]Although the Board of Deputies withdrew their complaint on this occasion, the criticisms continued and eventually led to my early retirement, but that is another story.[5]

Being accused of antisemitism is not something I would wish on anyone. It is painful and when such allegations are publicised, it is acutely embarrassing as well as distressing to family and friends.

This is a rather long introduction to explain why I have had a longstanding personal interest in how antisemitism is defined, and in particular, how the definition is now being broadened, conflating hatred of Jewish people with criticism of Israel. This has not gone unchallenged and has led to sharp divisions within the Jewish community.Antony Lerman, for example, asks,

“How is it that so many people who care deeply and genuinely about the problem of antisemitism find themselves on the opposite sides of a barricade fighting what sometimes seems like a war to the death? How many of us who have got caught up in these often bitter battles have hoped for some way of finding a common language through which we could discuss our differences?”[6]

  

Antisemitism redefined

Dr Bryan Klug at St Benet’s, Oxford, defines antisemitism as ‘a form of hostility towards Jews as Jews, in which Jews are perceived as something other than what they are’[7]The Community Security Trust (CST) defines antisemitism as “hatred, bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against Jews.”[8]

The word “Antisemitism” came into use in the late nineteenth century to describe pseudo-scientific racial discrimination against Jews. Now, it generally describes all forms of discrimination, prejudice or hostility towards Jews throughout history; and has been called “the Longest Hatred”.[9]

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, recently accepted by the British government[10], reads:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”[11]

The IHRA acknowledge that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” However, following the IHRA definition, examples of how the definition may be applied include “but are not limited to”,

 – “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

 – Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

 – Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”[12]

Lerman traces the historical development of the ‘new antisemitism’ and draws out how the new definition differs from traditional descriptions. He cites Irwin Cotler, Canadian professor of law and former minister of justice in the 2003-2006 Liberal government, as saying,

“In a word, classical anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever society they inhabit. The new anti-Semitism involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations, with Israel as the targeted ‘collective Jew among the nations’.”[13]

Leading lawyers have described the new IHRA definition as having a “chilling effect” on free speech.  Hugh Tomlinson QC was asked to give legal opinion on the impact the new definition could have on freedom of expression and assembly, by Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP), Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), Free Speech on Israel (FSOI) and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC).

Tomlinson stressed that the definition is not legally binding and public bodies are under no obligation to adopt it. Indeed, those that do so must take care in applying it or risk,

“unlawfully restricting legitimate expressions of political opinion in violation of statutory duties to ensure freedom of expression and assembly…”[14]

Tomlinson further argues, “Properly understood in its own terms the IHRA Definition does not mean that activities such as describing Israel as a state enacting a policy of apartheid, as practising settler colonialism or calling for policies of boycott divestment or sanctions against Israel can properly be characterized as antisemitic. A public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition to prohibit or sanction such activities would be acting unlawfully.”[15]

Tomlinson insisted that the new definition could “not be used to judge criticism of Israel to be antisemitic, unless the criticism actually expresses hatred towards Jews.” Criticism of Israel for its actions is clearly not synonymous with criticism of Israel for being Jewish. Designating Israel as a Jewish state is also problematic, not just for two million Israeli Palestinians, but also the five million Palestinians living under military occupation in the Palestinian Territories.[16]


Anti-Zionism and antisemitism

Jewish activists have been among the most vociferous in voicing opposition to the new definition.Ben White cites several anti-Zionist Jewish campaigners.

“For Rebecca Vilkomerson, Executive Director of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), a group with more than 200,000 online members and 60 chapters across the US, “equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism obscures the long history of Jewish anti-Zionism and diasporism.” According to the UK-based group Jews for Justice for Palestinians, fusing “Jewishness/Israel/Zionism” enables antisemitism to become “a weapon for imposing conformity on dissidents within the Jewish community.”

Chicago-based Rabbi Brant Rosen has described how “growing numbers of Jews” identify as anti-Zionists for “legitimate ideological reasons”, motivated “by values of equality and human rights for all human beings.” His words chime with those of a former President of Edinburgh University’s Jewish Society, who recently wrote of “the growing frustration felt by many millennial Jews about the default positioning that support for Israel receives amongst Jewish civil society organisations.”

But what about the claim that, since Zionism is simply Jewish self-determination, anti-Zionism is anti-Jewish bigotry? This is also misguided; put simply, “self-determination does not equate to statehood.” As legal scholar Michael Kearney has explained, self-determination is “less understood these days as a right to one’s own exclusive state, and more as a right to non-discrimination and to democratic participation in society.”

Israel’s supporters, however, are deliberately conflating terms such as ‘homeland’, ‘home’, ‘state’, and ‘self-determination’. The concept of a Jewish homeland is one thing; the creation and maintenance of a ‘Jewish state’, in Palestine, at the expense of its non-Jewish inhabitants, is another. The right to self-determination is never a right to colonisation, whoever is doing it.

Finally, to maintain that anti-Zionism is antisemitism is to deny the historical and contemporary reality of the Palestinians’ experience, and to dehumanise them as a people. For the Palestinians, Zionism has meant violent displacement, colonisation, and discrimination – are they ‘antisemitic’ for refusing to cheer their own dispossession? By extension, as orthodox Jewish studies and philosophy professor Charles H. Manekinput it recently, labelling Palestine solidarity activists as antisemitic is to imply that “the Palestinians have little justified claim to sympathy.”[17]

 

Antisemitism objective and subjective

Frances Webber, of the Institute for Race Relations, raises a more fundamental concern that antisemitism is now being seen as not just about racist actions but also about prejudicial attitudes. In effect, he argues, the IHRA definition operates within the realm of ‘thought policing’.

“… what particularly concerns us here is the way that the definition of anti-Semitism is moving from deed to thought, from the objective to the subjective, from action to attitude.

The IRR has always maintained that it was important to distinguish between prejudices – the subjective – and the acting out of those prejudices – the objective – in discriminatory acts, physical attacks, government edicts etc. Penalising people for racist feelings or attitudes leads to thought-policing, whereas racist acts are measurable and therefore prosecutable before the law if needs be. And there are specific laws relating to incitement to race hatred, the committing of racially-motivated crimes, discrimination in provision of goods and services whether direct or indirect.

But, recently, emanating in part from cultural/identity studies in academia, a kind of victimology, a subjectivism is creeping into policy. Anything that is said or might be said that upsets people, gives hurt, merely makes them uncomfortable, is becoming equated with outright discrimination and liable for a prohibitive ban.”[18]

Referring to the IHRA definition adopted by the Conservative government, Webber emphasizes that causing offence is not synonymous with racism.

“The conceptual flaw underlying Pickles’ definition is to equate racism with anything that gives offence. For while racism is offensive, not everything which gives offence is per se racist. Objections to cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist or paedophile are made not on grounds of their offensiveness – although they undoubtedly are – but on the grounds of the use of crude racist images to depict a religious minority as quintessentially evil. Although it might cause offence to some, it is no more inherently racist to attack Israel’s policies than it is to demand that ‘Rhodes must fall’ or to denounce US or British imperialism or these states’ complicity in torture. So Pickles’ definition not only appears to make an exception of Israel but also to close down on freedom of speech and of expression when it comes to defining what it is permissible to say about a particular country.”[19]

What then is wrong with the new definition of antisemitism? Essentially, critics argue that it,

“conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence political debate.”[20]

 

Blaming Jews and exacerbating antisemitism

Kamel Hawwash believes broadening the definition of what constitutes antisemitism to include criticism of Israel to be misguided and indeed, does “a disservice to the Jewish community in this country.”[21]

“… once criticism of Israel is linked to hatred of Jews in the UK, a line was crossed which implicitly makes the Jewish community somehow responsible for the actions of a foreign state.”

Lerman goes further, arguing that perversely, the new definition actually provokes antisemitism.

“The de-coupling of the understanding of antisemitism from traditional antisemitic tropes, which thereby made criticism of Israel in and of itself antisemitic, necessarily made the opposite – support for Israel – into a touchstone for expressing sympathy with Jews. This opened the door to the phenomenon of Jewish support for far right, anti-Islam, anti-immigrant parties keen to whitewash their pasts and sanitise their anti-Muslim prejudice by expressing support for Israel and seeing the country and its Jews as the front line against Islam’s ‘incursion into Europe’.

It is not surprising, therefore, that acceptance of the ‘new antisemitism’ theory has contributed to the exacerbation of tensions between Muslims and Jews in the UK (and elsewhere in Europe). There is, however, mutual pre-existing misunderstanding and mistrust, while negative images of Jews unrelated to the Israel-Palestine conflict are common among some Muslims.”[22]

The children’s story of Chicken Little who thought the sky was falling in when a leaf fell on her tail is pertinent.[23]By broadening or diluting the definition of antisemitism, people may become complacent or immune to genuine antisemitism and not repudiate it as they should.

Klug argues, “When anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing—the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance.”[24]

Lerman adds, “Given the misery and murder that antisemitism has caused over the centuries,” … “one might expect pro-Israel groups to be more circumspect before using it indiscriminately as a political tool.” … “not everything that offends Jewish sensibilities is antisemitism”, and by labelling BDS as antisemitic, Israel advocates “are draining the word of any meaning.”[25]

Ben White concludes, “This politicised redefining of antisemitism should worry us all: it dehumanises Palestinians and delegitimises solidarity, imperils the fight against real antisemitism, and constitutes a much broader attackon our democracy and political freedoms.”[26]

 

Antisemitism and the UK Labour Party

In the UK, Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party have been criticised for failing to address antisemitism within the party. Pro-Israeli lobbyists know that a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn will introduce major changes to British foreign policy.  Assuming Labour had a sufficient majority, Jeremy Corbyn’s government would likely recognise the state of Palestine on the 1967 borders, (like most of the rest of the world), and also might introduce sanctions against Israel as well as companies profiting from the occupation.

White cites Richard Kuper, spokesperson of Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP), as saying, “there is clearly also a co-ordinated, willed and malign campaign to exaggerate the nature and extent of antisemitism as a stick to beat the Labour party”[27]

He also observes, “The Labour Party has more than 400 MPs and peers at Westminster, in addition to almost 7,000 local government officials and some 390,000 members. The antisemitism ‘crisis’ has involved half a dozen individuals, most of whom have either never held, or no longer hold elected office. Corbyn himself has repeatedly condemned antisemitism since becoming leader, while according to Party General Secretary Iain McNicol, everyone reported for antisemitism has been suspended or excluded.”[28]

 

Challenging both antisemitism and Zionism

 Hawwash has called upon the British government to reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism for the following reasons:

“Our message to British politicians is this:as long as Israel continues to occupy Palestine, to oppress and murder, to lay siege to two million people, to steal our land and resources, to restrict our movement, to refuse to allow the refugees to return, to attack our religious sites, to illegally settle our land and to leave our people with no hope of freedom, dignity or independence, we and our supporters will continue to speak out, to educate and to demand that the British government changes its shameful, but deliberate policies which place trade with Israel above human rights.We will not allow Zionists who support a state that does all of the above to silence us under the disguise of the “new anti-Semitism” but we will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Jews in their fight against the real anti-Semitism that some still undoubtedly face.”[29]

It is lamentably true that in the past, church leaders have indeed tolerated antisemitism and incited racist attacks on Jewish people. Racism is without excuse. Antisemitism must be repudiated unequivocally.However, anti-Zionism is not synonymous with antisemitism. Judaism is a religious faith. Israel is a largely secular and multi-ethnic nation state. Zionism is a political system. These three are not synonymous. Indeed most Zionists are Christians[30]and many Jews are anti-Zionist.[31]

This is why it is imperative to repudiate antisemitism, to defend Israel’s right to exist, within internationally recognised borders, while at the same time campaign equally for the civil, religious and political rights of Palestinians to be respected. This is surely the best way to bring an end to the evil of antisemitism.

“What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.”(Micah 6:8)

 

Update 30 August 2018

The Palestinian Return Centre has obtained an Opinion from Geoffrey Robertson QC on the interpretation and impact on free speech, of the British Government’s acceptance in 2016 of an extended definition of anti-Semitism promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

Notes

[1] http://hurryupharry.org/2011/07/03/the-wit-and-wisdom-of-raed-salah/

[2] http://www.stephensizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Response-to-the-Complaint-of-Misconduct-from-Stephen-Sizer.pdf

[3] http://www.stephensizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Stephen-Sizer-Board-of-Deputies-Conciliation-October-2013.pdf

[4] http://www.stephensizer.com/friends/

[5]See www.peacemakers.ngo

[6] Antony Lerman, Defamation v Anti-Defamation, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/14/dissenting-new-antisemism-film

[8] https://cst.org.uk/antisemitism/definitions

[9] Ibid.,

[10]https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-definition-of-antisemitism

[11] https://antisemitism.uk

[12] https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/node/196

[13] Antony Lerman, The ‘new antisemitism’, https://www.opendemocracy.net/mirrorracisms/antony-lerman/new-antisemitism

[14] Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Legal opinion finds major faults with government antisemitism definitionhttps://www.palestinecampaign.org/legal-opinion-finds-major-faults-government-antisemitism-definition

[15] Ibid.,

[16]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Palestinian_territories

[17] Ben White, Shifty antisemitism wars, https://benwhite.org.uk/2016/04/22/shifty-antisemitism-wars

[18] Frances Webber, Anti-semitism – thought or deed? http://www.irr.org.uk/news/anti-semitism-thought-or-deed/

[19] Ibid.,

[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

[21] Kamel Hawwash, Redefining anti-Semitism will not silence Palestinian’s struggle for justice, http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/balfour-anti-semitism-1450743096

[22] Lerman, op. cit.,

[23]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny

[24] Brian Klug, The Myth of the New Anti-SemitismThe Nation, February 2, 2004

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

[25] Lerman, cited in Ben White, op. cit.,

[26] White, op. cit.,

[27] White, op. cit.,

[28] White, op. cit.,

[29] Hawwash, op. cit.,

[30] For a critique of Christian Zionism see Stephen Sizer, Zion’s Christian Soldiers: The Bible, Israel and the Church, Intervarsity Press, 2007. http://www.stephensizer.com/books/zions-christian-soldiers/

[31] See On Antisemitism: Solidarity and the Struggle for Justice: Jewish Voice for Peace, Haymarket Books, 2017.

 

original post : https://stephensizer.com/2018/05/the-new-antisemitism/

 

Criticizing Israel Isn’t Anti-Semitic. Here’s what it is.

Pro-Israel politicians don’t speak for young Jews like me. They shouldn’t pretend to.

written by Sarah Gertler – the Newman Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Weeks ago, when the first accusations of anti-semitism were being leveled against Representative Ilhan Omar, I was deeply agitated.

Not long ago I saw her address these accusations at a local town hall. She reminded the world that, as a Black Muslim woman in America, she knows what hate looks like — and spends her life laboring against it. Her words were clear, bold, and unflinching.

When members of Congress not only continued to gang up and falsely smear Omar as anti-semitic, but even created a House Resolution painting her words as hateful, I wasn’t just agitated. I was absolutely disgusted.

Omar has criticized the U.S. government’s support for Israeli actions that break international law. And she’s spoken out against the role money in politics plays in shoring up that support.

Neither is anti-semitic.

What is anti-semitic is the cacophony of mainstream media and politicians saying that criticizing U.S. policy toward the state of Israel is the same as attacking Jewish people.

Like most American Jewish youth, I grew up knowing Israel. During holidays, I sang prayers about Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel. In Hebrew school, I learned about the country’s culture, its cities, its past prime ministers. At my Jewish summer camp, we started every day with the Israeli national anthem, Hatikvah.

My image of Israel was a rosy one. When I finally visited it in college, I was spellbound by the lush landscapes and sparkling cities, certain I would one day move to this golden ancestral home myself.

All this emotional buildup made it all the more sickening when, in the years that followed, I learned the realities of the Israeli occupation.

The modern state of Israel was established by Zionists — a nationalist movement started by European Jews with the aim of creating a “Jewish state” as a refuge for persecuted Jews.

It’s true that Jews have faced centuries of brutal persecution in Europe. But the Zionists’ project shared unmistakably European colonialist roots.

In 1948, Israel’s war of independence led to the Nakba, an invasion driving 700,000 Palestinians from their homes. These Palestinians were never allowed to return, creating a massive refugee population that today numbers over 7 million.

While I was able to travel freely up and down Israel, the Palestinians who once lived there are legally barred from returning. While I wandered the marketplaces trying stews and shawarmas, Palestinians in Gaza can’t afford even the gas to cook their foodbecause of the Israeli blockade.

Zionism didn’t create an inclusive Jewish refuge either. In fact, the diverse Mizrahi — or Arab — Jewish population that was already thriving in Palestine was pushed out of Israeli society as Ashkenazi — or European — Jews became the elite class.

What it did create is an imperialist stronghold that continues to break international law by building settlements deeper and deeper into Palestinian territory, giving Jewish Israelis superior legal status to Arab Israelis and Palestinians, and attacking all who protest.

Since Israel’s origin, the U.S. has supplied tens of billions of dollars of military aid and ardent political support. Congress consistently ignores dozens of UN resolutions condemning Israeli abuses, and year after year gives it more resources to violently oppress impoverished Palestinians.

Pro-Israel lobbying groups’ considerable political influence has even pushed Congress to consider bills punishing Americans who support Palestinian rights. (Around half of all states already have such laws.)

More broadly, they rely on villainizing critics with false claims of antisemitism — especially when the criticism comes from a person of color, as we’ve seen with Angela Davis, Marc Lamont Hill, and Michelle Alexander before Rep. Omar.

I, along with an increasing number of young American Jews, want to discuss U.S. support of Israel. Talking foreign policy is not anti-semitism.

What is anti-semitic — always — is saying that all Jews support violence and imperialism.

https://ips-dc.org/criticizing-israel-isnt-anti-semitic-heres-what-is/

 

Anti-Semitism or Antisemitism

What’s in a hyphen? Why writing anti-Semitism with a dash distorts its meaning

Regularly spelled with a hyphen in American English but without in academia, some experts claim the punctuation mark slashes the word’s potency

In April of 2015, Microsoft received an unusual memo. Crafted on behalf of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, a group of scholars issued a “Memo on Spelling of Antisemitism,” urging a change to the mammoth hi-tech company’s auto-correct spelling policy. Until then, a hyphen had been perfunctorily added between “anti” and “Semitism” in the word commonly used for hatred and prejudice against Jews.

Far from being an innocuous debate over semantics, the IHRA claimed that a hyphened “anti-Semitism” gave credence to discredited Nazi racial theories, wherein humanity was divided into superior and inferior subcategories. Additionally, claimed the scholars, a hyphen dilutes and distorts the term’s meaning by implying that groups other than Jews are included within the supposed “Semites” being opposed.

Case in point is a 2015 speech given by consumer rights advocate Ralph Nader: “[Supporters of Israel] know how to accuse people of anti-Semitism if any issue on Israel is criticized, even though the worst anti-Semitism in the world today is against Arabs and Arab-Americans,” he said.

Addressing a gathering of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the five-time presidential nominee’s remarks focused heavily on Jews and Israel.

According to Nader, a longtime critic of the Jewish state, “The Semitic race is Arabs and Jews and Jews do not own the phrase anti-Semitism.” For this and other remarks, Nader was accused of “linguistically hijacking” the term anti-Semitism by some critics.

Like the word “Aryan,” the term “Semitism” is based on a mythical conglomeration of languages and race, as opposed to science. “Semites” were people who spoke one of several related languages, all of whom traced their roots to the Bible’s Shem, Noah’s son.

The term “antisemitism,” coined in 1879, was not a reference to groups of people who spoke similar Levant-based languages. Rather, as “invented” by German journalist Wilhelm Marr, “antisemitism” was intended to give an air of modernity and science to old-fashioned Jew-hatred.

After its inception in Germany, antisemitism — without a hyphen — spread across the continent. The term was never hyphenated in German, Spanish, or French. In English, however, the term has come to appear with a hyphen in most popular usages, outside of Europe.

For the IHRA, the addition of a hyphen to antisemitism is problematic in part because the group sees the hyphen as a “[legitimization] of a form of pseudo-scientific racial classification that was thoroughly discredited by association with Nazi ideology.”

According to the alliance, adding a hyphen also “divides the term, stripping it from its meaning of opposition and hatred toward Jews. Antisemitism should be read as a unified term so that the meaning of the generic term for modern Jew-hatred is clear.

“At a time of increased violence and rhetoric aimed towards Jews, it is urgent that there is clarity and no room for confusion or obfuscation when dealing with antisemitism,” stated the alliance.

‘Overreaction to Arab claims’
Since 2015, governments around the world have adopted the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, and Microsoft no longer “forces” a hyphen into the term. However, most English-language media outlets and writers outside of academia — including this one — continue to employ a hyphenated anti-Semitism.

Unlike those in the ivory tower, in the assessment of some Jewish communal practitioners, now is not the time for a semantic debate. When questioned by The Times of Israel, very few experts expressed concern about anti-Semitism continuing to be spelled with a hyphen among the general public.

Ken Jacobson, the Anti-Defamation League’s deputy national director, believes the conversation is “intellectually dueling and largely divorced from reality.”

In Jacobson’s assessment, the debate is “is an overreaction to Arab claims that they can’t be anti-Semites because they are a Semitic people,” he said.

Calling the term anti-Semitism “archaic and strange,” Jacobson noted that “it took the shock of Russian pogroms and the Holocaust to bring the term into everyday usage,” as he told The Times of Israel.

Because the term anti-Semitism has been spelled with a hyphen “millions of times in every vehicle possible,” said Jacobson, “changing it will not enhance anyone’s understanding and could even undermine a word that aptly conveys the power of this evil.” said Jacobson.

For Rob Leikind, head of Boston’s American Jewish Committee chapter, “There are good arguments with which to contend that the spelling ‘antisemitism’ more accurately depicts anti-Jewish hostility or prejudice than the spelling ‘anti-Semitism.’”

However, said Leikind, “‘anti-Semitism’ is the common way to spell the word, some extremists excepted. Nearly everyone understands that this word references Jews alone, and changing to ‘antisemitism’ would accomplish little beyond causing additional confusion.”

Clarity is also on the mind of journalist Cnaan Liphshiz, a Netherlands-based reporter for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

“In my professional capacity I use whatever the style guide requires. Personally, I find the debate too persnickety to feel strongly about one way or another,” said Liphshiz, who regularly writes about anti-Semitism in Europe.

“However, I’m inclined to use the non-hyphenated variant because that’s how it’s spelled in virtually all the European languages that I monitor for my reporting,” said Liphshiz.

‘Embedded in our collective consciousness’
Among experts questioned by The Times of Israel, several made cases for the importance of “antisemitism,” as opposed to “anti-Semitism.”

“The term anti-Semitism (as you apparently spell it) is meaningless, because there is no Semitism one can be ‘anti’ to,” wrote Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer in an email to The Times of Israel.

According to Bauer, “There are Semitic languages, including for instance Tigrean in Ethiopia, and the term hardly refers to antipathy towards the Tigre. You cannot be anti-Semitic just as you cannot be anti-Indo-European,” said Bauer.

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, head of the AMCHA Initiative focused on campus anti-Semitism, wrote that “Anti-anything — with a hyphen — describes a state of being opposed to a particular policy, idea or thing at a particular time.”

However, added Rossman-Benjamin, anti-Semitism goes beyond “opposition” to Jews, and involves “a profound and irrational hatred of them, a phenomenon embedded in our collective consciousness that has existed longer than any other form of hatred. Anti-Semitism — with the hyphen — does not seem to me to capture this understanding of the word,” she said.

According to Rossman-Benjamin, a hyphen-less antisemitism “is also the recognized spelling among scholars of antisemitism and the one we use in all of our scholarly work. The confusion arises because anti-Semitism — with the hyphen — has become the accepted spelling in most dictionaries and spell-checkers.”

Despite her case for ditching the hyphen, Rossman-Benjamin was pragmatic about the likelihood of “anti-Semitism” disappearing from popular use.

“The approach we take is to use antisemitism in the vast majority of our work, including scholarly articles, research, reports and presentations,” said Rossman-Benjamin. “However, when writing for news outlets we have no problem including the hyphen to be consistent with the preferred spelling of reporters, editors and fact-checkers, and it saves us much back-and-forth on corrections.”

Another organization with a focus on combating Judeophobia on campus is StandWithUs, which provides activists with strategies and materials about — for example — how to defend Israel against the BDS movement.

According to StandWithUs co-founder and CEO Roz Rothstein, her organization has always used a hyphenated anti-Semitism.

“As incidents of anti-Semitism across the US and other countries have escalated, and the conversation should address both the incidents and the immediate need for solutions, we don’t want to distract people from the importance of the conversation by throwing a new spelling at them,” said Rothstein.

Echoing that sentiment was Alvin H. Rosenfeld, director of Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism.

“Will spelling the word in an unhyphenated way as “antisemite” and not “anti-Semite” correct its misuse? Probably not for those who willfully misuse it, but for others, it may clarify that no one ever beat or cursed a Jew because he hated ‘Semitism,’ but only because he hated Jews,” wrote Rosenfeld.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/whats-in-a-hyphen-why-writing-anti-semitism-with-a-dash-distorts-its-meaning/

 

I urge all who read here to please watch the following video

Christian Zionism: The Antichrists’ Rewrite of History- The Scofield Bible is a LIE!

Before the foul Scofield bible, Christians in the USA all opposed the Zionist takeover of Palestine, declaring it to be an act of great evil. So the backers of Zionism, engineered a mass misinformation effort, with such corrupted, anti-truth, Antichrist tools of deception, as the Scofield Bible, which has been written, backed and promoted by those of the evil Satanic New World Order which detests devout Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. The Scofield bible created the false “Christian Zionism” by deceiving people into supporting Zionism. Many Clergy have exposed the lies of the Scofield bible and Christian Zionism and that it is completely untrue. Good Jews, the world over, condemn Zionism as being agaisnt God and Holy Scripture.

Christian Zionism – part 2

Christian Zionism – part 2

Christian Zionism – part 2

The Deceit of Christian Zionism

 

This content is posted for the purpose of understanding Biblical prophecy and current world events – supposedly aligned with such.

I have no secular political interest or agenda other than that which pertains to my pursuit and understanding  of  Biblical Truth.

 

At least one in four American Christians surveyed recently by Christianity Today magazine said that they believe it is their biblical responsibility to support the nation of Israel. This view is known as Christian Zionism. The Pew Research Center put the figure at 63 per cent among white evangelicals. Christian Zionism is pervasive within mainline American evangelical, charismatic and independent denominations including the Assemblies of God, Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, as well as many of the independent mega-churches. It is less prevalent within the historic denominations, which show a greater respect for the work of the United Nations, support for human rights, the rule of international law and empathy with the Palestinians.

The origins of the movement can be traced to the early 19th century when a group of eccentric British Christian leaders began to lobby for Jewish restoration to Palestine as a necessary precondition for the return of Christ. The movement gained traction from the middle of the 19th century when Palestine became strategic to British, French and German colonial interests in the Middle East. Proto-Christian Zionism therefore preceded Jewish Zionism by more than 50 years. Some of Theodore Herzl’s strongest advocates were Christian clergy.

Christian Zionism as a modern theological and political movement embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism. It has become deeply detrimental to a just peace between Palestine and Israel. It propagates a worldview in which the Christian message is reduced to an ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today.

Followers of Christian Zionism are convinced that the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 and the capture of Jerusalem in 1967 were the miraculous fulfillment of God’s promises made to Abraham that he would establish Israel as a Jewish nation forever in Palestine.

Tim LaHaye’s infamous Left Behind novels, together with other End Times speculations written by authors such as Hal Lindsey, John Hagee and Pat Robertson, have sold well over 100 million copies. These are supplemented by children’s books, videos and event violent computer games.

Burgeoning Christian Zionist organizations such as the International Christian Embassy (ICEJ), Christian Friends of Israel (CFI) and Christians United for Israel (CUFI) wield considerable influence on Capitol Hill, claiming a support base in excess of 50 million true believers. This means there are now at least ten times as many Christian Zionists as Jewish Zionists. And their European cousins are no less active in the Zionist Hasbarafia, lobbying for Israel, attacking its critics and thwarting the peace process. The United States and Israel are often portrayed as Siamese twins, joined at the heart, sharing common historic, religious and political values.

Pastor John Hagee is one of the leaders of the Christian Zionist movement. He is the Founder and Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church, a 19,000-member evangelical church in San Antonio, Texas. His weekly programmes are broadcast on 160 TV stations, 50 radio stations and eight networks into an estimated 99 million homes in 200 countries. In 2006 he founded Christians United for Israel admitting,

“For 25 almost 26 years now, I have been pounding the evangelical community over television. The Bible is a very pro-Israel book. If a Christian admits ‘I believe the Bible,’ I can make him a pro-Israel supporter or they will have to denounce their faith. So I have the Christians over a barrel, you might say.”

In March 2007, Hagee spoke at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference. He began by saying:

“The sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awakened. There are 50 million Christians standing up and applauding the State of Israel…”

As the Jerusalem Post pointed out, his speech did not lack clarity. He went on to warn:

“It is 1938. Iran is Germany, and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler. We must stop Iran’s nuclear threat and stand boldly with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East… Think of our potential future together: 50 million evangelicals joining in common cause with 5 million Jewish people in America on behalf of Israel is a match made in heaven.”

Christian Zionists have shown varying degrees of enthusiasm for implementing six basic political convictions that arise from their ultra-literal and fundamentalist theology:

  1. The belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people leads Christian Zionists to seek to bless Israel in material ways. However, this also invariably results in the uncritical endorsement of and justification for Israel’s racist and apartheid policies, in the media, among politicians and through solidarity tours to Israel.
  2. As God’s chosen people, the final restoration of the Jews to Israel is therefore actively encouraged, funded and facilitated through partnerships with the Jewish Agency.
  3. Eretz Israel, as delineated in scripture, from the Nile to the Euphrates, belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, therefore the land must be annexed, Palestinians driven from their homes and the illegal Jewish settlements expanded and consolidated.
  4. Jerusalem is regarded as the eternal and exclusive capital of the Jews, and cannot be shared with the Palestinians. Therefore, strategically, Christian Zionists have lobbied the US Administration to relocate its embassy to Jerusalem and thereby ensure that Jerusalem is recognised as the capital of Israel.
  5. Christian Zionists offer varying degrees of support for organisations such as the Jewish Temple Mount Faithful who are committed to destroying the Dome of the Rock and rebuilding the Jewish Temple on the Haram Al-Sharif (Noble sanctuary of Al-Aqsa).
  6. Christian Zionists invariably have a pessimistic view of the future, convinced that there will be an apocalyptic war of Armageddon in the imminent future. They are deeply sceptical of the possibility of a lasting peace between Jews and Arabs and therefore oppose the peace process. Indeed, to advocate an Israeli compromise of “land for peace” with the Palestinians is seen as a rejection of God’s promises to Israel and therefore to support her enemies.

Within the Christian Zionist worldview, Palestinians are regarded as alien residents in Israel. Many Christian Zionists are reluctant even to acknowledge Palestinians exist as a distinct people, claiming that they emigrated to Israel from surrounding Arab nations for economic reasons after Israel had become prosperous. A fear and deep-seated hatred of Islam also pervades their dualistic Manichean theology. Christian Zionists have little or no interest in the existence of indigenous Arab Christians despite their continuity with the early church.

In 2006, I co-drafted the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism signed by four of the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem: His Beatitude Patriarch Michel Sabbah, Latin Patriarch, Jerusalem; Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad, Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem; Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal, Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East; and Bishop Munib Younan, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land. In it they insisted:

“We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as a false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organisations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of world.

We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!

We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state and peace and security in the entire region.”

The patriarchs concluded, “God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently.” The prophet Micah asks, “What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8).

It is my contention after more than 10 years of postgraduate research that Christian Zionism is the largest, most controversial and most destructive lobby within Christianity. It bears primary responsibility for perpetuating tensions in the Middle East, justifying Israel’s apartheid colonialist agenda and for undermining the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

The closing chapter of the New Testament takes us back to the imagery of the Garden of Eden and the removal of the curse arising from the Fall:

“Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb… On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.” (Revelation 22:1-2)

Surely this is what Jesus had in mind when he instructed his followers to act as Ambassadors of peace and reconciliation, to work and pray that God’s kingdom would come on earth as it is in heaven.

Stephen Sizer

Reproduced with thanks from Middle East Monitor.

https://stephensizer.com/2013/08/christian-zionism-the-new-heresy-that-undermines-middle-east-peace/

Zionism defined

In general terms, Zionism may be defined as ‘the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel’. The term ‘Zionism’ was first coined in 1892 by Nathan Birnbaum, then a student in Vienna. A year later he published a booklet entitled, The National Rebirth of the Jewish People in Its Homeland as a Means of Solving the Jewish Problem, in which he advocated Jewish nationalistic ideas that Theodor Herzl was to later expound in A Jewish State, published in 1896. At the First World Zionist Congress, which Herzl convened in Basle a year later, he and Birnbaum articulated the deep longings of many Jewish people for their own homeland. Various strands of Zionism emerged in the early twentieth century including practical, socialist and communist.

The most recent and probably most destructive form to appear is known as Messianic Zionism. Distinct from much more traditional and less extreme expressions of Zionism, this is associated with individuals like Rabbi Kahne and Gershon Salomon, together with the Gush Emunim movement and the Temple Mount Faithful. Messianic Zionism was spawned from within the ultra-Orthodox subcultures of the ‘Charedi Bible-belt’ around Jerusalem following the 1967 ‘Six Day War’. The Charedim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) were, according to Sachar, ‘the first to embrace the territorialist mysticism inherent in the 1967 triumph’ and came to be a decisive factor in Likud’s electoral victory in 1997. Equating Arabs with the ancient Amalekites, and convinced they have a divinely ordained mandate to carry out ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Israel, religious Zionists have been in the forefront of the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, attacks on Muslims and mosques and the systematic expansion of the West Bank settlements, especially in places like Arab East Jerusalem and Hebron. Ironically, the Zionist vision which initially called simply for a ‘publicly secured and legally assured homeland for the Jews in Palestine’, was largely nurtured and shaped by Christians long before it was able to inspire wide-spread Jewish support. As will be shown in chapter one (Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon), proto-Christian Zionism predated and nurtured Jewish Zionism, while the contemporary Christian Zionist movement emerged only after 1967, alongside Messianic Zionism, in part in reaction to the widespread criticism Israel has endured over the last thirty-five years.

Christian Zionism defined

At its simplest, Christian Zionism is a political form of philo-Semitism, and can be defined as ‘Christian support for Zionism’. The term ‘Christian Zionist’ first appears to have been used by Theodor Herzl to describe Henri Dunant, the Swiss philanthropist and founder of the Red Cross. Dunant was one of only a handful of Gentiles to be invited to the First World Zionist Congress. Walter Riggans interprets the term in an overtly political sense as ‘any Christian who supports the Zionist aim of the sovereign State of Israel, its army, government, education etc., but it can describe a Christian who claims to support the State of Israel for any reason’. Evangelicals, in particular, are increasingly polarized as to whether Christian Zionism is biblical and orthodox or heretical and cultic. Two mutually exclusive positions have emerged – that of covenantalism and dispensationalism.

Stephen Sizer

 

 

The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism

“Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

Christian Zionism is a modern theological and political movement that embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel. The Christian Zionist programme provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it places an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ’s love and justice today.

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organizations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of the world.

We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from the ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!

We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region.

We call upon all Churches that remain silent, to break their silence and speak for reconciliation with justice in the Holy Land.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to the following principles as an alternative way:

We affirm that all people are created in the image of God. In turn they are called to honor the dignity of every human being and to respect their inalienable rights.

We affirm that Israelis and Palestinians are capable of living together within peace, justice and security.

We affirm that Palestinians are one people, both Muslim and Christian. We reject all attempts to subvert and fragment their unity.

We call upon all people to reject the narrow world view of Christian Zionism and other ideologies that privilege one people at the expense of others.

We are committed to non-violent resistance as the most effective means to end the illegal occupation in order to attain a just and lasting peace.

With urgency we warn that Christian Zionism and its alliances are justifying colonization, apartheid and empire-building.

God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently.

“What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)

This is where we take our stand. We stand for justice. We can do no other. Justice alone guarantees a peace that will lead to reconciliation with a life of security and prosperity for all the peoples of our Land. By standing on the side of justice, we open ourselves to the work of peace – and working for peace makes us children of God.

“God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Cor 5:19)

His Beattitude Patriarch Michel Sabbah,
Latin Patriarchate, Jerusalem

Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad,
Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem

Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal,
Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East

Bishop Munib Younan,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land

August 22, 2006

 

Professor Donald Wagner and Stephen Sizer co-wrote the declaration at the invitation of the heads of churches in Jerusalem. Theirs was  based on an earlier statement endorsed at the 5th International Sabeel Conference in April 2004.

 

Stephen Sizer

http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2011/09/jerusalem-declaration-on-christian.html 

 

 

Books written by Stephen Sizer

Christian Zionism: Roadmap to Armageddon? 

 

Evangelical Christians are sometimes accused of not being sufficiently interested in politics and not contributing to the great debates about social welfare in our world today. ‘Too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use’, is the charge. While there may often be truth in this accusation, Stephen Sizer’s challenging study of Christian Zionism demonstrates that there is at least one area in contemporary politics where this is decidedly not so. But is the influence of Christian Zionism valid and helpful? Is the theological basis of this political stance misguided and the outcome contrary to God’s will?

Stephen’s careful survey of this movement demonstrates that theology really matters and, if the theology is wrong, the consequences are disastrous. Prior to examining the theological position of the various strands of Christian Zionism, Stephen devotes his first chapter to an historical exploration of the development of this movement. He traces the transition of Christian Zionism from early nineteenth-century rural England to mainstream American evangelicalism in the twentieth century.

He notes the historical and interpretative reasons why Christian Zionism evolved into different schools of thought. Then he launches into a theological analysis and critique of those positions in his second chapter.

Seven basic theological tenets are accepted in varying degrees by evangelical Christian Zionists. The foundation upon which the other tenets are based is a literalist hermeneutic and a consistently futurist reading of prophecy. Quite apart from the political outcome of this way of reading the Bible, there are serious implications for the church and the gospel. At heart of the problem, he claims, there is actually a devaluing of the significance of the Lord Jesus Christ and his atoning work for Israel and the nations.

The third chapter of this book shows how the belief that the Jews remain God’s chosen people (apart from Christ and his church) leads Christian Zionists to endorse and justify many of the current policies of the Israeli government, including the annexation and settlement of Palestinian-owned land. The return of Jews to Israel is actively encouraged and facilitated. Western governments are pressured to relocate their embassies to Jerusalem and to recognize this as the eternal and exclusive capital of the Jews.

Those who believe that Scripture predicts the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and a reinstitution of the priesthood and sacrificial system offer varying degrees of support to Jewish Temple Mount organizations committed to achieving this end. Moreover, as Stephen concludes, since Christian Zionists are convinced there will be an apocalyptic war between good and evil in the near future, there is no prospect for lasting peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, to advocate that Israel compromise with Islam or coexist with Palestinians is to identify with those destined to oppose God and Israel in the imminent battle of Armageddon (p. 252).

Stephen shows that the New Testament must be our guide in understanding how the Old Testament has been fulfilled for us in Christ and in judging what remains to be worked out in history. Every Christian needs to be clear about the way the Bible fits together, observing the way the inspired writers of the New Testament reveal this. But especially those who presume to tell us how the future will unfold need to be sure that they are not misusing the Bible and, in their misguided zeal, dishonouring God. I hope that Christian Zionists who read this book will recognize that it is written by someone who believes in the inspiration and authority of Scripture as they do, and will consider carefully the challenge he brings to their particular line of interpretation.

David Peterson Oak Hill College, London

 

The following three chapters are a summary of the book:

Christian Zionism Master History (part 1)

Christian Zionism Master Theology (part 2)

Christian Zionism Master Politics (part 3)

 

◊ Zion’s Christian Soldiers 

What is the Relationship between Israel and the Church?

Seven Biblical Answers 

It is not an understatement to say that what is at stake is our understanding of the gospel, the centrality of the cross, the role of the church, and the nature of our missionary mandate, not least, to the beloved Jewish people. If we don’t see Jesus at the heart of the Hebrew scriptures, and the continuity between his Old Testament and New Testament saints in the one inclusive Church, we’re not reading them correctly. The key question is this “Was the coming of Jesus and the birth of the Church the fulfilment or the postponement of the promises God made to Abraham?” Christian Zionists see the promises of identity, land and destiny as part of an ongoing covenant God has with the Jewish people. In the following resources I answer this question and show that Christian Zionism is a recent manifestation of a heresy refuted by the Old and New Testaments.

 

Attached is a simple four page introduction to the main biblical passages that answer and refute the most common Zionist assumptions about God’s purposes for Israel and the Church. It is also available as a pdf download

 

 

The following videos and literature presented by Rev. Stephen Sizer provide a comprehensive background to the origins and the growth of Christian Zionsism. 

Christian Zionism – Road-map to Armageddon?

 

 This presentation is a summary of my book ‘Zion’s Christian Soldiers’ published by IVP. stephensizer.com/books/zions-christian-soldiers/

It was delivered at the Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding Executive Briefing in Fremont, California in November 2011. emeu.net

 It was also delivered at the Christ at the Checkpoint conference in Bethlehem in March 2012.

Stephen Sizer

 

The Historical Roots of Christian Zionism, its Theological Basis and Political Agenda.

In this talk, Reverend Dr. Stephen Sizer discusses how the movement of Christian Zionism preceded Jewish Zionism by at least 50 years and facilitated the establishment of the State of Israel.

 

 

 Acknowledgements of Stephen Sizer’s works:

 “I am glad to commend Stephen Sizer’s ground-breaking critique of Christian Zionism. His comprehensive overview of its roots, its theological basis and its political consequences is very timely. I myself believe that Zionism, both political and Christian, is incompatible with biblical faith. Stephen’s book has helped to reinforce this conviction.” Revd John Stott, Rector Emeritus, All Soul’s, Langham Place, London, the principal framer of the Lausanne Covenant (1974) and founder of the Langham Partnership International.

 “This is a very fine and important book.  All Christians who believe that Jesus favoured peacemakers, should read it and realise what terrible harm is being done in the name of Christianity.  And all who are concerned about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict should read it to understand how Christian Zionism disables the US as fair minded mediator.  European foreign policy thinkers should read it,because this distortion of US political space, puts a greater responsibility on European governments to stand up for justice and international law” Right Hon. Clare Short, former British Secretary of State for International Development.

 

Sixty Academics Endorse Christian Zionism Book

 

The following 2 part broadcsast are the product of a Catholic Brother André Marie.

There are a few references to Cathoilic doctrine contained in these videos which I clearly reject but the majority of the content is very worthwhile.

I have shared this material for the subject matter of Christian Zionism only.

 

 

Christian Zionism part 1:

Tracing the Lines of a Warmongering Heresy

 

 

Christian Zionism part 2:

Why Christian Zionism Is a Problem

 

“It is true that at various times in the past, churches and church leaders have tolerated or incited anti-Semitism and even attacks on Jewish people. Racism is a sin and without excuse. Anti-Semitism must be repudiated unequivocally. However, we must not confuse apples and oranges. Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as anti-Semitism despite attempts to broaden the definition. Criticising a political system as racist is not necessarily racist. Judaism is a religious system. Israel is a sovereign nation. Zionism is a political system. These three are not synonymous. I respect Judaism, repudiate anti-Semitism, encourage interfaith dialogue and defend Israel’s right to exist within borders recognised by the international community and agreed with her neighbours. But like many Jews, I disagree with a political system which gives preference to expatriate Jews born elsewhere in the world, while denying the same rights to the Arab Palestinians born in the country itself.”

Stephen Sizer

Additional reading:

 John Nelson Darby and Plymouth Brethren Wikipedia articles on the man and the sect that invented premillennial dispensationalism and popularized the notion of “the rapture.”

True Torah JewsNeturei Karta InternationalInternational Jewish anti-Zionist Network — three Jewish organizations (with otherwise divergent outlooks) that oppose Zionism.

The Scofield Bible—The Book That Made Zionists of America’s Evangelical Christiansby Maidhc Ó Cathail at the Washington Report on Middle East Affair

The Origins of the Israel Lobby in the USby Alison Weir at counterpunch.org

The Lions of Albion and Israel in Palestine: 1945-1948by Christopher J. Carter at remnantnewspaper.com

 

Christian Zionism – part 1

Christian Zionism – part 1

Christian Zionism – part 1

Jewish Opposition to Zionism

There should be no doubt in anyones mind that the Jewish people have endured tremendous persecution throughout the ages and persists to this day. It appears to me though that most of today’s anger towards the Jewish people revolves around the land of Israel and the conflict with the displaced Palestinian people.

On closer investigation into the term ‘antisemitism’ I discovered that there are many angles of attack that all seem to be branded as ‘antisemitic.

I have included below some content which sets out to describe what ‘antisemitism’ is and it’s many disguises in the world today – articles by Ellen Wexler and Rabbi Sacks.

What I find the most interesting, is to find how outspoken the religious sector of Judaism is with regards to the state of Israel and its legitimacy to exist – refer videos.

 My interest in this topic is solely from the perspective of understanding Scriptural Truth and not any political agenda or interest,

Before continuing, the reader needs to remember that the Jewish people do not recognise the Renewed Covenant i.e. the New Testament, and therefore any understanding of the New Testament believer pertaining to the future land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem should differ greatly from that of the Jew. For instance the book of Revelation reveals that the New Jerusalem is the ‘Bride’ of Yahushua and is not a reference to a section of land in Israel called Jerusalem. This is how Bible scholars should see the future Jerusalem anyway – emphasis on ‘future’.

The same principle applies to Israel. When one unpacks the story of Jacob’s name change to Israel then one discovers who New Testament Israel is. This is a reference to those people who have wrestled with their flesh nature, which opposes righteousness, and have overcome their flesh nature to submit wholly to the will of the Almighty.

There is much more detail/Scripture to back this claim up but I do not want to digress here.

Having said the above, all New Testament believers in the Messiah should understand and recognise the Jewish people as our lost brother. After all Jacob had twelve sons which eventually split up into the two separate kingdoms – North and South. The majority on New Testament Believers/Christians are seen as the lost Northern house/kingdom – the ‘Prodigal son’.

New Testament believers are the wild olive which has been grafted into the olive tree – Romans chapter 11:

For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root beholy, so are the branches.

And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in hisgoodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

Romans 11:15-24

 

Romans chapter 2 defines who a New Testamnet Jew is:

 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is thatcircumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 2:28-29

 

Following my investigation into the term ‘antisemitism’ it does appear to me that this label would be applied to anyone who criticises or maligns anything to do with Jewishness, whether it be Judaism as a religion or Israel as a country. It has become equally apparant to me that the more religious group of Jewish people i.e. the vast majority of Torah observers, are very critical of the existance of Israel as a sovereign country. A quick search on ‘Google’ images of ‘Jews against Zionism’ will reveal how big this opposition is.

 Many Christians and others would probably think that most Jews are united in their view concerning the land of Israel today. This is however not the case. According to the statements made by the Rabbis in the video material provided It appears that mostly secular Jews are the patriotic people.

There are many Christian church groups and organisations who stand in support of Isreal as a sovereign state and believe that the formation of Israel as a country is the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy. The vast majority of religious Rabbis it seems, would disagree with this view.

My view is that the Father is Almighty and Sovereign. It is clear that He has allowed the formation of Israel as a country and Jerusalem as it’s capital city. Whether it appears to be legitimate or not to us, it is clearly the will of the Almighty for this time. The New Testamant Scripture reveals a change though, which is soon coming. Until that time comes we are faced with the world as it is – in it’s fallen state.

I would like to express my view that I am against any human rights abuse, or the persecution of any indiviual or group, based on either their ethnicity or religion. We must embrace the teaching of our Messiah Y’Shua in that he did not come the first time 2000 years ago to judge but rather to set free. The time for judgement is coming when Y’Shua will judge all people as the King of Kings and Master of Masters.

Until then let us keep our peace and pursue righteousness in our own lives.

I have provided you with some material below to enlighten you and possibly broaden your traditional view on this subjcet.

 

After reading the following and watching the video footage – You decide.

 

The Semantics of Anti-Semitism

BY ELLEN WEXLER

In the late 1800s, a German writer and political agitator named Wilhelm Marr published a pamphlet called “The Way to Victory of Judaism over Germanism.” The idea was that Jews and Germans were locked in perpetual conflict, which could only end, Marr worried, with one group’s victory over the other. And the Jews were ahead.

Today, Marr is credited with coining the term “anti-Semitism.” Compared to previously existing words, anti-Semitism “was meant to be a kind of technical term,” says Ken Jacobson, deputy national director of the Anti-Defamation League. It described an attitude based on ideas about Jews as a race, and it was intended to foster a scientific basis for hatred.

But since Marr’s time, the term “anti-Semitism” has evolved. As scholarship on the subject grew, the available vocabulary expanded. Today, its definition—and its boundaries—are uncertain. “Anti-Semitism” is but one of a convoluted, interconnected web of similar words—including “anti-Judaism,” “anti-Zionism,” “Judeophobia” and “Zionophobia.”

What, for instance, is the difference between “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Judaism”? David Nirenberg, author of Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, makes a nuanced distinction: Anti-Semitism takes aim at real Jews, while anti-Judaism opposes a broader system of thought. When the word “Judaize” first appeared in a conversation between the New Testament’s Paul and Peter, it referred to Christians who wanted—mistakenly—to observe Jewish laws. For early Christians, Judaism became associated with a misguided set of beliefs: taking something too literally, or placing too much emphasis on the law. Over the years, anti-Judaism took on a broader meaning: Someone could be accused of acting like a Jew for displaying greed or lending money. “If you read any source about the economy, say, from roughly the 12th century to the present,” says Nirenberg, “people are constantly talking about certain forms of relationship to money, certain uses of money, as being Jewish.” These prejudices played out everywhere from Shakespeare to Marx. The hatred of Judaism, and the need to fight against it—even in communities that had never met a Jew—became a constant in Western culture.

Some historians see anti-Judaism as a religious prejudice and anti-Semitism as a racial prejudice. But this framework is contentious. “The distinction that’s made between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism is a fallacious one,” says Brown University professor David Kertzer, who has written extensively on the Vatican’s role in modern anti-Semitism. In 1987, Pope John Paul II commissioned an investigation into this matter. The verdict was that, while the church had promoted anti-Judaism—or prejudice based in religion—it had not encouraged anti-Semitism. But “this narrative, while comforting,” says Kertzer, has no basis in reality. The church “had been involved in modern anti-Semitism right from the very beginning,” and Nazi messaging relied heavily on Christian imagery.

“Anti-Semitism” is but one of a convoluted, interconnected web of  similar words.
After the Holocaust, the world’s conception of anti-Semitism changed. When the horrors of the Holocaust became known, overt prejudice was no longer publicly acceptable. “People refrained for quite awhile,” says Jacobson. “But then along came this convenient thing, the State of Israel.” With the new country came a new vocabulary; words like anti-Zionism and anti-Israel entered the lexicon. In some cases, these prejudices drew on older ones: Criticizing the young country became “a convenient cover for those who had anti-Semitic attitudes but didn’t want to be seen that way.”

Still, “we hardly ever simply say that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism,” Jacobson adds. “That’s absurd.” In fact, before Israel’s founding, many mainstream Jews were anti-Zionist—some Orthodox Jews feared Zionism’s secular focus, while some Reform Jews preferred to focus on a worldwide Jewish community—and some Jews, for various reasons, still identify this way. But when contemporary groups, Jewish or secular, reject Zionism, they are often labeled anti-Semitic.

Today, debates about anti-Zionism are fraught—“Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism?” headlines ask—and the line between political critique and outright prejudice is hazy. “I don’t think the criticism of Israel today is necessarily anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic,” says Nirenberg. But if critiquing Israel becomes “a particularly important part of overcoming evil in the world,” he adds, “you have to ask yourself why.” Jacobson says there’s legitimate criticism of Israel, there’s criticism obviously motivated by prejudice—and then there’s everything in the middle, where the distinctions are harder to parse. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement sometimes falls into this third category, he says. “Many people behind BDS are anti-Semitic, but that doesn’t mean everyone who supports BDS is anti-Semitic.”

Judea Pearl, an Israeli-American computer science professor at UCLA, rejects that framework. “It is a grave mistake,” he says, “to calibrate the evils of anti-Zionism by the extent to which it resembles, or leads to, or encourages anti-Semitism, as if anti-Zionism is the lesser of the two evils.” In recent years, Pearl, whose son, Daniel, was murdered by Pakistani terrorists in 2002, has been pushing a new term: “Zionophobia,” which he defines as “the irrational fear of Zionism.” For Pearl, the word describes not just a political stance, but an immoral one: denying Jewish nationhood and self-determination. “Islamophobia” already holds a place in the public discourse, and he hopes that Zionophobia will be seen in a similar light. It “reminds us that religion does not have a monopoly on human sensitivity, and that Zionism has a moral dimension to it.”

With the addition of “phobia,” prejudices are framed as psychological phenomena. In 1882, Russian writer and activist Leon Pinsker used the term “Judeophobia,” which he considered a psychological disorder—specifically, a “psychic aberration”—that could be inherited and could not be cured. Still, for the most part, describing prejudice using the language of phobias is a modern phenomenon, related to psychology’s cultural dominance in the 20th century, says Jacobson.

The history of prejudice against Jews is complex, and so is the language we use to describe it. Most of the time Jacobson sticks with “anti-Semitism.” But even then, he says, “one has to use it sparingly and appropriately.”

https://momentmag.com/semantics-anti-semitism/

 

 

Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism

(Rabbi Sacks writes for Newsweek)

 

On March 27, speaking to the Sunday Times, former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams expressed his concern at rising levels of anti-Semitism on British university campuses. There are, he said, “worrying echoes” of Germany in the 1930s. Two days later, in The Times, Chris Bryant, the Shadow Leader of the House of Commons and a senior member of the British Labour party, warned that the political left was increasingly questioning the right of the state of Israel to exist, a view he called a “not too subtle form of anti-Semitism.”

Across Europe, Jews are leaving. A survey in 2013 by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights showed that almost a third of Europe’s Jews have considered emigrating because of anti-Semitism, with numbers as high as 46 percent in France and 48 percent in Hungary.

Nor is this a problem in Europe alone. A 2015 survey of North American Jewish college students by Brandeis University found that three-quarters of respondents had been exposed to anti-Semitic rhetoric. One third had reported incidents of harassment because they were Jewish. Much of the intimidation on campus is stirred by “Israel Apartheid” weeks and the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign against Israel. These have become what Easter was in the Middle Ages, a time for attacks against Jews.

Something is clearly happening, but what? Many on the left argue that they are being wrongly accused. They are not against Jews, they say, only opposed to the policies of the state of Israel. Here one must state the obvious. Criticism of the Israeli government is not anti-Semitic. Nor is the BDS movement inherently anti-Semitic. Many of its supporters have a genuine concern for human rights. It is, though, a front for the new anti-Semitism, an unholy alliance of radical Islamism and the political left.

What then is anti-Semitism? It is not a coherent set of beliefs but a set of contradictions. Before the Holocaust, Jews were hated because they were poor and because they were rich; because they were communists andbecause they were capitalists; because they kept to themselves and because they infiltrated everywhere; because they clung tenaciously to ancient religious beliefs and because they were rootless cosmopolitans who believed nothing.

Anti-Semitism is a virus that survives by mutating. In the Middle Ages, Jews were hated because of their religion. In the 19th and 20th centuries they were hated because of their race. Today they are hated because of their nation state, Israel. Anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism.

The legitimization has also changed. Throughout history, when people have sought to justify anti-Semitism, they have done so by recourse to the highest source of authority available within the culture. In the Middle Ages, it was religion. In post-Enlightenment Europe it was science. Today it is human rights. It is why Israel—the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East with a free press and independent judiciary—is regularly accused of the five crimes against human rights: racism, apartheid, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide. This is the blood libel of our time.

Anti-Semitism is a classic example of what anthropologist René Girard sees as the primal form of human violence: scapegoating. When bad things happen to a group, its members can ask two different questions: “What did we do wrong?” or “Who did this to us?” The entire fate of the group will depend on which it chooses.

If it asks, “What did we do wrong?” it has begun the self-criticism essential to a free society. If it asks, “Who did this to us?” it has defined itself as a victim. It will then seek a scapegoat to blame for all its problems. Classically this has been the Jews.

Today the argument goes like this. After the Holocaust, every right-thinking human being must be opposed to Nazism. Palestinians are the new Jews. The Jews are the new Nazis. Israel is the new crime against humanity. Therefore every right thinking person must be opposed to the state of Israel, and since every Jew is a Zionist, we must oppose the Jews. This argument is wholly wrong. It was Jews not Israelis who were murdered in terrorist attacks in Toulouse, Paris, Brussels and Copenhagen.

Anti-Semitism is a form of cognitive failure. It reduces complex problems to simplicities. It divides the world into black and white, seeing all the fault on one side and all the victimhood on the other. It singles out one group among a hundred offenders for the blame. It silences dissent and never engages in self-criticism. The argument is always the same. We are innocent; they are guilty. It follows that if we—Christians, members of the Aryan race or Muslims—are to be free, they, the Jews, or the state of Israel must be destroyed. That is how the great crimes begin.

Jews have been hated because they were different. They were the most conspicuous non-Christian minority in pre-World War Christian Europe. Today they are the most conspicuous non-Muslim presence in an Islamic Middle East. Anti-Semitism has always been about the inability of a group to make space for difference. No group that adopts it will ever create a free society.

The hate that begins with Jews never ends with Jews. In a world awash with hate across religious divides, people of all faiths and none must stand together, not just to defeat anti-Semitism but to ensure the rights of religious minorities are defended everywhere.

History will judge us by how we deal with this challenge. We must not fail.

 

 

 

 

The following videos are listed from the shortest (8.37min) to the longest (1hr29).

 

The 70th Palestinian Nakba Day – The Jewish perspective

Jews Worldwide Mourn 70 Years Existence of ‘Israel’ A Rebellion against the Almighty And a Disaster for Humanity

 

Rabbi Dovid Weiss:

Zionism has created ‘rivers of blood’ | Talk to Al Jazeera

The Jewish scholar explains why Zionism and Judaism are not necessarily the same thing and why he believes that Israel as a state is not legitimate.

 

Rabbi Dovid Weiss on Judaism, Israel and Zionism.

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss speaks about Judaism, Israel and Zionism. He shares the view that the state of Israel goes against the teachings of the Torah and that Judaism has been used and manipulated for political aims at the expense of the Palestinian people.

 

 

A documentary interview with Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss and Rabbi Moshe Dov Beck.

The documentary film is about the connection and differences between Judaism and Zionism.

 

 

Donna Nevel Zionism vs Antisemitism

Criticism of Israel, or of Zionism, which is an ideology, has become rampant, leading to accusations of anti-Semitism. A discussion between a jewish activist and a Jewish radio host, challenging labels of Anti-Semitism because people criticize Israel or advocate for BDS

 

The Business of Televangelism

The Business of Televangelism

The Business of Televangelism

 

 

Love them or hate them, Televangelists are woven into the very fabric of American life. Make no mistake about it, while the world of Televangelism has a 24/7 global reach, virtually all of the TV ministers hail from, live in, and operate out of the US. This is not to say that you won’t find any Televangelists in other countries – of course there are, but compared to the US operators, those based in other countries are small time operators, at best.

 Here in the US though, it is big business. How big, no one really knows, because all of the high profile ministers and their churches keep their financial records confidential. There’s no transparency, and according the American tax law, there doesn’t have to be.

 The reasons for this are easy to understand. In the US, we’ve had a tradition of building a wall of separation between Church and State that dates back as to the earliest days of our nation. That cuts both ways though: The Church stays out of government, and the government stays out of Church business.

 Unfortunately, the almost complete lack of oversight can (and has) led to a number of high profile abuses and excesses, and it may be causing at least some people in government to start to question whether they’ve been a bit too permissive where Churches (especially ones with large media footprints) are concerned.

 Who The Big Players Are

 The core doctrine of the Televangelist seems to be this: If you plant a seed in the form of cash, by giving it to one of these churches, then your seed will grow, and you’ll wind up getting the money you donated back, many times over.

 Exactly how or when you’ll get your money back is never explained. This, apparently is in God’s hands, and He hasn’t been terribly forthcoming about such things. In the meanwhile, even though we cannot peer directly into the financial records of the biggest Churches run by Televangelists, we can get a fairly good idea what they’re doing with all the money people keep sending them by examining the net worth of the ministers who run these Churches.

 That then, is where we’ll start. Now, understand that the people we’re about to mention all make basically the same claim. God blesses those who do His good work by providing them with riches, so according to these people, they deserve the riches they have, because it’s a sign that they’re doing what God wants them to do.

 To many, this may seem like a self-reinforcing “prophecy.” If you, as a Televangelist, can convince large groups of people who don’t have money to send you more than you can actually afford to send without skipping a meal, you can buy a multi-million dollar jet and a whole slew of multi-million dollar mansions (just call them “parsonages” and it’s fine with the IRS), and somehow convince yourself that it’s okay, because after all, God must want you to have these things, since you have them. Somehow the part about telling people that if they send you money, they’ll reap a return down the road just never enters into the equation.

 At any rate, here’s the list of the top Televangelists in the country, as ranked by their net worth:

 Kenneth Copeland – With a net worth of more than $760 million dollars, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, who jointly run Kenneth Copeland Ministries, are the 800-pound gorillas of the Televangelism world. They have more wealth than the rest of the name on the top list combined. His ministry’s campus is a sprawling 1500 acre estate near Fort Worth, Texas, and includes not just a church, but also a private airstrip, and a deluxe hanger for the ministry’s $17.5 million dollar jet. The ministry also owns a $6 million dollar “parsonage” which sits on the shores of a lovely lake, and is used to house the hard working minister and his family.

 ◊ Pat Robertson comes in a very distant second, with a still-hefty net worth of $100 million. His biggest claims to fame are the Christian Broadcasting Network, which operates out of Virginia, and an unsuccessful Presidential bid in the 1980’s. So much for the separation of Church and State.

 ◊ Benny Hinn – Weighing in with a net worth of $42 million, Mr. “Miracle Crusade” holds his meetings and revivals in major stadiums across the country and televised around the world.

 ◊ Joel Osteen – The media darling has a net worth of $40 million, and has one of the largest churches in the country, despite having almost no actual religious training. He inherited his church from his father, and took it up a notch when he moved the church to an old stadium that the city was abandoning.

 ◊ Creflo Dollar – Founder of World Changers International, more recently better known as being the guy who told his global congregation to “plant seeds” (code for sending him money) so he could buy a $65 million dollar jet that he wanted. Sadly, he got the money from people eager to plant seeds and reap eventually goodness in return for their generosity. Something about this message just seems to resonate with those who have little, and guys like this take full advantage.

 ◊ Billy Graham – With a net worth of $25 million, Billy Graham is the elder statesman of Televangelism, and is markedly different from everyone else on the list. Where the others use the meme “plant seeds” by sending me money, Billy Graham is, by all accounts, the genuine article. He puts his money where his mouth is. For instance, he was active in the civil rights movement and personally posted bail for Martin Luther King Jr., on numerous occasions. He also refused to speak at events that were segregated. Basically, you could say that Billy Graham is a minister who uses media to get his message out to more people, as opposed to being a businessman using the church to pretend to be something he’s not. He’s one of the (few) good guys in the business.

 It should be noted that most of these ministers and the Churches that they lead DO have missions in third world countries and they do spend some fraction of their money feeding and clothing the poor and doing the actual work God’s message talks about.

 It is equally clear, however, simply by looking at the parade of mansions, private jets, extensive security details, and skyscrapers built not to glorify God, but to glorify the ministers who built them, that significant portions of the donations they receive aren’t doing anything that could even remotely be described as “God’s Work.” 

 The Hall of Shame

 Part of what makes us cringe at high profile Televangelists is the fact of their excesses. The other part though, is the fact that their personal lives are often quite different from the gospel they preach. They can’t seem to live up to God’s ideal any more than the rest of us. The problem with that is that they use other people’s money to fund their lavish lifestyles. Then, of course, there’s a special subcategory of particularly slimy practices. Here, in no particular order, are the worst of the worst offenders:

 ◊ Gloria Copeland – Regularly tells her audience not to seek medical treatment like chemotherapy. Instead, they should be “planting seeds” (sending money to the Copeland Ministry) so God will bless them with a cure.

 ◊ Mike Murdock – Many of Mike’s followers are poor. So poor that they can’t afford to send him the money he needs to maintain his lavish lifestyle. His solution? He’s told his followers on national TV that if they put their donation on a credit card, that God will erase their credit debt for them. That’s disgusting.

 ◊ Robert Tilton – Best known for “speaking in tongues” on live TV, an ABC expose on the man revealed that he spent 67% of his on-air time asking for money. Unfortunately, Tilton’s ministry seems to be all about Tilton. He used his money to purchase his half million dollar vacation home in Florida, and is fifty-foot Carver yacht, among other things. The ABC expose found that most of the prayer requests his organization receives are simply thrown in the landfill, after the cash is removed.

 ◊ Jim and Tammy Bakker – Their well-known explosion was all over the news back in 1989 with fraud and infidelity being the twin missiles that brought the rising stars in the Televangelism world down. In addition to defrauding the public to help fund Heritage, Mr. Bakker was caught having a threesome with a church secretary named Jessican Hahn and John Wesley Fletcher in a Clearwater, Fl. Resort. The Bakkers were the founders of Heritage USA, which, back in its day, was a Christian Theme park and the third most popular theme park destination in the country, that featured, among other things, a life-sized version of the upper room, where the Last Supper was held. Although the Bakkers raised more than enough money to finish the Grand Tower, it was never completed, and to this day, nobody’s quite certain where all the money went, or why the church kept asking for more.

 ◊ Terry Smith – The pastor of Canyon Creek Baptist Church is a real piece of work. Not only was he caught having affairs with a variety of women who came to the church seeking marriage advice, but to help support his habit, he was arrested for shoplifting condoms! A relatively small fish in the pond we’re talking about, but put here to highlight the fact that even the guys who don’t have a truly global reach will often abuse what power and privilege they’ve got.

 ◊ Oral Roberts – Most famous for making a teary-eyed plea to his followers in 1987, warning them that God would “call him home” unless his ministry raised $8 million. His stunt actually pulled in $9.1 million. Nobody really knows why God insisted on that specific amount of money, or what was ultimately done with it. It remains a mystery.

 ◊ Jimmy Swaggart – Compared to many other Hall of Shame members, Swaggart really isn’t all that bad. So he’s been caught spending church money on a few high-dollar hookers. What’s wrong with that, right?

 ◊ Bob Larson – Mr. Larson might not be as big, or as well-known as some of the others, but in a lot of respects, he’s the poster child for everything that’s wrong with the industry. He’s been accused of plagiarism, been caught with hookers, been caught on film walking out of gay bath houses, molested a string of secretaries, and more. His answer to those charges? It wasn’t him. He claimed to have been physically impersonated by demonic doubles. Simply unbelievable.

 The list goes on, but you certainly get the idea. For every “good guy” using media to expand his (or her) reach and do God’s work, there appear to be several whose goal is to simply abuse the system and rake in as much money as possible before they’re caught.

 The bad news is, they are almost never caught. The IRS has only audited 3 churches since 2009. Three. You’re almost as likely to win the lottery as you are to be audited by the IRS if you run a church, and it’s incredibly easy to found one. Almost depressingly easily, actually.

 The Bottom Line

 Clearly, there are few people who would make the claim that one must make a vow of poverty in order to sincerely do God’s work (although our current Pope might disagree). It is equally clear though, that the biggest names in Televangelism have gone too far in the other direction. The signs of their excesses are everywhere, and if they were genuinely interested in doing God’s work, then one would imagine that the money they make would be better spent on more programs for the poor than on the sixth, tenth, or thirtieth multi-million dollar mansion for the ministers, their friends, and extended family.

 It’s hard to reach any other conclusion except that these people aren’t actually running Churches at all. They’re running vast corporate, self-serving empires that only masquerade as Churches in order to take advantage of lax IRS rules where Church oversight is concerned.

 Author: Nat Berman 

 https://moneyinc.com/dissecting-multi-billion-dollar-business-televangelism/

 

Please  read my article 

‘ A House of Merchandise’, 

inspired by the following Scripture: 

 

And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

John chapter 2 verses 13-17

And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought;

Saying unto them, It is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.

 

 Luke chapter 19 verses 45-46