The liberation of Palestine is the liberation of the world

10 Jul 2020

Source: Al Mayadeen English

Politologist and Researcher; Columnist and Activist; Founder of the Canaán Association.

Susana Khalil 

We have a date with history and it is the liberation of Palestine today in the XXI century against the colonial yoke and anachronism called “Israel”.

Perhaps the end of hunger is the liberation of the world. Freedom is dignity and justice, there is no liberation with the injustice of hunger, hunger is savagery and slavery…The end of hunger is not in the universal human imaginary…It is a corpse theme and even laughable. There is an atheistic confession regarding the end of hunger in the world, anointed with alms, charity and philanthropy.     

The liberation of Palestine is the liberation of the world

Zionism is a Eurocentric fascist movement and today it is the engine of imperial inhumanity and is the very normalization of fascism. Zionism is an enemy of humanity that with its despotic supra-power allows it to mock and subjugate the world as the untouchable bearer of Peace.

Zionism operates among rivals, i.e. there is American Zionism and there is Russian Zionism, and there is Chinese Zionism. There is Zionism in its fascist nature and there is also Zionism operating on the left wing. There is Nazi Christian Zionism as well as Islamo-fascist Zionism and at the same time, it operates in the illustrious temple of art, academia and intellectuality: in multiple cases in the scientific and technological plunder, always in the financial, commercial and media mafia. Its hyperrealistic power seems surrealistic.  

For decades Zionism has been one of the great articulators of the West in the macabre spilling of the blood of the peoples of Africa and Latin America for the plundering of their natural resources.

In 1948, the Euro-Zionist movement succeeded in imposing a colonial regime in Palestine called “Israel”. It was imposed on the basis of ethnic cleansing against the native Semitic Palestinian people. The wounded Arab world protested and the international Zionist power managed to conceal its barbarism, stating that they were Arab savages, anti-Semitic Muslims… Zionism is the perfect crime, the victim is guilty. Western egocentric gluttony ejaculates in its creative and illustrative ignorance: They found the land of love, sang Edith Piaf in tribute to the colonial regime of “Israel” that massacred the native Semitic Palestinian people. 

Note

“Israel” that was imposed in 1948 in Palestine is a classic colonialism, a colonial anachronism and its parallelism with the classic colonialism is that it does not come from a country but from a European movement (Zionism), which seeks to create a nation-state. In this case, they use the Jewish religious doctrine (Semitic heritage), they falsify history, they allege that it is about the ”return” to the ancestral land (Indo-Europeans, non-Semitic Jews). And this is why we are facing a colonialism in which it does not only colonize the land of the people but steals, appropriates the history of the native people, and this is because it is a colonialism that does not come from a country but from a movement that seeks to be a country. Therefore it takes the history of the native people. “Israelis” are not “Israelites”. This colonial particularity of usurping the native Palestinian history, culinary and cultural expression, is part of the equation of extermination of the Palestinian people. The native Palestinians are not only expelled from their homeland but the enemy  seeks to expel them from history.

End of the note

It is worrying to see today, how the tyrannies, neo-colonial Arab monarchies, in order to perpetuate themselves in power, are investing colossal sums of money in the falsification of Islam, in school education, in large international Islamic forums, to present this colonialism as an Islamic principle. Be careful with this.

The liberation of Palestine, that is to say the end of the colonial regime of “Israel”, is the collapse of the Arab dictatorships, whether they are pro-imperialist Arab dictatorships or anti-imperialist Arab dictatorships.

Behind the cruel US imperial invasion of Iraq was the colonial regime of “Israel”, through the Zionist Lobby, as part of the colonial expansionist project: “Greater Israel”, from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Today, the colonial regime of “Israel” is in possession of at least 400 atomic bombs.

The humiliating Oslo Accords in which a Palestinian elite groveled and were forced to abandon the armed struggle. By abandoning the armed struggle, much of the Palestinian imaginary was lost, we no longer speak of the Fida’i. It used to be said: To be against “Israel” is not to be against the Jews. Now it is said: To criticize “Israel” does not mean to be against “Israel”. Without realizing it, we are becoming Zionists. It is criminally naïve to believe in the existence of this colonialism.

Former Palestinian leaders gave up the armed struggle for the peaceful struggle that already existed, but a peaceful struggle has not been achieved either, since Western repression does not allow us to express freely or to express the essence of the Palestinian Cause. We have not positioned our own lexicon, under the pretext that we must be intelligent, strategic, objective, subtle, tactical. Although the Palestinians have become more visible in the world, this has not stopped Zionism from advancing its ethnic cleansing in order to make the Palestinian people disappear.

Yes, war is perverse, but pacifism, in some cases of a petty bourgeois humanism, demagogic and in other honest cases, has proved not to be enough to fight the most powerful fascism of today; on the contrary, it has facilitated its advance. Zionism scoffs at all the great denunciations made by great institutions of the world including the UN. We are contemplating history instead of provoking history.

No one has the right to impose which is the way to resist, the peaceful or the armed struggle, both are valid. Another element is to impose on us to recognize Israeli colonialism as an alternative for Peace. That is a trap.  As a native Palestinian of the Diaspora, I do not recognize colonial despotism. The solution is Palestinian independence. Never expel any so-called Israeli, they were born there, that is their land, that is Palestine.

Israeli colonialism is not limited to Palestine but to the rest of the Arab-Persian and Kurdish countries.

The end of the Palestinian people would be the victory of fascist obscurantism, an attack against the rest of the peoples of the world. The peoples of the world will be weaker.  

We have a date with history and it is the liberation of Palestine today in the XXI century against the colonial yoke and anachronism called “Israel”. We have a debt to Humanity and that is to extirpate colonialism from our contemporary history and to extirpate the most powerful fascism of our time. It sounds lovely to say this, the challenge is immense, we must stop self-censorship, under the pretext that we must be strategic. We must kick the table, educating the world about the just Palestinian cause and the danger that Zionism poses to humanity. That embarks deep determination and steadfastness, therein lies the beauty of being Palestinian. From our Diaspora they will come for us to ruin our lives, but to liberate Palestine is the liberation of the world. A more dignified and noble world is mandatory.

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

The normalization of Palestinicide

February 17, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen Net

Susana Khalil

The Zionist movement is currently the most powerful fascist movement in the world.

Zionism, a movement of Indo-European lineage    

The normalization of Palestinicide

Zionism is a European movement that in 1948 succeeded in imposing a colonial regime in Palestine called “Israel”. The Arabs, from the logic, from the entelechy, saw and felt that this project was impossible, absurd, and even laughable. It was seen as a surrealist project, but today it transcends into hyperrealism.

On the one hand, it is based on the falsification of history, under a fascinating mantle full of epic and epopee, all a charm of pirouettes, not only media, artistic and religious, but also in the intellectual and even academic field, that is, the Jewish People returning to their ancestral land after 2000 years… The Land that God promised to the Jews… 

And while part of the world was and still is, under the spell of that mantra and nirvana of sublime love, “Israel”; Zionism founded its colonial regime on the basis of genocidal barbarism against the native Semitic population. Palestine at that time was comprised of 70% of a thriving peasant population, mostly literate and unarmed. A whole mega plan of terror, horror, cruelty, and terror was articulated against the native Palestinian people, who were also under British colonial rule. Explosions in popular markets, destruction of historical archives, destruction of crops, destruction of power plants, poisoning of water, destruction of infrastructures, looting of heritage relics, etc. Macabre massacres from village to village, in order to provoke people to flee and thus forge ethnic cleansing. More than 400 villages were razed to the ground. Palestinian peasants who found human Skulls when plowing the land. Colonial soldiers used to stab pregnant Palestinian women and bet on whether it was a dog or a bitch. Desperate Palestinians would ask for a missing relative and the colonial soldiers would throw an arm or leg of the relative they were looking for. 5% of the native population was killed and 80% were expelled from their homeland, this is known as Al-Nakba.

Fauziah Khalil, a Palestinian peasant survivor of Al-Nakba, my mother, described the cruel genocides by recalling her uncle’s massacre: My uncle Hassan was killed by the colonial Israelis and they found his leg on the roof of the house…

But in the face of this “cannibalism”, a typical aspect of colonialism, the trauma of the native Palestinian people, plus the infinite wound of the rest of the inbreeding, the Arab fraternity, the masterfully disinforming Western propaganda, where the victims become guilty: “Israel” surrounded by enemy Arabs, the anti-Jewish Arabs (although the greatest massacres of Jews and Christians were in Europe and by Europeans).

To hide the colonization of Palestine, the occupiers disguise it as a religious conflict, an ancestral hatred between Jews and Muslims (although the great passages of the history of hatred were Jewish-Christian in the West).

Decades later with the advent of the Internet, a great mass of the world begins to know the tragedy, pain, and trauma of the Palestinian people, but that does not necessarily mean that they know the inhuman colonial features that Palestinians are facing today in the XXI century.

The Zionist movement is currently the most powerful fascist movement in the world. There is no more powerful entity today than international Zionism. It is a fascist movement. 

The most despotic tyranny in the world is Saudi Arabia. Petro-tyranny, oil, the resource of contemporary civilization. But more than a tyranny it is a neo-colonial regime (a native caste in imperial service). In reality the Arab-Persian world is politically classified into: 1. Israeli colonialism; 2. Saudi neocolonialism; 3. Arab dictatorships (some pro and anti-imperialist).

The instrumentalization of Peace: A sadistic instrumentalization of the extermination of the native Palestinian people

The normalization with the colonial regime of “Israel” by some Gulf tyrannies is not entirely new, that was a public secret, but it is the Palestinian leadership itself who officializes this lethal normalization through the Oslo Accords. The years have shown the path to the slaughterhouse of the Palestinian people.

Some neo-colonial Gulf petro-tyrannies, in their betrayal of the Palestinian people, are investing huge money in a new pedagogy, new schooling in favor of Zionist colonialism throughout the Arab world and peoples of Muslim confession.

Some are even promoting Israeli colonialism in Islamic schools, just like the obscurantism of some evangelicals, in which they preach: Whoever does not defend “Israel” will burn in the flames of hell. That is happening today in our XXI century…

At the same time, they see the Iranian government as the enemy of the Arab world and not Israeli colonialism.

But on the other hand, the sadism of Arab public figures in recognizing Israeli colonial expansionist anachronism in the name of peace is abominable. The instrumentalization of peace as a tool for the extermination of the native Arab-Palestinian Semitic people; to disguise this barbarism as something romantic, bohemian, and for peace, is totally sadistic.

Today the Palestinian struggle is in a very difficult reality, but it is in the most difficult moments that Revolutions also emerge. In 1982, the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, fled Lebanon. The PLO was dying in Tunisia, and then the first Intifada flourished and revived the national liberation struggle.

Let’s not get distracted by an attractive, tricky intellectuality that contributes to our Palestinicide. As native people we must abolish colonialism. Zionism lives on the power of ignorance and its sophisticated repression. It has falsified History, the West ignores and fears to address History. Let us not be afraid of Western fear. Let us unearth History in the face of this historicide. Let us liberate the West from its own fear, that goes through the liberation of Palestine. Otherwise, the Palestinicide would continue as well as the concatenated obscurantism, sadistically dressed up as wisdom, humanism and peace…

The opinions mentioned in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Al mayadeen, but rather express the opinion of its writer exclusively.

Let’s be honest, Zionist Israel is built on a tissue of lies

December 23, 2021

82-year-old, Diana Neslen [Youtube]
British journalist and author Yvonne Ridley provides political analysis on affairs related to the Middle East, Asia and the Global War on Terror. Her work has appeared in numerous publications around the world from East to West from titles as diverse as The Washington Post to the Tehran Times and the Tripoli Post earning recognition and awards in the USA and UK. Ten years working for major titles on Fleet Street she expanded her brief into the electronic and broadcast media producing a number of documentary films on Palestinian and other international issues from Guantanamo to Libya and the Arab Spring.

Yvonne Ridley 

Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews, but say anything negative about the political ideology of Zionism or speak in favour of Palestine and the chances are, regardless of your religious beliefs or lack of them, you will end up being accused of anti-Semitism. In today’s world, posting negative tweets about Zionism or expressing the slightest criticism of Israel can land you in trouble. One 82-year-old woman in Britain, for example, could be expelled from the Labour Party having been accused of posting “anti-Semitic” views on social networks. Diana Neslen, though, is Jewish.

After three investigations by the party, Neslen has had enough and is fighting back. Her legal team has sent a warning letter to let Labour officials know that her anti-Zionist viewpoint is a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act. Furthermore, the lawyers at Bindmans say that she has been “subjected by the party to discrimination and harassment related to her protected philosophical belief.”

This has the potential to be a hugely significant case that will put the political ideology of Zionism under the spotlight. Its supporters, especially millions of Christian evangelicals around the world, especially in the US, would have us believe that political Zionism is older than Methuselah himself who, according to the Bible, reached the grand old age of 969. However, compared with the ancient patriarch, the nationalist movement is still in its infancy, having originated in eastern and central Europe towards the back end of the 19th century.

READ: UK media and politicians ‘misled public’ with support for far-right Israeli ambassador

Not only is Zionism a relatively new kid on the ideological block, therefore, but it’s also only relatively recently that the movement has been supported by mainstream Jewry and non-Jews of every political hue. It has taken root among Jews following decades of propaganda and millions of dollars spent lobbying the US and other western governments for legislation to criminalise those who would dare to criticise it.

It wasn’t always like this. Back in December 1938, election results in Poland saw the Zionist political project struggling to take hold within one of Europe’s largest Jewish communities. Only one of the 20 seats allocated to Jews was won by a Zionist candidate; 17 went to the anti-Zionist socialist party, Bund. The evidence suggests that pre-World War Two, orthodox Jews were not generally attracted to Zionism or the concept of a Jewish state. Mike Marqusee made this point in his book If I am Not For Myself: Journey of an Anti-Zionist Jew (Verso Books, 2008): “As long as there has been Zionism, there have been anti-Zionist Jews. Indeed, decades before it even came to the notice of non-Jews, anti-Zionism was a well-established Jewish ideology and until World War II commanded wide support in the diaspora.”

The Nazi Holocaust did indeed change things when it murdered millions of Jews and other minority groups, including the disabled, trade unionists, gypsies and homosexuals. “I remember thinking at the end of the war, ‘Why didn’t the Germans do anything?'” said Neslen. “When there’s injustice done in your name you cannot close your eyes to it. That’s why I feel very strongly.” Israel, remember, claims to act on behalf of all Jews, no matter where they live.

The truth remains, though, that Zionism is based on lies. There, I’ve said it, and will no doubt be refused a platform by universities for incurring the wrath of the more rabid elements of Israel’s extreme supporters in the Zionist lobby groups. Like Neslen, however, I too have reached breaking point, although I am not a Jew. So it is time for me to stand my ground, and also fight back.

One of the most enduring of Zionism’s lies was promoted by British author Israel Zangwill 120 years ago when he repeated the well-worn slogan that Palestine was “a land without people for a people without a land”. After realising that this was simply not true, Zangwill parted company with the founders of Zionism and in 1904 started talking about the 600,000 Palestinians who occupied the so-called “land without a people” at the time. He continued to speak out about the Palestinian elephant in the Zionist living room. Today, no doubt, he would be slandered as anti-Semitic; in 1913 Zionists simply called him a traitor.

Like Zangwill, Diana Neslen was also a “committed Zionist” until she visited Israel and saw the self-styled Jewish State at close quarters. And, just like Zangwill, she has been punished, insulted and persecuted since turning her back on the racist ideology. She is not the only person who appears to have been persecuted for her anti-Zionist beliefs, and the fact that she is Jewish appears to cut no ice with her detractors. They continue to insist that the Labour Party must investigate her “anti-Semitism”. What did she say or do to deserve what her lawyers describe as a totally “unjustified and disproportionate” response? In one tweet in 2017 she wrote, “The existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and I am an antiracist Jew.”

Inside Israel itself, in response to accusations from Jews like Neslen that Zionism is colonialism, the goalposts are being moved yet again with new lie claiming that Jews are genetically “indigenous” to the land. It’s an argument that “swims in fascist waters” according to one Jewish writer who said that the blatant appropriation of anticolonial language changes the definition of Zionism. Far from being a Jewish nationalist movement founded in the 19th century, explained Abe Silberstein, these new zealots are trying to portray Zionism as “an indigenous rights movement, the implication being that virtually all Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel.”

OPINION: Overthrowing Israel’s bogus definition of anti-Semitism

As support for Israel among US Jews starts to fall, especially among the young, it seems as if Zionism is losing its mythical status as a benign ideology, even as the peaceful grassroots Boycott, Sanction and Divestment movement, BDS, rises in popularity. In 2015, a Yachad-Ipsos Mori survey conducted in British Jewish communities found that, while 90 per cent of Jews in the UK believe in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, just 59 per cent identified themselves as Zionists, down from 72 per cent in 2010. It is no longer clear if “Zionist” means someone who supports Israel’s government, or simply the state’s right to exist.

In 2018, the Labour Party in Britain adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism. “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour,” says the IHRA, is an example of anti-Semitism. Opponents of its use in this way argue that legitimate criticism of a government is certainly not the same as illegal anti-Jewish racism. Indeed, even the person responsible for drafting the definition — and it remains a draft document; it’s not set in stone — has said that “pro-Israel lobby groups have weaponised the definition in an attempt to silence critics of Zionism.”

Jewish Voice for Labour, of which Neslen is a member, says there are at least 42 Jews in the Labour Party who have faced or are facing disciplinary charges relating to allegations of anti-Semitism. Ironically, under self-proclaimed Zionist and leader of the Labour Party Sir Keir Starmer, Jewish members are five times more likely to have faced complaints about anti-Semitism than non-Jewish members. It remains to be seen if Labour does apologise to Neslen and undertake not to pursue further investigations against her in respect of her beliefs, but it is clear that her lawyers will not drop the legal action.

According to Neslen in the Guardian, “The Labour Party has no idea, in my opinion, of what anti-Semitism is. My son was attacked by a luminary of the [British National Party] who was jailed for three years. I remember picking up the phone and being subjected to death threats from the BNP. People who have never experienced anti-Semitism have no idea what it means, what it means for a Jew to be found guilty of anti-Semitism.”

Like the Labour Party, most other the other main political parties in Britain have adopted the controversial, “seriously flawed” IHRA definition of anti-Semitism apart from in Scotland. There, the Scottish Greens hold two ministerial positions in Nicola Sturgeon’s government. Both co-leaders, Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, still refuse to endorse the definition. The Greens have voted previously in favour of a motion that described Israel as a “racist state” based on “Jewish supremacy” and calls Zionism a racist endeavour. This is entirely consistent with the findings of Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem earlier this year.

READ: Jewish woman threatens to sue UK Labour over ‘anti-Semitism’ warnings

The far-right Israeli government is said to be increasingly concerned about the decline of support for Zionism. I wouldn’t be surprised if it has already instructed its embassies and lobby groups around the world to shore up support for the ideology in 2022. Indeed, as reported recently by MEMO, it seems that the pro-Israel lobbyists are going on the attack already; Sturgeon is facing mounting criticism over the Scottish National Party’s partnership with Scottish Greens. The First Minister has also been accused of Jew-hatred for discouraging “trade between Scotland and illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories”.

Such tactics make it no surprise, therefore, to hear that British MP Robert Jenrick has pledged to get the British government to outlaw BDS. Speaking at the Leadership Dialogue Institute (LDI), a think tank fostering closer cultural ties between Australia, the UK and Israel, he addressed BDS in a meeting under the inflammatory heading “Why Do So Many People Hate Jews?” Again, the attempt is to conflate legitimate criticism of a political ideology with totally illegitimate, abhorrent racism against Jews. As one leading pro-Palestine campaigner has said, “Anti-Zionism is a duty; anti-Semitism is a crime.”

When Zionists move the goalposts they unwittingly expose the tissue of lies on which the state of Israel has been built. The Jews in Europe pre-Holocaust saw Zionism for what it was and voted accordingly. It is time for the truth about the ideology to be told before any more Jews like Diana Neslen are persecuted for their wholly acceptable beliefs. Their right to freedom of thought and speech must not be curtailed as they seek justice for the people of occupied Palestine.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Sayyed Nasrallah to Lebanese Forces: Don’t Miscalculate, Hezbollah Has 100,000 Fighters

October 19, 2021

Sayyed Nasrallah
Hezbollah S.G. Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah during a televised speech via Al-Manar (Monday, October 18, 2021).

Marwa Haidar

Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah on Monday lashed out at the Lebanese Forces militia, advising its chief to abandon attempts to ignite a civil war in Lebanon.

In a speech that basically tackled the latest massacre by the notorious militia in Tayouneh last Thursday, Sayyed Nasrallah warned the head of Lebanese Forces party (LF), even without mentioning his name, against any miscalculation regarding the civil war in Lebanon.

Sayyed Nasrallah in this context, revealed the number of Hezbollah fighters who are ready to defend their country.

“Don’t miscalculate and behave,” Sayyed Nasrallah addressed LF, adding: “Hezbollah has 100,000 fighters who are fully ready to act in case we just point to them to do so.”

The Hezbollah S.G. said the Lebanese security apparatus confirmed that LF militants and snipers were responsible for Tayouneh massacre which killed seven Lebanese civilians during a protest against the politicization of an investigation into Beirut Port.

Sayyed Nasrallah said that the LF has been for long time instigating the Christians in the country, especially residents of Ain Al-Rimaneh and Al-Hadat, against Hezbollah through creating fake enemy of residents in Dahiyeh.

His eminence stressed that Hezbollah, Amal Movement, the entire Shiite sect and Muslims don’t pose a threat to the Christians in Lebanon, but rather the LF poses an existential threat to them.

Sayyed Nasrallah called on state institutions to hold a serious probe into the massacre in Tayouneh, stressing importance of staging another investigation by the Lebanese Army in order to look into the videos circulated by social media showing Lebanese soldier firing at a peaceful protester during October 14 massacre.

On the issue of Beirut Port blast investigation, his eminence stressed that Hezbollah has been keen to reveal the truth in this issue, slamming judges who gave permission to the ship carrying ammonium nitrate to enter Beirut Port several years ago.

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah praised families of the martyrs who fell in Tayouneh massacre, hailing their patience and wisdom. In this context, his eminence vowed that Hezbollah won’t abandon the martyrs and will go ahead with legal course in a bid to hold the perpetrators accountable.

Lebanese Forces Trying to Ignite Civil War

Sayyed Nasrallah started his speech by congratulating Muslims on the birthday anniversary of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), announcing that despite pain and grief, Hezbollah will hold a ceremony to mark the occasion next Friday in Dahiyeh.

His eminence praised celebrations held by the Yemeni people on the occasion, as well as stances announced by Ansarullah leader Sayyed Abdul Malek Al-Houthi.

Sayyed Nasrallah, meanwhile, offered condolences over martyrdom of a number of Afghan people in a terrorist attack staged by ISIL terrorists on a mosque in the city of Kandahar.

He also offered condolences over martyrdom of freed prisoner Medhat Saleh, who was killed by Israeli occupation forces few days ago.

The Hezbollah S.G. then get into the main issue of his speech, the massacre committed by Lebanese Forces militants in Tayouneh last Thursday.

Sayyed Nasrallah said that the LF has been instigating against Hezbollah for long time, trying to create a fake enemy to the Christians in Lebanon.

“The Lebanese Forces party wanted to make our people in Ain Al-Rimaneh, Forn Al-Chebbak and Al-Hadat feel concerned and afraid of people of other regions especially in Dahiyeh.”

“This party and its leader (Samir Geagea) aim at presenting themselves as defenders of Christians in Lebanon in order to serve their goals related to political leadership,” he said, noting that the LF leader has been convicted by the Lebanese judiciary over war crimes.

“In the latest years, the Lebanese Forces, and with the support of regional and international powers, has been working to create an enemy to the Christians in Lebanon and to present himself as the defender of this community against this so-called enemy, which is Hezbollah,” Sayyed Nasrallah said, citing schemes to target Hezbollah by the US, ‘Israel’ and some Gulf states.

And to confirm that Hezbollah is being targeted by the LF along with regional and international powers, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Lebanese Forces chief focused in his remarks following the massacre in Tayouneh on Hezbollah, despite that fact that three of the seven martyrs are supporters of Amal Movement.

“The real program of the LF is to the civil war, for this scheme leads to the displacement of the Christians and then creating a Christian canton which LF chief aims to rule.”

Sayyed Nasrallah noted that the massacre in Tayouneh opens a new chapter of Hezbollah’s way to deal with the local issue.

He said that both Hezbollah and Amal Movement were reassured by the Lebanese Army a night before the massacre over the security situation in the region of the protest near Justice Palace, where the shooting took place.

Commenting on LF leader’s remarks that the Tayouneh massacre was a “mini May 7 events” Sayyed Nasrallah said that such remarks is a clear claim of responsibility of the shooting.

Hezbollah Defended Christians, LF Existential Threat

Sayyed Nasrallah then elaborated on the idea that Hezbollah is not an enemy to the Christians in Lebanon and Syria. He stressed that Hezbollah’s behavior with Christian in Lebanon and Syria throughout years confirm that the Lebanese Resistance party look at the Christians in the country as political partners and not enemies.

“For those who say that Hezbollah is the enemy of Christians, you can ask the churches which Hezbollah defended in Syria against Takfiri terrorists.”

“When Hezbollah defended its people of the Christians in Syria and the Lebanese border towns against ISIL and Nusra terrorists, the Lebanese Forces party was offering all forms of support to the Takfiris.”

He addressed the Christians in Lebanon by saying: “All those who tell you that Shia and Muslims are an enemy they are fabricating such accusations. The greatest existential threat for you is the Lebanese Forces since this party had allied with the terrorists in Syria.”

Sayyed Nasrallah then pointed to Hezbollah’s behavior towards Christians following the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000.

“Hezbollah prevented any of its fighters or fighters belonging to Amal Movement from entering the Christian towns in south Lebanon upon the Liberation in 2000. We even did not harm collaborators with Israeli enemy in that towns, rather we handed them over to the Lebanese Army. This was in a bid to avoid any Muslim-Christian sedition.”

Sayyed Nasrallah then said that Hezbollah, throughout years adopted a policy of openness with political parties, including the Christian powers.

“In February 6, 2006 we held a MoU with the largest Christian party, which is the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM),” Sayyed Nasralah said, noting that the LF was the first side who stand against the MoU between Hezbollah and the FPM.

S. Nasrallah Advises LF Not to Miscalculate

Sayyed Nasrallah then advised the LF and its leader to abandon the idea of suing discord in a bid to ignite a civil war in Lebanon.

“If you want to prepare for a civil war then have not to miscalculate. Take a note that Hezbollah is made up of at least 100,00 well-trained and experienced fighters whom can act in case Hezbollah’s leadership points to do so,” Sayyed Nasrallah addressed the LF and its chief.

In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that the Resistance is not weak, but rather is keen to preserve security and avoid sedition.

“Hence, I say to LF and its leader: Don’t miscalculate, behave and take lesson from the wars you had been engaged in.”

Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Lebanese state institution along with religious figures, especially the Christians, “must bear responsibility and stand against this criminal butcher in a bid to avoid civil war and preserve national peace.”

He then stressed importance of launching a serious investigation into the massacre in Tayouneh, noting that the Lebanese Army must also do so regarding a video circulated on social media and shows a Lebanese soldier firing at a peaceful protester during Tayouneh shooting.

In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah warned against any dispute between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army, stressing that the national army is part of the golden formula aimed at defending Lebanon: Army-People-Resistance.

Beirut Port Blast Probe

On the issue of Beirut Port blast probe, Sayyed Nasrallah affirmed that Hezbollah is keen to know the truth behind the tragedy which killed more than 200 Lebanese people and injured thousands on August 4, 2020.

“We won’t take back on this case. It’s a political responsibility to know those who were responsible for this tragedy.”

Several sides contacted Hezbollah and reassured the party that it would not be accused, Sayyed Nasrallah said, noting that those sides also acknowledged that the probe is discretionary.

“The way the probe is going on won’t lead to reveal truth. The judges who gave permission to the ship carrying the ammonium nitrate to enter Beirut Port bears responsibility of the tragedy in the port.”

Meanwhile, Sayyed Nasrallah hailed patience and wisdom of Tayouneh massacre’s martyrs, vowing that the blood of those martyrs won’t go in vain.

His eminence also equated Tayouneh martyrs to those of the Resistance who were martyred in defending Lebanon.

“We have to preserve goals achieved by the Resistance and its martyrs, on top of which are security and national peace,” Sayyed Nasrallah addressed martyrs’ families as saying.

Addressing the Resistance supporters, Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that this stage prompts more patience and insight in a bid to avoid any form of infighting in the country. In this context, his eminence noted that igniting a civil war is the “last card played by our enemies.”

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related Videos

Related Articles

Jewish Supremacism (Zionism) is Coming to an End (Part Two)

By VT Editors -July 13, 2021

In the Name of All- beneficent, All-merciful God (Allah).

God has kept his promise to Jesus ( peace be upon him) that his followers will have the upperhand over his enemies until the day of judgment.

Today the Christian population of the world is 2.3 billion and the Jews, who refused to recognize the Holiness of Jesus and his Holy mother Mary and showed enmity towards them, are only 14.7 million (in pure form) and including their sub categories they are  20 million or so, and the Idol worshippers of then Rome, who wanted to kill Jesus and killed many of his followers, are extinct now.

If a person is told, “God has sent a message that you will never enter paradise and you are definitely going to hell” How  do you think he is going to act?

I think he is going to be enraged and he is going to commit every possible sins and crimes against others and try to destroy others’ lives out of envy, just like what has happened to Satan, when Allah cursed him and drove him away from the Garden, as he refused to obey Allah’s order.

Also, if someone is told that he is going to heaven no matter what, then nothing will stop him from committing crimes against others, since he is assured of heaven. This is the case with the Zionist Jews; they think they are chosen by God. It should be asked: “Chosen” for what, heaven or hell?

Had God really made this promise to any one, He would have first removed the evil intentions from his soul completely, so that he is preserved from all sins and not commit crimes against others, to get what he desires. This is the logical path.

Then, when we see the Zionist Jews are committing great sins and crimes against other human beings, then we have no doubt they have fabricated this saying: “We are not going to be punished for this.”

This very sentence of them, “We are the chosen people” is the root cause of their transgressions in their private and social lives, which had begun long before Jesus arrived, almost two thousand years ago. God says in the Holy Quran:

“The faithless among the children ( descendants) of Israel  were cursed on the tongue of David and Jesus son of Mary. That, because they would disobey and they used to commit transgression.’ (5:78)

A strange looking transgression by Israeli Occupation forces need to be looked at and be given much attention to. Every time Israel attacked Lebanon, it did not forget to  shell Cana, a south Lebanon town bordering northern Galilee. They have killed many innocent civilians there intentionally, even though there were no Hezbollah positions there during those incidents . Much was written about it in Lebanese media at that time and in subsequent anniversaries. The famous and distinguished journalist, late Robert Fisk, covered these stories at length.

Lebanese town of Cana is not like any other town, it is famous for pilgrimage for the Christians and the Muslims. It is said, Jesus( peace be upon him) showed his first miracle there, changing water into a Heavenly wine or drink for his disciples. Some say, he also cured a woman there, his first time, with his miraculous power.

WHY do Israeli Occupation Forces shell this place every time they attack Lebanon?

Questions must be asked to the Christian world, specially to the US politicians:

1. Which is more financially beneficial for the USA, friendship with 20 million Jews or 1.8 billion Muslims?

2. Why are the Jews so dear to you who think Jesus was a fraud?

3. And why are the Muslims so detestable to you, while the Quran is full of beautiful praises for Jesus and his Holy Mother ?

3. Was not Hitler a Christian who killed Jews in Europe? Why have you implanted European  Jews in Palestine? Does Jesus agree with this kind of justice?

4. Why should Muslim be killed and evicted from Palestine  to make space for European Jews, whom you Christians have killed in hundreds of thousands? Why not create a safe heaven for them in Europe or in the USA, if you are so concerned about their plight? What kind of atonement and upholding human rights is that?

5. Is it socially and securitywise an advantage for the USA to support Israel in inhumane crimes against Palestinians and their neighbors and thereby antagonize the 1.8 billion Muslims? (Thanks to American internet, that brings news and footage of American and Israeli crimes against the Muslim world, to every Muslim home everyday)

6. Are you afraid that, if you don’t support  Israel, you are going to lose all the Jewish business people’s money?

In that case, where are they going to go with their money?

7. Why don’t you tell your Jewish friends  “Stop whispering venoms in my ears against Muslims, they have the same rights as you have! They are not hurting you, it is us who have hurt you many times!”

If you do not have the courage to tell it to the Jews, then borrow courage from these verses of the Holy Quran, where God speaks to the faithful through Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him and his infallible family):

” O you who have faith ( faith in God an His messengers and the Judgment Day)!
Be maintainers of justice and witness for the sake of Allah, even if it should be against yourselves or [your] parents and near relatives, and whether it be [someone] rich or poor, for Allah has a greater right over them. So do not follow [your] desires, lest you should be unfair, and if you distort [the testimony] or disregard [it], Allah is indeed well aware of what you do.”
(Quran, 4:135)

And here is another instruction from God which blows away any racism, religious bigotry and other reasons that unfairly treat people, be they Jews, Christians and Muslims:

“O you who have faith!
Be maintainers of justice, for the sake of Allah, and ill feeling for a people should never lead you to be unfair. Be fair; that is Godwariness, and be wary of Allah. Allah is indeed well aware of what you do.

Allah has promised those who have faith and do righteous deeds, forgiveness and a great reward.” (Quran,5:8-9)

And He praises the upright people:

” So give good news to my servants who listen to the word and follow the best of it. They are the ones whom Allah has guided, and it is they who possess intellect.” (Quran, 39:17-18)

More than 1400 hundred years ago, Allah revealed to Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him and his infallible family) that he was going to defeat the big forces of the idol worshippers and take back the control of Holy Kaba, which was built by his forefather prophet Abraham (pubh), known as The idol smasher. These were the verses:

“When Nasrallah ( Allah’s help) comes  with victory, and you see the people entering Allah’s religion in throngs, then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and plead to Him for forgiveness. Indeed He is all-clement.” (Quran, 110-:1-3)

And it happened exactly so. The idol worshippers all fled from Macca before putting up a fight due to great fear.  That fear in the hearts of the pagans was the help from Allah.

This time we have a person named Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah (Allah’s help), the Leader of  the Lebanese Hezbollah, promising the same, that his forces, along with his friends from the region, will liberate entire Palestine from the Zionists with the help from the oppressed Palestinians. Thereby also liberate Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem on behalf of the Muslim world.

Is Nasrallah name just a coincidental similarity? Or is it divinely ordained for the liberation of Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem?

In last 22 years he has always made good on his pledges. In the year 2000, he promised to his country men that they would drive out the Israeli forces from south Lebanon, and they did. After the victory he declared to his nation that “There will be no more defeats for Lebanon against Israel.”

In 2006, on the first day of the war, which was imposed on Lebanon by Israel, he warned the Israeli people on a televised speech that their war was not only against Lebanon, but their war was also against Prophet Mohammad and his family (peace be upon him and his family). He declared that his forces were given a divine pledge, that they were surely going to win the war and they will humiliate the Israelis, and it happened exactly so.

After 4 weeks of fighting Israel realised that it was not going win the war and actually was losing, it requested the USA to arrange a cease-fire with Lebanese PM. Before the cease-fire, for a face saving result, Israel pressed hard with a very big number of their best tanks against Hezbollah . I remember, three days before the cease-fire, Israel lost 34 tanks, two days before the cease-fire it lost 55 tanks and on the last day it lost 74 tanks. A real face saver huh?

With his mentioning of the divine guarantee and the great victory, Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah proved he has divine connections with Prophet Mohammad and his family ( pubh& his family).

Before Hezbollah entered the Syrian war against the Al Qaeda and the ISIS terrorists, at the invitation of the Syrian government, Sayyed Nasrallah again pledged victory, and he made good on his pledge again. By this, he once again proved he is spiritually connected to the higher world, from where he gets his clues.

My conclusion is, Israel will give up fighting due to extreme fear of death. All of their officers and soldiers know that Sayyed Nasrallah never lies; when he says something, it happiness. We are going to see what used to happen during the days of the prophets and for that, there is no better arena than Palestine.

A few days ago presstv.ir reported that Sayyed Nasrallah has said, while meeting the Hamas Leader Ismail Hanyeh:

“The resistance front has always stood by its words, and fulfilled it’s pledges. The obliteration of Israel and liberation of al-Quds are now within reach and can happen closer than ever. When the resistance front vows to obliterate Israel, it relies on established facts and not illusions.”

Israeli settlers have announced that they are going to enter the Al Aqsa Mosque on 18th of July with the demand that the Dome of the Mosque structure be demolished for building the Temple of Solomon. According to the Jews, their Messiah will appear any time after that.

Allah has a notice for the Zionists though:

” And when your Lord proclaimed that He would surely send against them, until the Day of Resurrection, those who will inflict on them a terrible punishment. Indeed your Lord is swift in retribution, and indeed He is all- seeing, all-merciful.”
( Quran, 7:167)

Irfan al-Huq
Bangladesh

ABOUT VT EDITORSVT Editors

Veterans TodayVT

Editors is a General Posting account managed by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff. All content herein is owned and copyrighted by Jim W. Dean and Gordon Duff

editors@veteranstoday.com

Chris Hedges, Alan MacLeod on Media Bias and the Christian Right’s Obsession with Israel

May 21st, 2021

By Mnar Muhawesh Adley

Chris Hedges and Alan Macloed join MintCast to talk about Israel, Christian Zionism, and media bias.


mages from the Israeli onslaught against Palestine have dominated both news broadcasts and social media as the world expresses its outrage over the bombing of civilian targets.

While the latest violence was triggered by an Israeli attack on the al-Aqsa Mosque, the conflict’s roots go back at least to the state’s creation in 1948, when Israeli forces ethnically cleansed nearly 800,000 Palestinians from their homeland, razing 500 towns and villages in order to make way for the construction of a Jewish state on top of an existing one. Year-on-year, Israel has progressively annexed more Palestinian land, leaving the indigenous population trapped in increasingly small pockets, often without the ability to leave.

Much of the strongest support for the creation of Israel comes from the Evangelical Christian community in the West, who see the construction of a Jewish state in the Holy Land as the fulfillment of an ancient Biblical prophecy bringing the world one step closer to the end times where the righteous will ascend to heaven, and non-believers (including Jews) will be cast into hell.

Today, Christian Zionism is a much larger force worldwide than Jewish Zionism, and with liberals increasingly turning their backs on Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is directly appealing to that community to shore up support for his country.

While Democrats increasingly condemn Israel’s actions, the most vociferous support comes from right-wing pastors and religious leaders. Texas televangelist Pastor John Hagee, for instance, whitewashed the Israeli massacre, stating this week that:

It’s not Israel’s rockets that are killing the people in Gaza, it is the terrorists who are killing their own people because they don’t know how to fire these rockets. So the fake news will certainly not tell you that.”

For years, the religious right has been undermining faith in domestic media and building information systems of their own to create tightly controlled echo chambers across the United States. Likewise, Israel is prosecuting a campaign against journalists, albeit with far more deadly consequences. On Saturday, it destroyed the headquarters of Al-Jazeera and the Associated Press. Last night, The Times of Gaza confirmed that its reporter Yousif Abu Hussein had been killed in an Israeli airstrike on his house. Meanwhile, the Israeli government is blocking foreign journalists from entering Gaza to document the atrocities.

Yet even as Israel attacks the press, those very same outlets run cover for the Jewish state, sanitizing Israeli attacks on peaceful protestors as “clashes,” or both sidesing the conflict and presenting Hamas as aggressors and Israel as merely “responding” to provocations.

Here today to talk about the conflict and its origins are Chris Hedges and Alan MacLeod. Hedges is a writer and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent. He was Middle East Bureau Chief for the New York Times until the newspaper forced him out due to his stance against the Iraq War. A fluent Arabic speaker, Hedges has been an outspoken critic of both Israeli actions and American imperialism in the region. As a foreign correspondent, he saw the destruction caused by war, imperialism, and the disintegration of societies, from Iraq to Israel, Yugoslavia, and beyond.

A former speechwriter for presidential candidate Ralph Nader, Hedges has taught in the prison system for over a decade. In 2012, he sued the Obama administration over the National Defense Authorization Act, a law that unconstitutionally allowed the government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without trial.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer at MintPress News. After completing his PhD in sociology and journalism studies in 2018, he published two books about the media: “Bad News From Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting,” and “Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent.” He is an expert in global media.

US support for Israel | We the People

The US has been giving the Israeli regime unwavering support from the get-go. Thus Israel has no greater friend than the United States today. The US has given Tel Aviv billions of dollars in foreign military aid for Israel to remain a most strategic ally to the Zionist regime.

الراعي وعودة يناصران تجّار الهيكل: حرب اقتصاديّة سعوديّة على لبنان

الراعي وعودة يناصران تجّار الهيكل: حرب اقتصاديّة سعوديّة على لبنان

الأخبار

 الإثنين 26 نيسان 2021

الحرب السعوديّة على لبنان صارت أكثر وضوحاً. إما أن يكون خاضعاً لها أو لا يكون. هذه المعادلة التي أرساها محمد بن سلمان بدأت تترجم بمزيد من الضغوط. منع دخول الصادرات الزراعية اللبنانية هو بهذا المعنى أحد تجلّيات هذا الضغط، بصرف النظر عن الحجّة. لهذا يبدو أن تسخير سعد الحريري كلّ طاقته وعلاقاته في سبيل الرضى السلماني لن يُصرف سعودياً. هناك، صار الجوع في لبنان واحدةً من وسائل الضغط السياسيةمهما غُلّفت الخطوة السعوديّة حظر الواردات الزراعية الآتية من لبنان بتبريرات، فإنّ السياسة هي الحاضر الأول، وربما الأخير، فيها. لو لم يكن ذلك صحيحاً، لكانت الرياض قد عمدت إلى الإجراء نفسه مع دول أخرى، تؤكد البيانات الجمركية السعودية ضبط عمليات تهريب كبتاغون منها تفوق تلك التي ضبطت مهرّبة من لبنان. لم تفعل لأنه ببساطة ليس بمنع الاستيراد تكافح أي دولة آفة المخدرات، بل بتضافر جهود الأجهزة لديها للقبض على المهربين والمروّجين، وبالتعاون الأمني والاستخباري مع الدول التي تقيم معها علاقات تجارية، لا بقطع هذه العلاقات.

باختصار، كل ما تقوم به الرياض منذ مدة يصب في خانة التضييق على لبنان وتشديد الحصار العربي والغربي عليه. ولذلك، فإن ربط الأمر بالسعي إلى حماية المجتمع السعودي لم يمّر على أيّ من المسؤولين اللبنانيين، حتى المقرّبين من السعودية. حماية المجتمع السعودي لا تكون بإلغاء الصادرات. فإذا لم يتمكن المهربون من استعمال وسيلة ما لإمداد سوق ما بالممنوعات، فمن المؤكد أنهم سيجدون طريقة أخرى. لتكون النتيجة: المزروعات اللبنانية لن تدخل إلى السعودية ومنها إلى دول الخليج، لكن الممنوعات لن تتوقف لأن المهرّبين قادرون على التأقلم مع أي وضع جديد، وخاصة أن لبنان ليس المصدر الوحيد للمخدرات التي تصل إلى السعودية.
الأغرب، مسارعة دول مجلس التعاون الخليجي، عُمان والإمارات والكويت والبحرين، إلى دعم القرار السعودي، الذي يمنع مرور البضائع اللبنانية إليها. المسارعة إلى إصدار بيانات التأييد توحي بأن هذه الدولة تبارك لشقيقتها تمكنها من تحقيق نصر عسكري باهر في اليمن أو في أي ساحة أخرى، علماً بأن هذه الدول نفسها لم يسبق أن قطعت علاقاتها مع أي دولة، حتى لو كانت تصنفها منطلقاً لعمليات التهريب.

غادة عون: منع مدّعٍ عام من التحقيق لم يخدش شعور أحد


الأكيد أن السعودية لم تربح في أي حرب، لكن إجراءها الأخير معطوفاً على سياق التعامل السعودي مع لبنان، يوحي بأن القيادة السعودية قررت إعلان الحرب على لبنان. هي تدرك جيداً أنه في ظل الانهيار المستمر منذ أكثر من عام، فإن الصادرات اللبنانية تشكل أحد متنفّسات الاقتصاد اللبناني، وهي بدلاً من أن تعمد إلى مساعدته، قررت منعه من التنفس. باختصار، القيادة السعودية لم تعد تتفرج على اللبنانيين يموتون من الجوع، من جراء سياسات الفساد التي كانت تباركها وتساهم بها في لبنان، بل تحوّلت إلى أحد مسببات هذا الجوع. بالنسبة إليها، لبنان خرج من يدها، ولم تعد تهتم لأمره، بدلالة رفض المسؤولين السعوديين مجرد مناقشة الأزمة اللبنانية مع زوارها الفرنسيين أو الروس، أضف إلى ذلك ما قاله وليّ العهد السعودي محمد بن سلمان لمسؤول عربي، عن رفض مساعدة لبنان، لأن اللبنانيين يرفضون مساعدة أنفسهم.
مصادر مسؤولة رأت أن الخطوة السعودية لم تكن مفاجئة، فالنفَس التصعيدي تجاه لبنان صار واضحاً للعيان، حيث بدأت السلطات التضييق على اللبنانيين بشكل غير معلن. ولذلك، تتوقع المصادر أن تستكمل السعودية إجراءاتها بمزيد من القرارات التي تصرّ فيها على تعميق جراح اللبنانيين، واضعة نصب عينيها مواجهة «حزب الله» وإحراج سعد الحريري لإخراجه.
في سياق متصل، كان البطريرك الماروني، بشارة الراعي، يسارع إلى الاصطفاف إلى جانب المستنكرين للجريمة التي تتعرّض لها السعودية، متناسياً أن لبنان نفسه يشرب من الكأس نفسها. والسلطات اللبنانية تقوم بشكل دائم بضبط شحنات مخدّرات مهرّبة إلى لبنان أو بالعكس. طمأن الراعي، في عظة الأحد، أمس، إلى أنه اتصل بالسفير السعودي وليد البخاري لإبلاغه استنكاره ما حصل. وقال إنه تمنّى أن «تأخذ المملكة في الاعتبار أوضاع لبنان والمزارعين الشرفاء». الراعي تبنّى الخطاب السعودي الذي يحمّل المسؤوليّة للسلطة اللبنانية «التي عليها أن تمنع وتحارب مثل هذه الإرساليات إلى المملكة».
الراعي، الحريص كل أحد على إجراء جولة أفق يتناول فيها كل الأحداث من موقعه المستجدّ، لم يفُته التعبير عن موقفه المؤيد لتجار الهيكل، في القطاع المصرفي تحديداً. وبعد رسمه خطاً أحمر يحول دون محاسبة حاكم مصرف لبنان رياض سلامة، قرر الراعي دعم صاحب شركة مكتّف للصيرفة ونقل الأموال، ميشال مكتّف، في مواجهة القضاء. وعبّر البطريرك عن ذهوله من مشاهدة «واقِعة قضائيّة لا تَمُتُّ بصلةٍ إلى الحضارةِ القضائيّة ولا إلى تقاليد القضاءِ اللبنانيّ منذ أن وُجِد»، معتبراً أنّ «ما جرى يشوّه وجه القاضي النزيه والحرّ من أيّ انتماء، ذي الهيبة التي تفرض احترامها واحترام العدالة وقوانينها».

السعودية تضع نصب عينيها مواجهة حزب الله وإحراج سعد الحريري لإخراجه


وعلى المنوال نفسه، غزل مطران بيروت للأرثوذكس إلياس عودة، فقال في أحد الشعانين، إنه «بعد تدمير سمعة لبنان المالية والسياسية والاجتماعية، ها نحن نشهد تدمير المؤسسات والقضاء عليها، وآخرها السلطة القضائية التي هي حصن لبنان الأخير والجيش الذي يدافع بنقاء ومحبة وتضحية».
وسأل عودة «هل يجوز أن يتمرّد قاض على القانون وهو مؤتمن على تطبيقه؟ هل يجوز أن يقتحم قاضٍ أملاكاً خاصة من دون مسوّغ قانونيّ؟ هل يجوز أن يخرج قاض عن القانون؟».
واستغرب عودة غياب مجلس النواب، سائلاً: «أين مجلس النواب من كل ما يجري؟ أليس من واجبه القيام بما يلجم هذه التجاوزات؟ وعلى القاضي أن يتحلّى بالحكمة والصبر، لا أن ينقاد بانفعاله ويتصرّف بشعبوية لا تقود إلا الى الفوضى وقسمة الشعب».
ومساءً، ردّت القاضية غادة عون على متّهميها بمخالفة القانون، وقالت، عبر «تويتر»: «للتذكير فقط، لمن لم يقرأ قانون أصول المحاكمات الجزائية، فإنّ المادة ٢٤ تعطي الحقّ للنائب العام في الاستقصاء وجمع الأدلّة والتحقيق والمداهمة عند الاقتضاء لضبط الأدلّة التي يحاول المشتبه فيهم إخفاءها. هذا من صلب مهمّات النيابة العامة وإلا لا يمكن كشف أيّ جريمة».
وفي ما بدا رداً على الراعي وعودة، أشارت عون إلى أنّ «ما يثير الذهول بالفعل أنه، بدل أن يستهجن كل من ألصق بي اليوم تهم التمرد ومخالفة القوانين، لم يخدش شعورهم صورة بشعة تظهر مدى تمرّد البعض على القضاء نتيجة وقوف مدّعٍ عام أمام مكاتب شركة مشتبه في تهريبها أموال اللبنانيين ومنعه من الدخول»

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

Noam Chomsky – Why Does the U.S. Support Israel?

Trump on Borrowed Time and Potential Dangers

Trump on Borrowed Time and Potential Dangers

By Ali Abadi, Al-Ahed News

Why are we witnessing the intensification of normalization efforts between Arab regimes and the Zionist entity following the US presidential elections? What options does Donald Trump have during the remainder of his time in office?

Prior to the US elections, it was clear that the goal of the normalization agreements was to boost Trump’s reelection campaign. But the extension of the normalization current beyond the election that Trump lost has other potential objectives:

–    Attracting additional support for Trump in his battle to cling to power by sharpening the capabilities of the Zionist constituencies to support his electoral appeals that don’t have a great chance of success. But Trump has not given up yet in his efforts to reverse the results.

–    Sending important signals to those concerned at home and abroad that Trump still has vigor, as he plans to complete the goals he set and stay on the political scene. If he were to lose the presidency now, he may return in 2024, as those close to him have hinted. In the meantime, he seeks to gain support from the Jewish and Christian Zionist circles as a “man of word and action” in supporting “Israel” absolutely and without hesitation.

With Trump preoccupied with the battle to cling to power at home, his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, is abroad – touring as “Israel’s” minister of foreign affairs accompanied by Arab ministers to sign more normalization agreements. He is legalizing “Israeli” settlements and the occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights and declaring a move to criminalize the campaign of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS). 

It’s worth noting that months before the US elections, Pompeo reportedly had his sights set on the 2024 presidential race. As such, Pompeo, who identifies with Trump’s approach and acts as his obedient supporter, plans to be the natural heir to the Trumpian current in the event that its leader is absent due natural causes like death or unnatural causes such as imprisonment due to his legal issues. 

He is also preparing the groundwork for the birth of an “Israeli”-Arab alliance (Saudi, Bahraini, and Emirati) standing in the face of the Islamic Republic of Iran and adding further complications to any possible return of the Biden administration to the nuclear deal.

Saudi and “Israeli” officials are now speaking in one voice about a “no return” to the nuclear agreement, as they set the conditions and limits that they feel the next American administration should abide by. This is also a reflection of widespread concerns over the failure of Trump’s so-called maximum pressure campaign against Iran. 

This was the background for news reports about Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman meeting “Israeli” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saudi territory – a get-together arranged by Pompeo.

The choice for war is in the balance

All of the above are possibilities. But does that give way to expectations for a military adventure against Iran, for example, during the transitional period before Joe Biden takes office on January 20?

No sane person can absolutely deny such a possibility. In this context, news about the US strategic B-52 bomber’s flight to the region, the possibility of supplying US bombs that penetrate fortifications to the Zionist entity, the dismissal of US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, and the withdrawal of US units from Iraq and Afghanistan trickled in. 

The last move may be aimed at withdrawing targets near Iran in the event Washington takes military action against Tehran. However, attacking Iran militarily is not an American desire as much as it is an “Israeli” and Saudi one. The Pentagon has previously opposed military action against Iran, at a time when the US military has not recovered from its wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

This view does not appear to have changed, and US military commanders are unlikely to agree to put the military during the transition period on the course of a new war in the Middle East for personal or populist purposes. 

There are other considerations too. The costs of the war and its consequences are difficult to determine. Trump also knows that the mood of the American public can’t bear sacrifices abroad, financially or on a humanitarian level.

What about other possibilities?

Based on Trump’s behavior over the past four years, it appears the US president prefers to score goals and make quick deals. He is not inclined to get involved in prolonged duels. As such, it’s possible to predict that Trump will resort to localized strikes in Syria, Iraq, or Yemen (there is talk about the possibility of placing Ansarullah on the list of terrorist organizations) or cover a possible “Israeli” strike in Lebanon under one pretext or another. 

He could also resort to assassinating figures affiliated with the axis of resistance, and this possibility is more likely, especially in Iraq and Syria. Trump revealed in recent months that he thought about assassinating the Syrian president, and there are also American threats directed at leaders of the resistance factions in Iraq.

In conclusion, any aggressive military action against Iran appears to be a rooted “Israeli” option that Netanyahu tried to market to the Americans since the Obama era but failed. He is trying to strike Iran via the Americans, but Washington has other calculations and options. 

The Saudis have also urged successive US administrations to strike Iran, according to what appeared in WikiLeaks documents quoting the late King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz. The window of opportunity for major military action before Trump’s departure appears narrow. He may consider the rapid operations approach followed by similar actions against Iran’s allies to deal a moral blow to Tehran, cut back its regional leadership role, and besiege its growing influence in the power equation with the Zionist entity that is challenging the US hegemony over the region.

However, we should add that the axis of resistance has its own plans for the confrontation. It withstood the maximum pressure and is able to turn any adventure into an opportunity, relying on its vigilance and accumulated capabilities.

Cui bono from the situation in France

Cui bono from the situation in France

October 29, 2020

I won’t even bother repeating it all here, those who are interested in my views of this entire Charlie Hebdo canard can read my article “I am NOT Charlie” here: https://thesaker.is/i-am-not-charlie/

No, what I want to do is to ask a simple question: do you think the French leaders are simply stupid, suicidal or naive?  I submit that they neither stupid, nor suicidal nor naive.  In fact, they are using a well practiced technique which goes with some variation of this:

  • Infiltrate some pseudo-Islamic gang of cutthroats (literally!)
  • Keep them under close scrutiny ostensibly for counter-terrorism purposes
  • Inside the group, try to promote your confidential informers
  • Have your analysts work on the following question: “how could we best provoke these nutcases into a bloody terrorist act?
  • Once the plan is decided, simply execute it, say by organizing the posting fantastically offensive caricatures
  • Once the cutthroats strike, blame Islam and double down
  • By then, you have infuriated most of the immense Muslim world out there and you can rest assured that the process is launched and will continue on its own.  You can now relax and get the pop-corn
  • Have your propaganda machine declare that Islam is incompatible with western civilization (whatever that means in 2020, both Descartes and Conchita Wurst I suppose…)
  • Shed some crocodile tears when the cutthroats murder some completely innocent Christian bystander
  • And announce a new crusade against “Islamism” (also a vague and, frankly, meaningless term!) and crack down on true Muslim communities and ideas while continuing to lovingly arm, train, finance and direct the “good terrorists” who have now become your own, personal, cutthroats.

Cui bono?

Anybody who knows anything about the political realities in France will immediately know in whose interests this all is and who is behind that: the Zionist power structure in France (CRIF, UEJF, etc. and the Israelis).  They have a total control over Macron and over the entire political class, very much including Marine LePen.

Who else could have concocted the “beautiful” term “Islamo-Fascisme“?!

This is a new phenomenon, a new ideology and a new strategy, which Alain Soral calls “National Zionism” which I discussed in some details here: https://thesaker.is/the-great-fraud-of-national-zionism/.

In its inception (from Ahad Ha’am, Theodor Herzl,  Ze’ev Jabotinsky, etc) Zionism used to be a largely secular and nationalistic, then, later, after WWII, it became very leftist and still secular ( Ben-Gurion, Shlomo Lavi, Golda Meir).  Modern Zionism, however, is both rabidly racist and religious – the perfect example would be US neocons.  It is also a ruthless and genocidal ideology which has created something truly original: God-mandated racism, something which, as far as I know, no other religion professes (so much for the ignorant and, frankly, plain stupid notions of “Abrahamic religions” or, even worse, “Judeo-Christian values”!).  National Zionism is the next phase of Zionism – it is rabidly “conservative” (in a Neocon sense only, of course!) and it parasitically feeds on whatever nationalist ideology the local patriotic goyim are inclined towards (the best example of that being the so-called “Christian Zionists” in the USA).

But here is the demonic “beauty” of it all: in a society like the French one, the Zionists don’t even need to micromanage their false flags: given enough uneducated and murderous pseudo-Muslim cutthroats and enough rabid secularists wanted to offend the faithful – some kind of violent explosion will *inevitably* happen!

Right now, between the embarrassing Yellow Vests movement, the crumbling economy, the massive influx, wave after wave, of unwanted and un-adaptable immigrants and the resulting social tensions, the French regime is in deep trouble.  Add to this the COVID pandemic which just added to the chaos and anger and finish with a total lack of foreign policy successes and you will immediately see why this regime badly needed what could be called a “patriotic reaction”.

Finally, there is the time-proven method of scaring your own population into a state of catatonic acceptance of everything and anything in the name of “security”.

We see it all in France today, we saw it in the UK before, and also in Belgium.  And, rest assured,  we will see much more such massacres in the future.  The only way to really stop these “terrorist” attacks is to show their sponsors that we know who they are and we understand what they are doing.  Short of this, these attacks will continue.

The Saker

جهر بخيانة مكشوفة

«إسرائيل» متمسّكة بخطّة الضم: في انتظار بقيّة العرب

فلسطين 

وليد شرارة 

السبت 15 آب 2020

أَبلغُ رد على اتفاق الخيانة الإماراتي مع إسرائيل برعاية أميركية جاء من المصلين في المسجد الأقصى، الذين رفعوا صورة محمد بن زايد وعليها كلمة خائن. قد تستخف نخب الارتزاق بهذا الموقف، الذي يعبّر عن اقتناعات الاتجاه الرئيسي بين جماهير الأمّة من المحيط إلى الخليج، بل ومن طنجة إلى جاكرتا، إلا أن المهم في مواجهة مثل هذا التطور هو ليس مناقشة حججها الفارغة ومنطقها المتداعي. المهم بالنسبة إلى المعنيين بمستقبل قضية فلسطين والصراع مع الكيان الصهيوني والهيمنة الأميركية وأذنابها المحليين، من مشيخات وممالك اخترعها الاستعمار في قلب جزيرة العرب، هو القراءة الصحيحة لخلفيات هذا الاتفاق والاعتبارات الفعلية لأطرافه، ولتداعياته على المعركة الدائرة بين قوى المقاومة في الأمة وأعدائها. آلة الحرب الإعلامية-الدعائية للجبهة المعادية تروّج للاتفاق باعتباره حدثاً «تاريخياً»، «زلزال جيوسياسي ضرب الشرق الأوسط»، بحسب عنوان المقال الأخير للمبشّر الأميركي الصهيوني توماس فريدمان.

في الواقع، نحن أمام عملية استعراضية، تكثر مثيلاتها في سياق عالمي تحاول فيه الدول الغربية التعويض عن ضمور هيمنتها وتراجع قدرات وكلائها المحليين بتنظيم مهرجانات مشهدية، يتكفل «التطبيل» الإعلامي الذي يرافقها بتقديمها على أنها دليل حسي على استمرار تحكمها في مجرى الأحداث. اتفاق التطبيع الكامل بين دويلة الإمارات واسرائيل نموذج جديد على هذا الفن الاستعراضي، يجهر بطريقة دراماتيكية بخيانة مكشوفة منذ زمن طويل للقاصي والداني من أبناء الأمّة، لكنه يشي في الآن نفسه بمصاعب وتحديات يواجهها جميع الأطراف المشاركين فيه وحاجتهم إلى انتصارات وهمية، تغطي عجزهم عن تغيير موازين القوى، المتحولة لغير مصلحتهم في الميدان.
سعي الجيل الجديد من النخب الحاكمة في الإمارات والسعودية والبحرين وعمان في الانتقال، بعلاقات أنظمتها بإسرائيل، من التقاطع إلى التحالف، السرّي ومن ثم العلني، تعزّزَ بقوة بعد موجة الانتفاضات الشعبية التي شهدتها المنطقة العربية سنة 2011، وما نجم عنها من شعور بالتهديد الوجودي لدى هذه الأنظمة. قبل هذا التاريخ، منذ بداية ستينيات القرن الماضي، تعاونت هذه الأخيرة مع الولايات المتحدة وإسرائيل للتصدي لصعود أي قوة إقليمية مستقلة، مرشحة لأن تتحول قطباً جاذباً لقسم من دوله وشعوبه، ولأن تعدّل موازين القوى فيه باتجاه متناقض مع الهيمنة الأميركية ووكلائها المحليين. الأسباب نفسها دفعت المشيخات والإمارات والممالك الخليجية إلى محاربة مصر الناصرية في الستينيات، والعراق في أواخر الثمانينيات وبداية التسعينيات، وإيران منذ انتصار ثورتها، ولكن بشراسة أكبر منذ بداية الألفية الثانية. قيام هذه الانظمة وبقاؤها ارتبطا بالهيمنة الغربية والأميركية، وهي لم تتورع عن الاندراج في مخططاتها، جنباً إلى جنب مع إسرائيل، لمواجهة أي مشروع استقلالي ذي أفق إقليمي، عربياً كان أو إسلامياً. هذا سرّ عدائها اليوم لإيران وحتى لتركيا إردوغان. لكن مشهد هروب الرئيس التونسي بن علي وسقوط نظيره مبارك وانتشار موجة الانتفاضات الشعبية في طول المنطقة وعرضها في ظل تخبط أميركي وغربي، وعجز عن دعم «الحلفاء» هو الذي أصابها بالذعر. في هذه اللحظة المفصلية بالذات تفتقت عبقرية الجيل الجديد من حكامها عن خيار «ورقة الأمان الإسرائيلية».

الفرضية الرئيسية التي تأسّس عليها هذا الخيار هي أن إسرائيل تمتلك في الولايات المتحدة منظومة مؤيدة


الفرضية الرئيسية التي تأسس عليها هذا الخيار هي أن إسرائيل تمتلك في الولايات المتحدة منظومة مؤيدة لها، وليس مجرد لوبي، وأن قدرتها على التأثير على سياستها الشرق أوسطية هائلة بكل ما للكلمة من معنى. إضافة إلى ذلك، فإن هذا الجيل الجديد مقتنع بأن إيران وحلفاءها في الدرجة الأولى، تليها في الدرجة الثانية تركيا وحلفاؤها، هم أعداء وجوديون مشتركون لهم ولإسرائيل. أخيراً، فإن هذا الجيل المعولم الذي ينظر إلى روابط العروبة والدين على أنها من مخلفات ماض بائد يرى في الشراكة مع إسرائيل، القوة العسكرية والاقتصادية والتكنولوجية، فرصة لتعظيم قدرات نظمه. عمل هؤلاء على توثيق أواصر الصلة مع الكيان الصهيوني ونخبه لتأكيد أنهم «كنز استراتيجي» لإسرائيل، كما وصف الوزير الصهيوني الأسبق بنيامين بن اليعازر الرئيس المصري المخلوع حسني مبارك بعد أيام من سقوطه. ومن الواضح أنهم نجحوا في هذا الأمر. وحتى دونالد ترامب اعترف لهم بهذا «الجميل» عندما رد على منتقديه على دعمه لمحمد بن سلمانـ بعد فضيحة قتل الصحافي جمال خاشقجي، مذكّراً بدور الأوّل في الوقوف إلى جانب إسرائيل ضد الذين يريدون إزالتها.

التحالف الأميركي-الإسرائيلي-الإماراتي-السعودي لم يعد سراً بالنسبة إلى أحد، لكن الحرص على تظهيره، مع الإمارات بداية، يرتبط بحسابات سياسية داخلية لدى أطرافه الثلاثة، وبرغبتهم في تسجيل نجاح وهمي ضد محور المقاومة عبر الاحتفال بتحقيق مثل هذا «الاختراق»، بينما هم فشلوا في المعركة المركزية معه، المتمحورة حول مراكمته وتطويره لقدرات عسكرية وصاروخية تسهم في تغيير تدريجي ولكن متواصل لموازين القوى في المنطقة لغير مصلحتهم.

ترامب، الذي يرى فرص إعادة انتخابه تذوي، والعاجز عن القيام بأي إنجاز داخلي يحول دون ذلك، يبحث بدلاً منها عن إنجازات خارجية لعلها تساعد في وقف انحدار شعبيته المتسارع. نتنياهو، المتهم بالفساد، والذي يواجه احتجاجات لم يسبق أن واجه رئيس وزراء صهيوني مثيلاً لها منذ إنشاء الكيان، إلى درجة دفعت البعض إلى الحديث عن احتمالات حرب أهلية، يأمل أن يخفف من حدتها عبر إبراز نجاح ما في الخارج. الإمارات امتثلت لطلبات الراعي الأميركي والحليف الإسرائيلي، لكنها بدورها متورطة في نزاع مفتوح مع تركيا وحلفائها، وليبيا أبرز ساحاته حالياً، وهي طرف في المحور المعادي لإيران على رغم محاولاتها لتطبيع خجول معها صدّته الولايات المتحدة. هي تنصاع للطلبات الأميركية والإسرائيلية في مقابل حمايتها من خصومها الأقوياء. أطراف مأزومون، لم يتمكنوا من الانتصار في معركة الصواريخ المركزية ضد محور المقاومة، يحتفون بالجهر بما كان معلوماً. أما محمد بن زايد، فعليه التوقف والتفكير ملياً في ما قد يترتب على تصنيفه خائناً في باحات الأقصى، في القدس، عاصمة الأمّة.

مقالات متعلقة

ماذا عن حياد يستثني كيان الاحتلال؟ What About neutrality that excludes the entity of occupation

ناصر قنديل

لا نريد ن هذه المقالة إصدار أحكام ولا توجيه اتهامات، بل نريد مناقشة الفرضيّة التي ألحق بها البطريرك بشارة الراعي دعوته لإعلان حياد لبنان، وتطبيق القرارات الدولية واستعادة لبنان دعم أصدقائه، كما ورد في عظته المخصصة للحياد. والفرضية الملحقة تقول إن الدعوة للحياد تستثني كيان الاحتلال، ليصير السؤال البديهي عقلياً عن إمكانية حياد يستثني كيان الاحتلال، وما هي مترتبات هذا الاستثناء على دعوة الحياد نفسها، وفرصها في التحقق، بعيداً عن مناقشة تنحو باتجاه التساؤل والنقاش في جوهر فكرة الحياد، ومعانيها ودرجة صدقيتها، وفي سؤالنا عن إمكانية حياد يستثني كيان الاحتلال سنتناول فقط ثلاثة عناوين من عديد منها يشبهها.

العنوان الأول هو أن لبنان يتعرّض يومياً لانتهاكات لسيادته من جانب جيش كيان الاحتلال، خصوصاً على صعيد مواصلة طائرات جيش الاحتلال استعمال الأجواء اللبنانية للتجسس والأعمال العدوانية، والانتهاكات الموثقة وفقاً للجيش اللبناني بالآلاف سنوياً، فهل يمكن للحياد أن يوفر مظلة حماية للبنان من هذه الانتهاكات، التي تحظى بحماية قانونية توفرها واشنطن في كل المحافل الدولية. وقد لمست الدبلوماسية اللبنانية حسياً، كيف أن كل شكوى تتقدم بها إلى مجلس الأمن الدولي يتم تعطيل فرصها بالتحول إلى القرار والإدانة على مدى ثلاثة أرباع القرن، وأحياناً يتعذر نيل فرص العرض والنقاش، بقرار أميركي لا يتردد بالتحول إلى فيتو عندما يبدو أن المناخ الدولي يتّجه للتضامن مع مظلومية لبنان، فهل يمكن لحياد على الطريقة السويسرية التي أشار إليها البطريرك كمثال، أن يتضمن تزويد الجيش اللبناني بدفاعات جوية تمنع طيران جيش الاحتلال من دخول أجوائنا السيادية؟ وهل أصدقاء لبنان الذين قصدهم البطريرك في دعوته مستعدون لتزويد الجيش بهذه الدفاعات، وإن لم يفعلوا هل تتيح دعوة البطريرك فرصة طلب هذا النوع من السلاح من غير هؤلاء الأصدقاء دون اعتبار ذلك عزلاً للبنان عن أصدقائه، وعن المجتمع الدولي؟

العنوان الثاني، إن للبنان قضية جوهرية وطنية ودستورية مطروحة اليوم على الطاولة، تتصل بالسياسات الدولية، خصوصاً الآتية من الذين قصدهم البطريرك بالإشارة لأصدقاء لبنان، فمشروع حل القضية الفلسطينية وفقاً للرؤية الأميركية معلن ويتضمن تجاهلاً لعودة اللاجئين، ودعوة لتوطينهم، ولبنان موحّد على إجماعه نظرياً برفض التوطين والتمسك برفض أي حل للقضية الفلسطينية يتضمن التوطين، وليس خافياً أن جزءاً أساسياً من الضغوط الاقتصادية التي يتعرّض لها لبنان، يتصل بمحاولة إضعافه لمساومته على مقايضة التوطين بالدعم المالي لتخطي أزماته، واستثناء كيان الاحتلال من دعوة الحياد يفترض أن يشمل استثناء حق لبنان بمواجهة مشاريع التوطين، والإدارة الأميركية هي المعني الرئيسي بهذه المواجهة، لأنها صاحبة مشروع صفقة القرن علناً، فهل تشكل دعوات الصمود بوجه الضغوط الأميركية، والتمسك بعناصر القوة التي تحول دون هذه الضغوط، تطبيقاً لمضمون استثناء كيان الاحتلال من دعوة الحياد التي أطلقها البطريرك، وبالتالي لا تشملها الاتهامات بعزل لبنان، ولا بحصار الشرعية فيه؟

العنوان الثالث، إن الضغوط الراهنة المالية والاقتصادية، والتي وصفتها دعوة الحياد قبل الاستثناء، بنتاج لعزل لبنان عن أصدقائه، فما هو موضوع هذه الضغوط وفقاً لأصحابها، وقد تحدث كل من وزير الخارجية الأميركية مايك بومبيو ومعاونه ديفيد شينكر عنها، فقال الأول إن امتلاك حزب الله للصواريخ الدقيقة يهدد مستقبل وأمن كيان الاحتلال، المستثنى من دعوة الحياد كما يقول التوضيح، والضغط يهدف لتأمين راحة الكيان من القلق الذي تسببه هذه الصواريخ، أما معاون الوزير ديفيد شينكر فقد تناول الوضع المالي الضاغط على لبنان وقال بصورة لا تحتمل التأويل، إنه بموازاة معاناة اللبنانيين هناك ثروات واعدة في البحر في مجال النفط والغاز هي موضوع نزاع مع كيان الاحتلال، وأن واشنطن قدّمت للبنان تصوراً لحل هذا النزاع، والمطلوب من اللبنانيين قبول هذا التصور، ليتخلصوا من هذه المعاناة، فهل يشمل استثناء كيان الاحتلال من الحياد، دعم تمسك لبنان بحقوقه السيادية في ثرواته البحرية التي يهدرها السيد شينكر بالتصور الذي يدعونا لقبوله؟

في الخلاصة يجب الاعتراف أن لا مشكلة فعلية بين لبنان والسياسات الأميركية التي تفسر العزلة التي يشكو منها البطريرك، إلا تلك التي ترتبط بكيان الاحتلال، من قضية التوطين إلى الانتهاكات التي تمس السيادة اللبنانية وصواريخ المقاومة وترسيم الحدود البحرية، فإن تمسكنا باستثناء كيان الاحتلال من دعوة الحياد كوصفة لفك العزلة التي تحدث عنها البطريرك، سيسقط الحياد وتبقى العزلة. وإذا ذهبنا حتى النهاية في الحياد وفك العزلة وتغاضينا عن مطالبنا السيادية التي يشكل التصادم مع مشاريع كيان الاحتلال جوهرها، فعلينا المجاهرة بقبول التوطين، وتسليم أجوائنا وصواريخ مقاومتنا لكيان الاحتلال ليطمئن ويرضى «الأصدقاء» ونقبل ترسيم حدودنا البحرية بما يحقق سيطرة الكيان على ثرواتنا الواعدة فيها، فماذا نختار بين الحياد والاستثناء، وقد صارا وجهاً لوجه، يصعب الجمع بينهما؟

ماذا بعد؟ الفلسطينيّون يتلاحمون ترامب يرتبك، نتنياهو يتريّث…‏

د. عصام نعمان

تلاقى الفلسطينيون بعد طول تباعد. تلاقيهم على طريق اتحادهم كان مفاجأتهم لأنفسهم كما لأعدائهم. القادة الصهاينة ومن ورائهم نظراؤهم الأميركيون راهنوا طويلاً على انقسام الفلسطينيين على أنفسهم وتنافس فصائل المقاومة على الصدارة والنفوذ.

صحيح أنّ الفلسطينيين تأخروا في التلاقي على طريق توحيد الموقف وتفعيل المقاومة، لكنهم استدركوا تقصيرهم وباشروا التلاحم في وجه الأعداء في الوطن والشتات. مجرد التلاقي، لا سيما بين «فتح» و«حماس»، أقلق الأعداء واضطرهم الى إعادة النظر بحساباتهم.

كان بنيامين نتنياهو يتطلع الى بدء عملية ضمّ مناطق في الضفة الغربية بحلول الأول من تموز/ يوليو، لكن في اليوم نفسه صدر بيان عن حكومته يقول إنه عقد اجتماعاً مع كبار المسؤولين في المؤسسة الأمنية لمناقشة مسألة فرض السيادة على مناطق الضفة. من التعهّد القاطع بالتنفيذ تريّث نتنياهو بسرعة لافتة متحوّلاً الى مناقشة ترتيبات الضمّ.

مخطط نتنياهو للضمّ تعرّض لانتقادات دولية شديدة. الأمم المتحدة والاتحاد الأوروبي والفاتيكان فضلاً عن دول كثيرة عربية واسلامية وأجنبية قالت إن ضمّ «إسرائيل» مناطق فلسطينية سينتهك القانون الدولي ويقوّض الاحتمالات (المتضائلة أصلاً) لإقامة دولة فلسطينية مستقلة قابلة للحياة.

حتى الولايات المتحدة، حليفة «إسرائيل» وحاضنتها التاريخية، أبدت مداورةً، تحفظاً بشأن بدء عملية الضمّ في الاول من تموز. كبار مسؤوليها السياسيين والأمنيين عقدوا اجتماعات متتالية لتخريج موقف يحفظ ماء وجه الرئيس المرتبك والغارق، وسط احتدام معركته الانتخابية، في طوفان من الانتقادات والتشنيعات على مستوى العالم برمته. في غمرة هذا الحَرج، تهرّب وزير الخارجية مايك بومبيو بالقول إن واشنطن تعتبر مسألة الضم قراراً يخصّ «إسرائيل».

قبل تصريح بومبيو وبعده كان المسؤولون الإسرائيليون قد انقسموا حول مسألة تنفيذ الضم وتداعياته. بعضهم رفضه لأنه ينطوي بالضرورة على وضع عشرات آلاف الفلسطينيين تحت سيادة الكيان الصهيوني ما يؤدي لاحقاً الى قيام دولة ثنائية القومية وذات اكثرية عربية ومسلمة بين سكانها. بعضهم الآخر، وجلّه من أهل اليسار، تخوّف من ان يؤدي الضمّ ليس الى تقويض يهودية الدولة فحسب بل الى التمييز الشديد ضد «مواطنيها» من غير اليهود ايضاً ما يرسّخ صورتها كدولة ابارتهايد (تمييز عنصري) مكروهة من الدول والشعوب.

صحيح أن الضمّ الآن أرجئ، لكنه لم يُلغَ قط. كثيرون من المراقبين في:

«إسرائيل» وفي اميركا يعتقدون ان كلاًّ من نتنياهو وترامب مضطر الى السير مجدّداً في مخطط الضمّ، ولو الجزئي، لاعتبارات شخصية وسياسية. نتنياهو مهجوس بمسألة ملاحقته جزائياً بتُهَم الفساد والرشوة ما يستوجب بقاءه رئيساً للحكومة لضمان تبرئته من جهة، ومن جهة أخرى لتعزيز طموحه الى ان تتخطى سمعته وإنجازاته تراث دايفيد بن غوريون، فيصبح هو «ملك إسرائيل» في تاريخها المعاصر!

ترامب يؤرقه شبقه المضني للفوز بولاية رئاسية ثانية ما يدفعه الى تأمين تصويت جماعتين كثيفتي العدد والنفوذ الى جانبه، الإنجيليين واليهود، وذلك بتجديد تحبيذه البدء بتنفيذ قرار الضم. لهذا الغرض، صعّدت جماعات الإنجيليين ضغوطها على ترامب من أجل الدفع قُدُماً بمخطط ضم مناطق الضفة الغربية الى «إسرائيل». أحد أبرز قياديّي هؤلاء مايك ايفانس قال لصحيفة «يديعوت احرونوت» (2020/7/2) «إن قدرة الرئيس ترامب على الفوز في انتخابات الرئاسة ستُحسم بأصوات الانجيليين، ولن يكون بمقدوره الفوز من دوننا (..) وأيّ مستشار يحثه على التراجع عن تأييد الضمّ يتسبّب بإبعاده خارج البيت الأبيض (…) ولو كنتُ مكان نتنياهو لضغطت على ترامب من أجل تنفيذ الضم قبل انتخابات الرئاسة الأميركية».

ماذا على الصعيد الفلسطينيّ؟

لم يتضح بعد ما جرى الاتفاق على اعتماده عملياً لمواجهة قرار الضمّ حتى لو كان جزئياً. غير أن ما يمكن استخلاصه من تصريحات وخطابات ومواقف قادة فصائل المقاومة المؤيدة لاجتماع قياديي «فتح» و«حماس» اتفاقهم على توحيد الجهود الرامية الى مقاومة «صفقة القرن» بكل أبعادها وتحدياتها. لن يكشف، بطبيعة الحال، ايٌّ من فصائل المقاومة القرارات السريّة العملانية التي يمكن ان يكون قادة «فتح و«حماس» قد اتخذوها، منفردين او متحدين، لمواجهة عملية الضمّ ميدانياً. إلاّ ان نبرة القياديين في تصريحاتهم من جهة وتسريبات أو تخمينات بعضهم من جهة أخرى توحي بأن ثمة توافقاً على إشعال انتفاضة شعبية مديدة ضدّ الاحتلال في الضفة الغربية بالإضافة الى جميع ساحات الوجود الفلسطيني بما في ذلك الأراضي المحتلة العام 1948.

هل ثمة اتفاق بين كبريات الفصائل الفلسطينية على مواجهة اعتداءات «إسرائيل» بهجوم معاكس على جميع الجبهات في الشمال والجنوب والشرق بالاتفاق مع قيادات محور المقاومة؟

لا جواب صريحاً في هذا المجال من أيّ قيادي فلسطيني وازن. غير انّ مراقبين مقرّبين من قيادات المقاومة، الفلسطينية والعربية، يستبعدون ذلك لأسباب ثلاثة:

أوّلها لأنّ فصائل المقاومة جميعاً منشغلة داخل أقطارها بأزمات وتحديات سياسية واقتصادية واجتماعية معقدة تضطرها الى اعتبارها أولى بالاهتمام في الوقت الحاضر.

ثانيها لأنّ «إسرائيل» ذاتها تبدو منشغلة بمشكلات داخلية ليس أقلها اندلاع موجة ثانية من جائحة كورونا، كما هي قلقة من تحوّل ميزان الردع في الصراع الى كفة المقاومة، لا سيما حزب الله، بعد ثبوت امتلاكه عدداً وفيراً من الصواريخ الدقيقة.

ثالثها لعدم توافر أوضاع دولية ملائمة لـِ «إسرائيل» لتوسيع رقعة تحديها للمجتمع الدولي ولأحكام القانون الدولي المتعارضة مع سياسة الضمّ والتهويد واقتلاع السكان الأصليين.

غير انّ هذه الاعتبارات لا تصمد امام تصميم رئيس أميركي بالغ العنهجية والتطرف ويصعب التنبؤ بنزواته وتصرفاته، ورئيس حكومة إسرائيلي مُترع بحب التسلّط والصدارة وبرغبة جامحة لتغطية ارتكاباته الجنائية والهروب من حكم العدالة.

*نائب ووزير سابق.

‘The God That Failed’: Why the U.S. Cannot Now Re-Impose Its Civilisational Worldview

Source

Alastair Crooke

June 29, 2020

The God That Failed': Why The U.S. Cannot Now Re-Impose Its ...

It was always a paradox: John Stuart Mill, in his seminal (1859), On Liberty, never doubted that a universal civilisation, grounded in liberal values, was the eventual destination of all of humankind. He looked forward to an ‘Exact Science of Human Nature’, which would formulate laws of psychology and society as precise and universal as those of the physical sciences. Yet, not only did that science never emerge, in today’s world, such social ‘laws’ are taken as strictly (western) cultural constructs, rather than as laws or science.

So, not only was the claim to universal civilisation not supported by evidence, but the very idea of humans sharing a common destination (‘End of Times’) is nothing more than an apocalyptic remnant of Latin Christianity, and of one minor current in Judaism. Mill’s was always a matter of secularized religion – faith – rather than empiricism. A shared human ‘destination’ does not exist in Orthodox Christianity, Taoism or Buddhism. It could never therefore qualify as universal.

Liberal core tenets of individual autonomy, freedom, industry, free trade and commerce essentially reflected the triumph of the Protestant worldview in Europe’s 30-years’ civil war. It was not fully even a Christian view, but more a Protestant one.

This narrow, sectarian pillar was able to be projected into a universal project – only so long as it was underpinned by power. In Mill’s day, the civilisational claim served Europe’s need for colonial validation. Mill tacitly acknowledges this when he validates the clearing of the indigenous American populations for not having tamed the wilderness, nor made the land productive.

However, with America’s Cold War triumph – that had by then become a cynical framework for U.S. ‘soft power’ – acquired a new potency. The merits of America’s culture, and way of life, seemed to acquire practical validation through the implosion of the USSR.

But today, with America’s soft power collapsed – not even the illusion of universalism can be sustained. Other states are coming forward, offering themselves as separate, equally compelling ‘civilisational’ states. It is clear that even were the classic liberal Establishment to win in the November U.S. elections, America no longer has claim to path-find a New World Order.

Yet, should this secularised Protestant current be over – beware! Because its subterranean, unconscious religiosity is the ‘ghost at the table’ today. It is returning in a new guise.

The ‘old illusion’ cannot continue, because its core values are being radicalised, stood on their head, and turned into the swords with which to impale classic American and European liberals (and U.S. Christian Conservatives). It is now the younger generation of American woke liberals who are asserting vociferously not merely that the old liberal paradigm is illusory, but that it was never more than ‘a cover’ hiding oppression – whether domestic, or colonial, racist or imperial; a moral stain that only redemption can cleanse.

It is an attack – which coming from within – forecloses on any U.S. moral, soft power, global leadership aspirations. For with the illusion exploded, and nothing in its place, a New World Order cannot coherently be formulated.

Not content with exposing the illusion, the woke generation are also tearing down, and shredding, the flags at the masthead: Freedom and prosperity achieved via the liberal market.

‘Freedom’ is being torn down from within. Dissidents from the woke ideology, are being ‘called out’, made to repent on the knee, or face reputational or economic ruin. It is ‘soft totalitarianism’. It recalls one of Dostoevsky’s characters – at a time when Russian progressives were discrediting traditional institutions – who, in a celebrated line, says: “I got entangled in my data … Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism”.

Even ‘science’ has become a ‘God that failed’; instead of being the path to liberty, it has become a dark soulless path toward unfreedom. From algorithms that ‘cost’ the value of human lives, versus the ‘costing’ of lockdown; from secret ‘Black Box’ algos that limit distribution of news and thinking, to Bill Gates’ vaccination ID project, science now portends despotic social control, rather than a fluttering standard, hoist as the symbol of freedom.

But the most prominent of these flags, torn down, cannot be blamed on the woke generation. There has been no ‘prosperity for all’ – only distortions and warped structures. There are not even free markets. The Fed and the U.S. Treasury simply print new money, and hand it out to select recipients. There is no means now to attribute ‘worth’ to financial assets. Their value simply is that which Central Government is willing to pay for bonds, or grant in bail-outs.

Wow. ‘The God who failed’ (André Gide’s book title) – a crash of idols. One wonders now, what is the point to that huge financial eco-system known as Wall Street. Why not winnow it down to a couple of entities, say, Blackrock and KKR (hedge funds), and leave it to them to distribute the Fed’s freshly-printed ‘boodle’ amongst friends? Liberal markets no more – and many fewer jobs.

Many commentators have noted the wokes’ absence of vision for the future. Some describe them in highly caustic terms:

“Today, America’s tumbrils are clattering about, carrying toppled statues, ruined careers, unwoke brands. Over their sides peer those deemed racist by left-wing identitarians and sentenced to cancelation, even as the evidentiary standard for that crime falls through the floor … But who are these cultural revolutionaries? The conventional wisdom goes that this is the inner-cities erupting, economically disadvantaged victims of racism enraged over the murder of George Floyd. The reality is something more … bourgeoisie. As Kevin Williamson observed last week, “These are the idiot children of the American ruling class, toy radicals and Champagne Bolsheviks, playing Jacobin for a while, until they go back to graduate school”.

Is that so? I well recall listening in the Middle East to other angry young men who, too, wanted to ‘topple the statues’; to burn down everything. ‘You really believed that Washington would allow you … in’, they taunted and tortured their leaders: “No, we must burn it all down. Start from scratch”.

Did they have a blueprint for the future? No. They simply believed that Islam would organically inflate, and expand to fill the void. It would happen by itself – of its own accord: Faith.

Professor John Gray has noted “that in The God that failed, Gide says: ‘My faith in communism is like my faith in religion. It is a promise of salvation for mankind’’. “Here Gide acknowledged”, Gray continues, “that communism was an atheist version of monotheism. But so is liberalism, and when Gide and others gave up faith in communism to become liberals, they were not renouncing the concepts and values that both ideologies had inherited from western religion. They continued to believe that history was a directional process in which humankind was advancing towards universal freedom”.

So too with the wokes. The emphasis is on Redemption; on a Truth catharsis; on their own Virtue as sufficient agency to stand-in for the lack of plan for the future. All are clear signals: A secularised ‘illusion’ is metamorphosing back into ‘religion’. Not as Islam, of course, but as angry Man, burning at the deep and dark moral stain of the past. And acting now as purifying ‘fire’ to bring about the uplifting and shining future ahead.

Tucker Carlson, a leading American conservative commentator known for plain speaking, frames the movement a little differently: “This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized political movement … It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious, it will grow. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization itself … We’re too literal and good-hearted to understand what’s happening … We have no idea what we are up against … These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political movement”.

Again, nothing needs to be done by this new generation to bring into being a new world, apart from destroying the old one. This vision is a relic – albeit secularised – of western Christianity. Apocalypse and redemption, these wokes believe, have their own path; their own internal logic.

Mill’s ‘ghost’ is arrived at the table. And with its return, America’s exceptionalism has its re-birth. Redemption for humankind’s dark stains. A narrative in which the history of mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. Yet Americans, young or old, now lack the power to project it as a universal vision.

‘Virtue’, however deeply felt, on its own, is insufficient. Might President Trump try nevertheless to sustain the old illusion by hard power? The U.S. is deeply fractured and dysfunctional – but if desperate, this is possible.

The “toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks” – in these terms of dripping disdain from Williamson – are very similar to those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.

Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see a Russian past that was imperfect and darkly stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted. And Stalin ensued. No ‘toy radicals’. Soft became hard totalitarianism.

النظام الأميركيّ وريث العنصريّة الطبقيّة البيضاء

د. وفيق إبراهيم

مقتل مدني أعزل من الأقليّة السوداء على يد شرطيّ أبيض خنقه من دون سبب ملازم، ليس عملاً استثنائياً في التاريخ الأميركي.

فالأميركيّون البيض الذين غزوا القارة الأميركيّة بقسميها الشمالي والجنوبي، سفكوا دماء أكثر من سبعين مليوناً من الهنود الأحمر منذ منتصف القرن الثامن عشر وحتى مطلع القرن العشرين ولم يحرروهم من وضعية «العبد المملوك قانونياً لصاحبه الأبيض»، إلا في القرن العشرين، لكن الممارسات العنصرية تجاه الأقليات السوداء ظلت قائمة من خلال النظام الاميركي السياسي والاقتصادي الذي يعتمد على أكثرية كبيرة من البيض ونظام اجتماعي مغلق وأمن متشدّد واقتصاد لا يقلّ ضراوة عن الامن والسياسة.

أما ميزة هذا النظام فهو تسامحه «لغوياً» مع السود في مراحل ازدهاره الاقتصادي واتجاهه الى العنف والتشدد مع الأفريقيين الأميركيين في مراحل التراجع الاقتصادي.

لمزيد من الإنارة فإن النظام الاميركي هو الوريث الفعلي لنظام اوروبي غربي اجتاح آسيا وأفريقيا واوستراليا واميركا في القرنين الأخيرين واستعبد اهاليها من كل الاجناس والالوان ناهباً ثرواتها ومؤسساً لتعاملات ثقافية على اساس تفوق الرجل الابيض على ثلاثة أعراق أخرى هم السمر ومعظمهم من العرب والمسلمين وأبناء اميركا الجنوبية والأفارقة في قارتهم السوداء وأماكن إقاماتهم الجديدة وابناء العرق الأصفر في الصين واليابان وجنوب شرق آسيا.

هذه العنصرية بررت للغرب الأميركي والأوروبي الانتقال من التباينات الثقافية التاريخية الى اختلاف اقتصادي عميق له هرمية يقف على رأسها بشراسة أميركية أبيض ينتقل حذاء كاوبوي قاسٍ يرفس بمكوناته الحديدية الأقليات من الألوان الأخرى القابعة في أسفل الهرم ألا يمثل هذا الامر ذلك الشرطي الذي اوقع الاميركي الأسود المدني أرضاً وخنقه بركبته وحذائه وهو في وضعيّة الاستسلام الكامل.

كان يمكن لهذا الاغتيال أن يمر من دون اضطرابات كبيرة، لكنه اصطدم بمستويين كبيرين من التهديدات وأولها الشخصية العنصرية للرئيس الاميركي ترامب التي تواصل التحريض العنصري ضد الأعراق الثلاثة منذ بداية ولايتها الرئاسية وتحاول كسب الطبقات الفقيرة والوسطى من البيض بتحشيدها في وجه السود والمكسيكيين واللاتينيين والمسلمين، بأسلوب وقح يضخ مزيداً من العنصرية في نظام هو عنصري أصلاً. وترافق هذا الشحن مع التراجع الاقتصادي الذي تسببت به كورونا، وأصاب السود بشكل بنيوي يهددهم في حاضرهم ومستقبلهم والأغنياء البيض في هيمنتهم التاريخية الدائمة.

لذلك كان الصراع العنصري التاريخي الكامن في أوج استنفاره حيث خنق الشرطي المدني ذلك الاميركي الاسود من دون اي اسباب موجبة الا اللجوء الى قمع غير آمن يرتكز على الف عام غربي من قتل ابناء الالوان الثلاثة من السود والسمر والصفر بدم بارد وعنجهية التفوق الحضاري.

فتحرّكت الأقلية السوداء لتدافع عن نفسها تجاه نظام أمني قاتل واقتصادي يُصرّ على تثبيتها في اسفل السلم الاجتماعي، في محاولة للحدّ من مزيد من تدهورها في مرحلة ما بعد كورونا. اما من جهة ترامب، فتمكن من ضخ عيارات جديدة من العنصرية من خلال الاستعانة بالإنجيليين المسيحيين الذين يؤمنون بإعادة بناء هيكل سليمان مكان المسجد الأقصى في القدس المحتلة.

ما جلب الى دائرة مؤيديه اليهود الأميركيين وهم لمزيد من التفسير، شبكات الاعلام الاميركي القوي والمصارف التي تشكل رأس النظام الأميركي بقوته المالية وعنصريته.

وهذا استنفر ايضاً الأقليات السوداء واللاتينية والصفراء والمسلمين، فأصبح هناك مشهد اميركي مذعور من الكورونا يفصل بين اميركيين بيض من اعلى السلم الاجتماعي الى فئاته الفقيرة البيضاء مقابل فئة من البيض غير المتأثرة بالجموح العنصري الأبيض ومعها اللاتينيون من أصول أميركية جنوبية والسود والمسلمون والأقليات الصفراء وصولاً الى ابناء اوروبا الشرقية المحظور عليهم الارتقاء الى مواقع قيادية في كامل القطاعين العام والخاص الأميركي.

هل يدفع هذا الانقسام السياسي والاقتصادي والاجتماعي الى تصعيد الانتفاضة السوداء لتشمل الاقليات الاخرى في ثورة عارمة لمكافحة التمييز العنصري؟

لقد تنبّهت إدارة ترامب لهذا الاحتمال، فبدأت بدفع تعويضات شهرية تعادل قسماً من الأجر والراتب للاميركيين وطلبت 3000 مليار دولار من الكونغرس للاستمرار في توزيعها لثلاثة أشهر على الاقل.

بذلك تمتص انفجار الطبقات الفقيرة من السود، وايضاً من الفئات الفقيرة البيضاء الموالية لها، فهذه قد تتجه الى معارضة ترامب إذا انقطعت مواردها.

بما يعني ان ترامب مصمم على التجديد له في الانتخابات الرئاسية المقبلة، بتحشيد عنصري أبيض من جهة وتوزيع اموال مساعدات على الجميع من جهة ثانية، وتحريض البيض على السود من جهة ثالثة وافتعال صراعات مع الصين وإيران وروسيا وسورية وفنزويلا واي منطقة أخرى للزوم تحشيد الأميركيين البيض من حوله، مركزاً بالتصويب على اول رئيس اميركي اسود اللون في تاريخ اميركا لمزيد من تحشيد البيض ومهاجمة منافسه الحزب الديموقراطي فيصفه بالحزب الراديكالي اليساري الاشتراكي والشيوعيين، ولولا الحياء لا يهمه الانتماء الى الحزب الشيوعي الصيني الأصفر.

يبدو ايضاً ان ترامب يعمل على تأجيج الصراع الأهلي الداخلي محتمياً بحقه الفدرالي باستخدام الجيش لقمع المتظاهرين عند الضرورة.

فيتوصل بذلك الى اختلاق اسباب عظمى تسمح بإرجاء الانتخابات كما حدث حين جرى إرجاء الانتخابات الاميركية في عهد روزفلت في الحرب العالمية الثانية.

هذا يعني ان مشكلة اميركا ليست في رئيس غير مثقف يؤمن بالمال فقط، بل في نظامها العنصري الذي يحتاج الى قوانين لإزالته من العرف الاجتماعي والسياسي والاقتصادي، باعتبار أن العنصرية ليست مكرّسة في القانون والدستور، إلا أن اتساع الانتفاضة الحالية لتجتاح معظم الولايات الاميركية تشير الى مرحلة أميركية دموية لن تسمح لترامب وامثاله بالعودة الى البيت الأبيض من جديد.

The Democratic Party’s AIPAC Candidates

by Eric Zuesse for The Saker Blog

The Democratic Party’s AIPAC Candidates

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris might as well be Israelis, though they’re both running for the Presidency of America.

The PAC (officially a “lobbying organization”) called AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee, instead of “American Israel Political Action Committee”) represents some American Jews and Christian evangelicals — it represents the ones who place Israel’s Government above America’s Government, and who therefore lobby in the U.S. Congress for continuation of the $3.8 billion per year that America’s taxpayers, of all faiths and beliefs, must continue to pay to fund Israel’s annual purchases of weaponry from Lockheed Martin and other U.S. weapons-makers, a welfare program for America’s armaments-firms and for the billionaires who own them. And it’s welfare also for the taxpayers of Israel, who don’t have to pay that $3.8 billion per year to fund those purchases, of American weapons, to use against Palestinians, and against Syrians, and against Iranians — against Israel’s enemies, perhaps, but certainly not against America’s enemies. It’s instead for this particular enemy of America, an enemy not only because Israel is an apartheid state (which is supposed to be unAmerican), and not only because this apartheid state sucks $3.8 billion each year out of America’s taxpayers, but also because Israel is militarily an enemy of Americans — see this, for example; and also because the hostility that America’s subservience to Israel produces, throughout the Islamic world, is an even bigger loss for the American people, though America’s billionaires don’t lose anything, at all, from it — and the ones who invest in firms such as Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil gain considerably from it. But are those  corporations America?

America’s public suffers from AIPAC, but Israel’s Jews in that supremacist-Jewish apartheid land gain greatly from it, at Palestinians’ expense. America has many Jewish and other pro-Israeli billionaires (they buy ‘our’ political winners), but no billionaires that are Palestinian or even pro-Palestinian. However, the American Christian billionaire Tom Gores, who was born in Israel and whose family moved to the U.S. “when he was still a toddler”, is sometimes listed as being an “Arab” from “Palestine”, because he’s not a Jew and because some wealthy Arabs want to call him an “Arab” from “Palestine,” and not an American Catholic who had been born in Israel. Mr. Gores is non-political, but some of his extended family are pro-Palestinian and some are pro-Israel. Seven years after Tom bought his Republican uncle’s newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, it endorsed Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump.

Obviously, America’s super-rich are virtually 100% against Palestinians, and the very idea of America brokering a ‘deal’ for ‘peace’ in the Middle East is absurd, really stupid, but ‘our’ billionaires’ politicians constantly promise it. And Joe Biden and Kamala Harris especially do, just as does ‘our’ current billionaire President, Donald Trump.

Here are three recent years’ speakers-lists for AIPAC’s recent annual conferences:

http://www.policyconference. (2019)

http://www.policyconference.

http://www.policyconference.

All of those speakers are neoconservatives, and they were highly supportive of America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, and want the same now for Iran. After all: America does Israel’s bidding. Anyone who wants more of the same is in agreement with them.

And here is what Joe Biden told them at the 2016 AIPAC conference (along with his windbag platitudes):

No matter what legitimate disagreements the Palestinian people may have with Israel, there is no excuse for killing innocents or remaining silent in the face of terrorism [he meant only killings by Palestinians and never by Israelis]. … The only way, in my view, to guarantee Israelis’ future and security [and what about Palestinians’ security?], its identity as a Jewish [but the Palestinians aren’t Jews] and Democratic [How is apartheid democratic?] state is with a two-state solution.

But given the way that Israel has been treating Palestinians recently, no Palestinian leader would survive who would meet with an Israeli leader under such one-sided conditions — it  would be perceived as surrender to tyrants. And Biden offered no reason why Palestinians should want to continue their grinding oppression by Israel’s Jewish Government — Biden doesn’t care, at all, about those people. He’s not looking for their votes. He just wants to sucker whatever Democrats he can get to vote him to become ‘their’ nominee.

And here is what Kamala Harris told AIPAC at the 2017 conference:

I believe that the only viable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two states for two people living side by side in peace and security. I believe that a resolution to this conflict cannot be imposed. It must be agreed upon by the parties themselves. Peace can only come through a reconciliation of differences, and that can only happen at the negotiating table. …

But negotiations are impossible if only one side has all the power. For the other side, that’s surrender, no negotiation. Kamala Harris lies in order to get Israeli money — the donations like Trump has, from billionaire agents for Israel.

Is this okay? BOTH Parties being neocon  — is that okay? Anyone who votes for Biden or Harris thinks it’s okay, or else doesn’t care.

These candidates are pitching, of course, to a lobbying organization. But it’s also PACs. Wikipedia’s article on AIPAC says: “The Washington Post described the perceived differences between AIPAC and J Street: ‘While both groups call themselves bipartisan, AIPAC has won support from an overwhelming majority of Republican Jews, while J Street is presenting itself as an alternative for Democrats who have grown uncomfortable with both Netanyahu’s policies and the conservatives’ flocking to AIPAC.’[10]” So: Biden and Harris are pitching to Republican billionaires there. Is this what Democratic Party voters find attractive? Do they know that this is the situation? Do they even care that it is?

J Street says that “a new direction in American policy will advance U.S. interests in the Middle East and promote real peace and security for Israel and the region.” Biden at the 2016 J Street Gala, on 19 April 2016, said “We are Israel’s maybe not-only friend, but only absolutely certain friend.” But it’s the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who have been abandoned. They really need friends in American politics. Could Biden credibly assert the same to them that he asserts to Israel’s lobbyists? Obviously not, but he doesn’t even care about Palestinians, because none of his donors are Palestinians, and none will be voting for him.

Anybody who cares about basic decency in a candidate should just cross both Biden and Harris off their list for consideration. The only differences they have from Trump regarding Israel are the atmospherics of their rhetoric. Clearly, if “a new direction in American policy will advance U.S. interests in the Middle East and promote real peace and security for Israel and the region,” it won’t come from any of these politicians.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The Untold Story of Christian Zionism’s Rise to Power in the United States

Well before Theodore Herzl founded political Zionism and published The Jewish State, Christian Zionists in the United States and England were already seeking to direct and influence the foreign policy of both nations in service to a religious obsession end times prophecy

By Whitney Webb

July 18, 2019 “Information Clearing House” – The largest pro-Israel organization in the United States is not composed of Jews, but of Christian evangelicals, with a total membership of 7 million, more than 2 million more members than the entirety of the American Jewish community.

Members of this organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), met in Washington on Monday, attracting thousands of attendees and featuring speeches from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence, and National Security Advisor John Bolton. CUFI’s leader, controversial evangelical preacher John Hagee, has met with President Donald Trump several times and was recently part of an exclusive White House meeting in March on the administration’s upcoming “peace plan” for Israel and Palestine.

CUFI is but one of many organizations throughout American history that have promoted the state of Israel and Zionism on the grounds that a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine is a requirement for the fulfillment of end-times prophecy and necessary for Jesus Christ to return to Earth — an event Christians often refer to as “the Second Coming.”

While organizations like CUFI and its predecessors have long seen the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, and the later Israeli victory and conquest of Jerusalem in 1967, as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, there is one prophecy that this sect of evangelical Christians believes is the only thing standing between them and the Second Coming. There are estimated to be more than 20 million of these Christians, often referred to as Christian Zionists, in the United States and they are a key voting bloc and source of political donations for the Republican Party.

As was explored in previous installments of this series, these Christian Zionists, much like religious Zionist extremists in Israel, believe that the Al Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock must be replaced with a Third Jewish Temple in order to usher in the end times.

These two groups of different faiths, since the 19th century, have repeatedly formed an opportunistic alliance in order to ensure the fulfillment of their respective prophecies, despite the fact that members of the other faith are rarely if ever on the same page in their interpretations of what occurs after the temple’s construction.

This alliance, based on a mutual obsession with hastening the coming of the Apocalypse, continues to this day and now, more than at any other time in history, these groups have reached the heights of power in both Israel and the United States. Parts I and II of this exclusive series explored how this branch of religious Zionism has come to dominate the current right-wing government of Israel and has led Israel’s current government to take definitive steps towards the destruction of the Al Aqsa mosque and the imminent construction of a Third Temple.

Now this installment (Part III) will show how this movement’s Christian counterpart in the United States, Christian Zionism, has likewise become a dominant force in American politics, particularly following the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, where this apocalyptic vision is a major driver behind his administration’s Middle East policy.

Yet, this fire-and-brimstone vision of the end times has long been a guide for prominent figures in American history and the American elite, even predating Zionism’s founding as a political movement. Thus, Christian Zionism’s influence on Trump administration policy is merely the latest of a long list of examples where prophecy and politics have mixed in American history, often with world-altering results.

Puritans, Prophecy and Palestine

Accounts of the role of European and North American Christians in the creation of the state of Israel often begin with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, but the efforts of certain Christian groups in England and the United States to create a Jewish state in Palestine actually date back centuries earlier and significantly predate Zionism’s official founding by Theodore Herzl.

Among the first advocates for the physical immigration of European Jews to Palestine were the Puritans, an offshoot of Christian Protestantism that emerged in the late 16th century and became influential in England and, later, in the American colonies. Influential Puritans devoted considerable interest to the role of Jews in eschatology, or end-times theology, with many — such as John Owen, a 17th-century theologian, member of parliament, and administrator at Oxford — believing that the physical return of Jews to Palestine was necessary for the fulfillment of end-time prophecy.

While the Puritan roots of what would later become known as Christian Zionism are often overlooked in modern accounts of where and why American evangelical support for Israel began, its adherents still clearly acknowledge its legacy. For instance, on Monday at the CUFI conference, Pompeo, himself a Christian Zionist known for his obsession with the end times, told the group the following:

Christian support in America for Zion — for a Jewish homeland — runs back to the early Puritan settlers, and it has endured for centuries. Indeed, our second president [John Adams], a couple years back, said… ‘I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.’

These Puritan beliefs, which persist today and have only grown in popularity, became more entrenched in England and colonial America with time, especially among the monied political class, and led to a variety of interpretations regarding exactly what the Bible says about the end times. Among the most influential was the development of Christian “dispensationalism,” an interpretive framework that uses the Bible to divide history into different periods of “dispensations” and sees the Bible’s prophetic references to “Israel” as signifying an ethnically Jewish nation established in Palestine.

Charles Russell’s visual interpretation of Darby’s ‘dispensations’ circa 1886

Dispensationalism was largely developed by English-Irish preacher John Nelson Darby, who believed that the God-ordained fates of Israel and the Christian church were completely separate, with the latter to be physically removed from the Earth by God prior to a foretold period of earthly suffering known as the Tribulation.

In Darby’s view, the Tribulation would begin following the construction of a Third Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This belief in the physical removal of Christians from the Earth prior to the Tribulation, widely known as “the rapture,” was invented by Darby in the 1820s and its lack of scriptural support has been widely noted by theologians of various denominations as well as biblical scholars. However, it is important to point that there are differences among dispensationalist Christians as to whether the rapture will occur before, during or after the Tribulation period.

Yet, despite its relatively short existence as an idea and lack of support in the Bible, the rapture was enthusiastically adopted by some churches in England and the United States, particularly the latter. This was largely thanks to the work of highly controversial theologian Cyrus Scofield.

Notably, Darby’s brand of Christian eschatology coincides with similar developments in Jewish eschatology, namely the ideas of Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Kalisher and the creation of a new branch of Jewish messianism that believed that Jews must proactively work to hasten the coming of their messiah by immigrating to Israel and building a Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Darby’s beliefs, and those he inspired promoted something similar in the sense that Christians could hasten the coming of the rapture and the Tribulation by promoting the immigration of Jews to Israel as well as the construction of a Third Jewish Temple.

Christian Zionists pave the way for Theodore Herzl

Darby traveled to North America and several other countries to popularize his ideas, meeting several influential pastors throughout the English speaking world, including James Brookes, the future mentor of Cyrus Scofield. His travels and the spread of his written works popularized his eschatological views among certain circles of American and English Christians during the religious revival of the 19th century. Darby’s beliefs were particularly attractive to the elite of both countries, with some English noblemen placing newspaper advertisements urging Jews to immigrate to Palestine as early as the 1840s.

Another prominent figure influenced by Darby’s end-times doctrine was the American preacher Charles Taze Russell, whose church later gave rise to several different churches, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Decades before the founding of modern political Zionism, Russell began preaching — not just to Christians, but to Jews in the United States and elsewhere — about the need for mass Jewish immigration to Palestine.

As Rabbi Kalisher had done a few decades prior, Russell penned a letter in 1891 to a wealthy member of the Rothschild banking family, Edmond de Rothschild, as well as Maurice von Hirsch, a wealthy German financier, about his plan for the Jewish settlement of Palestine. Russell described his plan as follows:

My suggestion is that the wealthy Hebrews purchase from Turkey, at a fair valuation, all of her property interest in these lands: i.e., all of the Government lands (lands not held by private owners), under the provision that Syria and Palestine shall be constituted a free state.”

The same plan was to resurface a few years later in arguably the most influential Zionist book of all time, Theodore Herzl’s The Jewish State, which was published in 1896.

It is unknown whether Rothschild or Hirsch was influenced at all by Russell’s letter, though Russell’s ideas did have a lasting impact on some prominent American Jews and American Christians with regard to his promotion of Jewish immigration to Palestine.

The same year that Russell wrote his letter to de Rothschild and von Hirsch, another influential dispensationalist preacher wrote another document that is often overlooked in exploring the role of American Christians in the development and popularization of Zionism. William E. Blackstone, an American preacher who was greatly influenced by Darby and other dispensationalists of the era, had spent decades promoting with great fervor the immigration of Jews to Palestine as a means of fulfilling Biblical prophecy.

The culmination of Blackstone’s efforts came in the form of the Blackstone Memorial, a petition that pleaded that then-President of the United States Benjamin Harrison and his secretary of state, James Blaine, take action “in favor of the restoration of Palestine to the Jews.” The largely forgotten petition asked Harrison and Blaine to use their influence to “secure the holding at an early date, of an international conference to consider the condition of the Israelites and their claims to Palestine as their ancient home, and to promote, in all other just and proper ways, the alleviation of their suffering condition.”

As with Russell’s letter to de Rothschild and von Hirsch, it is unknown exactly how influential the Blackstone Memorial was in influencing the views or policies of Harrison or Blaine. However, the Blackstone Memorial petition is highly significant because of its signatories, which included the most influential and wealthiest Americans of the era, the majority of whom were Christians.

Signatories of the Blackstone Memorial included J.D. Rockefeller, the country’s first billionaire; J.P. Morgan, the wealthy banker; William McKinley, future president of the United States; Thomas Brackett Reed, then speaker of the House; Melville Fuller, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; the mayors of New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago; the editors of the Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune, among others; and numerous other members of Congress, as well as influential businessmen and clergymen. Though some rabbis were included as signatories, the petition’s content was opposed by most American Jewish communities. In other words, the primary goal of Zionism, before it even became a movement, was widely supported by the American Christian elite, but opposed by American Jews.

The Blackstone Memorial would later attract the attention of Louis Brandeis, one of the most prominent American Jewish Zionists, who would later refer to Blackstone as the real “founding father of Zionism,” according to Brandeis’ close friend Nathan Straus. Brandeis would eventually succeed in convincing an elderly Blackstone to petition then-President Woodrow Wilson with a second Blackstone Memorial in 1916 that was presented in private to Wilson nearly a year later.

Instead of gathering signatures from prominent members of America’s elite class, Blackstone this time focused on shoring up support from Protestant organizations, namely the Presbyterian Church, in keeping with Wilson’s Presbyterian faith. According to historian Jerry Klinger, president of the Jewish American Society for Historic Preservation, this change in focus had been Brandeis’, not Blackstone’s, idea.

Alison Weir, author of Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, described Brandeis as “one of the most influential” American Zionists and a key figure in the efforts to push Wilson to support the formation of a Jewish state in Palestine, of which Blackstone’s second petition was part. However, Weir asserted that Blackstone’s second petition was secondary to a so-called “gentleman’s agreement” whereby English officials promised to support a Jewish state in Palestine if American Zionists, led by Brandeis, were able to secure the United States’ entry into World War I.

Wilson ultimately supported Blackstone’s new document, which was never presented publicly to the president, but privately by Rabbi Stephen Wise. This second Blackstone Memorial was a key component of the Brandeis-led campaign that eventually guaranteed American support — i.e., private support — for the Balfour Declaration, which established British intentions to support a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine. Notably, the Balfour Declaration is named for the then-English Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, himself a Christian dispensationalist, though Weir told MintPress that Balfour was more likely influenced by political imperatives than religious motives. The only person in the British cabinet to oppose the Balfour Declaration was its only Jewish member, Edwin Montagu.

The Balfour Declaration was addressed to a member of the Rothschild banking family, Lionel Walter Rothschild, the last in a series of letters written to members of the Rothschild family urging them to use their wealth and political influence to favor the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine: from Rabbi Kalisher, who wrote to Baron Amschel Rothschild in 1836; to Charles Taze Russell, who wrote to Edmond de Rothschild in 1891; and finally to the Balfour Declaration, written to Lionel Walter Rothschild in 1917.

Weir told MintPress that the Rothschilds figure so prominently in these early efforts to establish a Jewish state in Palestine owing to “their wealth and the power that goes with it,” making them very sought after by those who felt that a Jewish state could be formed in Palestine by the purchase of the territory by wealthy European Jews, as both Kalisher and Russell had proposed. However, the Balfour Declaration was addressed to the Rothschilds because, at that time, members of the Rothschild family, Edmond de Rothschild in particular, had become among the strongest supporters of the Zionist cause.

Though the declaration carries his name, it is unclear whether Balfour himself actually authored the document. Some historians — such as Michael Rubinstein, former president of the Jewish Historical Society of England — have made the case that the declaration itself was written by Leopold Amery, then-political secretary of England’s War Cabinet and a Zionist who, despite his commitment to the Zionist cause, obfuscated his Jewish roots for much of his career for reasons that are still the source of speculation.

As shown by the Balfour Declaration and the lobbying efforts that led to its creation, support for what would soon become known as Zionism among the nobility of England and the United States was already formidable before Herzl even began work on The Jewish State. It is worth considering that the power and influence of this religiously-motivated class of Christian elites had an influence on Herzl and his ideas, particularly given the fact that dispensationalist Christians had been promoting a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine at a time when the idea was unpopular among many prominent Jews in Europe and the United States.

Furthermore, the role of Christian Zionists, as they would later become known, continued well after Herzl began his Zionist activities, and resulted in many of the most influential acts that led to the establishment of the State of Israel, including the Balfour Declaration.

Notably, Herzl’s own success in promoting his views following the publication of The Jewish State was largely due to English dispensationalist pastor William Hechler. Hechler, while serving as chaplain at the British Embassy in Vienna, forged an alliance and later close friendship with Herzl and was critical to negotiating meetings between Herzl and prominent members of the German government, including Kaiser Wilhelm II, which lent necessary political legitimacy to Herzl’s Zionist movement.

A largely overlooked figure in the rise of Zionism, Hechler is mentioned in Herzl’s diary more than any other person and passionately felt that the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine would bring about the end times. Hechler is also known to have been extremely interested in the construction of a Third Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, having devoted considerable time to creating models of that Temple, some of which he prominently displayed in his office and showed to Herzl with great enthusiasm during their first meeting.

The Hechler-Herzl alliance is one early example of how Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists each used the motivations of the other for political gain despite the fact that Christian Zionists often hold anti-Semitic views and secular Zionists, as well as religious Zionists, do not hold Christianity in high regard. This opportunism on the parts of both Christian and Jewish Zionists has been a key feature in the rise of Zionism, particularly in the United States, and the case of Cyrus Scofield, the man more responsible than any for popularizing Christian Zionism among American evangelicals, offers another important example.

The surprising story of Cyrus Scofield

There is perhaps no other book that has been more influential in the dissemination of Christian Zionism in the United States than the Scofield Reference Bible, a version of the King James Bible whose annotations were written by Cyrus Scofield. Scofield — who had no formal theological training, though he later claimed to have a D.D. (doctor of divinity degree) — originally worked as a lawyer and political operative in the state of Kansas and eventually became the district attorney of that state.

Soon after his appointment to the position, he was forced to resign as a result of numerous allegations of corruption, including bribery, forging signatures on banknotes and stealing political donations from then-Senator of Kansas James Ingalls. During this time, Scofield abandoned his wife and two daughters, an action since blamed on the burgeoning scandals he was facing as well as his self-admitted heavy drinking habits.

Amid this backdrop, Scofield is said to have become an evangelical around the year 1879 and soon became associated with prominent dispensationalist preachers of the era, including Dwight Moody and James Brookes. Local papers at the time, such as the Atchison Patriot, regarded Scofield’s conversion and career change with great skepticism, referring to Scofield as the “late lawyer, politician and shyster generally” who had disgraced himself by committing “many malicious acts.”

Scofield went on to pastor relatively small churches, moving from Kansas to Dallas, Texas, and later Massachusetts. Yet, despite his lack of renown and  his troubled history, by 1901 Scofield had managed to gain entrance to an exclusive men’s club in New York, the Lotos Club, whose members at the time included steel magnate and multi-millionaire Andrew Carnegie, members of the Vanderbilt family, and famous American writer Samuel Clemens, better known by his pen name, Mark Twain.

Scofield’s membership in this exclusive club — as well as the club’s patronage of his activities, which granted him lodging and financing to produce what would become the Scofield Reference Bible — has been the subject of considerable speculation. Indeed, many have noted that the presence of a fundamentalist, dispensationalist small-town preacher with a disgraced political past in a club stuffed with some of the country’s most elite academics, writers and robber barons just doesn’t add up.

Joseph M. Canfield, in his book The Incredible Scofield and his Book, asserted that “the admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C.I. Scofield.”

Canfield puts forth the theory in his book that the person “directing” Scofield’s career was connected to New York lawyer and Zionist activist Samuel Untermeyer, who was on the club’s executive committee and was a close associate of Louis Brandeis and influential in the administration of Woodrow Wilson. He then notes that Scofield’s annotated bible was later “most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer’s pet projects — the Zionist Movement.”

Other scholars, such as David Lutz, have been more explicit than Canfield in linking Untermeyer’s Zionist activism to his role in financially backing Scofield and his work on his annotated Bible. Ultimately, like the Blackstone Memorial before it, the Lotos Club’s patronage of Scofield’s work again reveals the interest of the American elite of the era, Christian and Jewish alike, in promoting Christian Zionism.

Untermeyer and the Lotos Club notably also funded Scofield’s numerous travels to Europe, including one fateful trip to England where Scofield met with Henry Frowde, publisher of Oxford University Press. Frowde was taken with Scofield’s work, largely owing to the fact that Frowde was a member of the “Exclusive Brethren,” a religious group founded by John Nelson Darby, the father of dispensationalism. Oxford University Press subsequently published the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. Twenty years after its publication, it became the first-ever Oxford publication to generate over a million dollars in sales.

Scofield’s Bible became spectacularly popular among American fundamentalists soon after its publication, partly because it was the first annotated bible that sought to interpret the text for the reader as well as because it became the central text of several influential seminaries that were set up after its 1909 publication. Among Scofield’s many annotations are claims that have since become central to Christian Zionism, such as Scofield’s annotation of Genesis 12:3 that those who curse Israel (interpreted by Christian Zionists to mean the state of Israel since its founding in 1948) will be cursed by God and those that bless Israel will similarly be blessed.

Modern Christian Zionists, like Pastor John Hagee of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), have frequently cited this interpretation that originated with Scofield in defending extreme pro-Israel stances. For instance, Hagee made the following statement in 2014:

You have to go back to basics, with the fact that in Genesis (chapter 1), God created the world and made a very solemn promise (brought in Gen. 12:3), ‘I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.’ From that moment on, every nation that ever blessed Israel has been blessed by God. And every nation that has ever persecuted the Jewish people, God crushed. And so He will continue.”

Falwell and Likud: a friendship or something else?

Despite the widespread dissemination of the Scofield Reference Bible and its popularization among American evangelical churches and seminaries, the public influence of dispensationalist eschatology and Christian Zionism on American politics was relatively limited for much of the 20th century. However, the private influence of Christian dispensationalists was nonetheless present, as seen through the role of dispensationalist preacher and Third Temple advocate Billy Graham and his close relationships to several presidents including Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Then the political power of dispensationalist theology dramatically moved from the private quarters of the halls of power into the mainstream American political discourse with the founding of the Moral Majority by evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell in 1979.

In the early 1970s, Falwell’s growing ministry was bringing in millions of dollars annually, especially his nationally broadcast program “The Old Time Gospel Hour,” which ran on several major cable networks at the time. Despite — or perhaps because of — the spike in donations, Falwell was soon targeted by the federal government, specifically the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for “fraud and deceit” and “gross insolvency” in the financial management of his ministry, particularly the ministry’s sale of $6.6 million in church bonds. The SEC lawsuit was eventually settled when a group of businessmen in Lynchburg, Virginia — where Falwell’s ministry was based — took over the ministry’s finances for the next several years, until 1977. Falwell blamed his ministry’s financial problems on his “financial ignorance.”

One year after his ministry appeared to be on a better financial footing, Falwell received an invitation to visit the state of Israel and was personally invited on the all-expenses-paid trip by Menachem Begin, then the prime minister of Israel and leader of the Likud Party. The trip would mark the beginning of a long friendship and close relationship between Falwell and Begin and, more broadly, a relationship between American evangelical leaders and Israel’s Likud Party. As Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg notes in his book The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount, the Begin administration “was the first to tap evangelical enthusiasm for Israel and turn it into political and economic support.”

Soon after returning from Israel, Falwell’s finances again came under federal scrutiny after a federal investigation found that Falwell had transferred the health insurance policies of his employees to an unlicensed shell company with just $128 in assets and hundreds of thousands in dollars in unpaid claims. Just as Falwell’s financial troubles began to mount yet again, he received a generous gift from none other than Begin in the form of a private Learjet valued at $4 million. Shortly thereafter, Falwell went on to found the Moral Majority organization, “after consultations with theologians and political strategists.”

The Moral Majority is widely credited with turning the Christian evangelical right into a major political force in the United States, promoting extremely pro-Israel policies, increased defense spending, a Reaganite approach to the challenges of the Cold War, as well as conservative domestic policies. Falwell frequently utilized his gift from Begin in traveling and promoting the new organization, as well as himself as a major public figure.

The Moral Majority marks a clear turning point in the Israel-U.S. evangelical relationship, as it made fervent support for Israel an area of major importance to evangelical voters and also led many evangelical voters to pay closer attention to events going on in the Middle East. Yet, given Falwell’s strong promotion of Christian Zionism, many evangelicals who became increasingly politically active following the organization’s founding not only supported Israel’s policies of the era but also supported many of the future ambitions of Begin and the Likud Party. This support was solidified by the beginning of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism’s ongoing practice of offering U.S. evangelical leaders free “familiarization” tours to Israel in the early 1980s.

Begin’s vision of “Greater Israel” — the complete annexation of Palestine as well as large parts of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt by Israel — was also shared and promoted by Falwell. In 1983, Falwell stated that “Begin will quickly tell you, ‘We don’t have all the land yet we’re going to have,’” and further predicted that Israel would never relinquish control over the occupied West Bank because Begin was determined to keep the land “which has been delivered to them (the Israelis).”

Falwell framed Begin’s expansionist ambitions as a religious belief in “the inerrancy of the Old Testament,” a sentiment Falwell shared. Falwell also pushed for a U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and felt that construction of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount was necessary to usher in the end times and the second coming of Christ.

As Falwell helped turn Christian Zionism into a major political force in the United States, he also made himself a key political figure in the Reagan era and an important go-between for U.S.-Israel relations. In 1981 Begin informed Falwell of his plans to bomb an Iraqi nuclear facility before he informed the Reagan administration with the hopes that Falwell would “explain to the Christian public the reasons for the bombing.” According to Canadian academic David S. New, Begin told Falwell during that phone call: “Get to work for me.”

In addition, Falwell frequently met with Begin, whom he later called a personal friend, and these meetings often overlapped with Begin’s official meetings with Reagan. A year later, Begin gave Falwell Israel’s Jabotinsky award, making Falwell the first non-Jew to receive the honor for his advocacy on behalf of Israel and, more specifically, Likud policies and ambitions.

Though the Moral Majority officially shuttered its doors in 1989, its political legacy persisted long after, as did Falwell’s political clout. Indeed, following Begin’s model, Benjamin Netanyahu, during his first term as prime minister, also made a habit of visiting Falwell, meeting with the controversial pastor even before he met with political officials in his visits to Washington.

During one trip to D.C. in 1998, Netanyahu’s first visit was to an event co-hosted by Falwell, where the pastor praised Netanyahu as “the Ronald Reagan of Israel.” The New York Times described the purpose of Netanyahu’s U.S. visit not as a visit aimed at meeting with government officials, but rather one intended “to shore up his base of traditional support in the United States. Conservative Christian groups have long been ardent supporters of Israel because of its religious importance to Christianity.”

However, this relationship between Christian Zionists like Falwell and prominent right-wing Israeli politicians has not been without its controversy, especially given that pro-Israel evangelicals like Falwell have a history of making anti-semitic statements.

For example, during a 1999 sermon, Falwell discussed his interpretation of end-times prophecy, widely shared by Christian Zionist evangelicals, that the Second Coming would follow not just the creation of the state of Israel but the construction of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount, from which a figure known to Christians as the “Antichrist” would reign. In responding to his own rhetorical question as to whether the Antichrist is “alive and well today,” Falwell stated that “Probably because when he appears during the tribulation period he will be a full-grown counterfeit of Christ. Of course, he’ll be Jewish.”

Falwell’s comments were immediately condemned by a variety of Jewish groups, including the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Rabbi Leon Klenicki, then-director of interfaith affairs for the ADL, noted that Falwell’s view is a “common theological position” among American evangelicals and that Falwell was “an influential voice among evangelical and charismatic Christians” who “only supports Israel for his own Christological ends.” “He sees us only as the ones who prepare the coming of Jesus,” Klenicki stated at the time. “It is a great disappointment after more than 30 years of dialogue; he’s still in the Middle Ages.”

Another prominent dispensationalist with great political and literary influence is Hal Lindsey, the author and co-author of several books, including The Late Great Planet Earth. Lindsey’s work greatly influenced many prominent U.S. politicians like Ronald Reagan, who was so moved by Lindsey’s books that he invited Lindsey to address a National Security Council meeting on nuclear war plans and helped make Lindsey an influential consultant with several members of Congress and the Pentagon.

As noted by Israeli historian Gershom Gorenberg, Lindsey sees Jews as serving “two central roles” in Christian dispensationalist eschatology:

[T]he first — despite his insistence of love for Jews — is the classic one of Christian anti-Jewish polemic: They are ‘the Jewish people who crucified Jesus’ and the archetype of those who ignore the truth of prophecy. The second role is to fulfill prophecy despite themselves.”

Gorenberg further notes that Lindsey believes that Jews have fulfilled two of the three crucial prophecies that will usher in the end times, with the first being the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the second being the Israeli conquest and occupation of Jerusalem after the Six Day War in 1967. According to Lindsey: “There remains but one more event to completely set the stage for Israel’s part in the last great act of her historical drama. That is to rebuild the ancient Temple…”

As Falwell’s and Lindsey’s comments reveal, the eschatological views of dispensationalism frequently perceive the Jewish people as little more than pawns that must fulfill certain requirements — e.g., establishing the state of Israel, conquering Jerusalem, building a Third Temple — in order to hasten the salvation and “rapture” of evangelical Christians. Meanwhile, Jews in Israel who do not convert to Christianity are expected to die horrible deaths, though some Christian Zionists in recent years, as will be seen shortly, have sought to adjust this still common theological position.

Despite the anti-semitic motivations underlying evangelical support for the state of Israel and the Likud-supported vision of “Greater Israel,” the politically active Christian Zionist movement that Falwell helped create translated into a strong support base for Israel and right-wing Likud policy that has made it crucial to prominent Israeli politicians.

For instance, significantly more American Christians (55 percent) than American Jews (40 percent) believe that God gave Israel to the Jews while that sentiment is shared by only 19 percent of Israeli Christians. In addition, with regards to the Trump administration’s pro-Israel policies, only 15 percent of evangelical Christians believe that President Trump favors Israel too strongly while 42 percent of American Jews hold the view that Trump is biased in favor of Israel.

In a video recorded in the early 2000s — later broadcast on Israeli TV —  Netanyahu, speaking to a family of Jewish settlers, described the mass support among Americans, particularly evangelicals, for Israel as “absurd,” saying:

America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won’t get in our way; 80 percent of the Americans supprt us. It’s absurd.”

In a 2017 speech to the Christian Zionist group CUFI, Netanyahu made it clear that much of this “absurd” support came from American evangelicals, stating that “America has no better friend than Israel and Israel has no better friend than America, and Israel has no better friend in America than you.”

 

Richard Silverstein — an academic and journalist whose work has been published in Haaretz and MintPress, among other outlets — has argued that Israeli politicians, particularly Netanyahu, have sought out support from evangelical groups despite their anti-Semitic undertones and the fact they the act out of self-interest in pursuing their political objectives.

In a 2017 article, Silverstein stated that for Israel’s nationalist right-wing:

Judaism is not a spiritual value, it is a physical manifestation of power in the world. These Israelis understand that not all Jews are their “brothers.” Some Jews are too effete, too liberal, too humane, too universalist. These Jews are the detritus which will be washed away by the tide of history. Israeli nationalists need to replace these traditional Jewish allies and have done so by finding new ones: Christian evangelicals, African dictators, European neo-Nazis. Zionism as they define it is less a movement dedicated to ethics and more one dedicated to self-interest.”

A “vital part of Israel’s national security”

As Falwell began to fade from public view in the early 2000s, his legacy has largely fallen to a handful of preachers now at the forefront of Christian Zionism and Christian Zionist political activism, with Falwell’s son, Jerry Falwell Jr., ranking prominently among them. However, of the preachers that followed in Falwell’s footsteps, one stands out: John Hagee.

Hagee is the pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, which has an active membership of over 22,000. A charismatic Christian who believes in dispensationalist eschatology and thinks that Christians are biblically required to support Israel, Hagee has long been a major advocate for Israel within evangelical and charismatic Christianity circles and has raised over $80 million for Israel since he first began hosting “A Night to Honor Israel” events in the early 1980s.

In 2006, Hagee sought to create the “Christian AIPAC” and revived a then-defunct organization previously founded in 1975 known as Christians United for Israel, or CUFI, mentioned at the beginning of this installment. Since its re-founding, CUFI has grown exponentially, now counting 7 million members, a figure that exceeds the Jewish population of the United States, which stands at around 5.7 million. Hagee chairs its executive board, which included Jerry Falwell up until Falwell’s death in 2007.

CUFI is exempt from paying U.S. taxes and from publicly disclosing its finances because it is officially registered as a church, though it is often likened to an arm of the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and actively promotes and funds illegal West Bank settlements. CUFI also advocates for Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount and the construction of a Third Temple.

Much has been written about CUFI’s influence in the Republican Party, which began under the George W. Bush administration soon after its founding. As journalist Max Blumenthal noted in a 2006 article for The Nation: “Over the past months, the White House has convened a series of off-the-record meetings about its policies in the Middle East with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI).”

As a result of these meetings, CUFI aligned itself tightly with the neoconservatives that were well represented in the Bush administration, even appointing neoconservative and Christian Zionist Gary Bauer to its board and naming Bauer the first director of its lobbying arm, the CUFI Action Fund. Bauer is a founding member of the highly controversial and now-defunct neoconservative group, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and has also served on the executive board of the neoconservative group Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).

CUFI has since won powerful allies and counts neoconservative Elliott Abrams; former CIA director James Woosley; neoconservative archon Bill Kristol; former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee; Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Ted Cruz (R-TX); Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; and U.S. Vice President Mike Pence among its staunchest supporters. At a CUFI summit last year, Netanyahu described CUFI as a “vital part of Israel’s national security.”

In addition, CUFI has close ties to casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the top donor to President Trump and the entire Republican Party. Adelson even received a special award from Hagee at a 2014 CUFI event. “I’ve never had a greater warm feeling than being honored by Pastor Hagee,” said a beaming Sheldon Adelson at the time.
At the most recent CUFI summit, held on Monday, the Trump administration sent Pence, Pompeo, U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Assistant to the President and Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt, and National Security Advisor John Bolton, all of whom spoke at the summit.

CUFI’s 2019 Washington Summit is days away and includes speakers @VP @Mike_Pence, @SecPompeo, @USAmbIsrael David Friedman, NSA @AmbJohnBolton, Assistant to President Trump @JdGreenblatt45, @DennisPrager, and @PastorJohnHagee.

Register at https://t.co/q1hsRMLNnA. pic.twitter.com/EO1Bi11llR

— Pastor John Hagee (@PastorJohnHagee) July 4, 2019

 

In addition to its own influence as an organization, the group has made Hagee himself a major political player. In 2007, then-Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) compared Hagee to Moses, stating:

I want to take to opportunity to describe Pastor Hagee in the terms the Torah used to describe Moses. He is an Ish Elohim. A man of God. And those words really do fit him. And I have something else. Like Moses, he’s become the leader of a mighty multitude. Even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the Promised Land.”

Efforts by prominent politicians to court Hagee were once numerous, until evidence of Hagee making remarks about the Holocaust that were widely considered anti-semitic surfaced during the 2008 presidential campaign. In those remarks, Hagee asserted that Adolf Hitler had been sent by God to act as a “hunter,” and force Jews by means of the Holocaust to resettle in Palestine as a means of fulfilling Biblical prophecy. Then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who had aggressively courted Hagee’s endorsement, was forced to distance himself from Hagee after those comments resurfaced.

Yet, the stigma around Hagee has since worn off and his influence is again on the rise following Trump’s election to the presidency, as evidenced by the attendance of numerous top Trump officials to the 2019 CUFI Washington Summit earlier this week.

Though he was not included on the official board of Trump’s evangelical advisers early in Trump’s presidency, several slightly less controversial allies and associates of Hagee were, including Tom Mullins, Jerry Falwell Jr., and Kenneth Copeland. Then, a few months after Trump’s inauguration, Hagee “dropped by” the White House unannounced and met with Trump in the Oval Office to discuss U.S. support for Israel. He also met with Trump a few weeks before Trump announced plans to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a meeting at which Trump had reportedly promised Hagee that the embassy would soon be moved and told the pastor “I will not disappoint you.” Hagee described Trump’s announcement on Jerusalem as having “biblical timing of absolute precision.”

More recently, Hagee was part of an exclusive group of evangelical leaders who met with White House officials this past March prior to the partial release of the so-called “Deal of the Century,” aimed at bringing “peace” to the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is widely viewed as greatly favoring Israel and is expected to be rejected outright by Palestinian leadership.

After the meeting, Hagee issued an urgent prayer request. ”Our topic of discussion was discussing the forthcoming peace plan concerning Israel. Israel and the Jewish people need our prayers and our advocacy like never before,” Hagee said in a video posted to the CUFI Twitter page soon after the meeting. “The Bible gives the command, ‘For Zion’s sake, I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake, I will not keep my peace.’ I urge you tonight to pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”

 

As the final installment of this series will show, the shared apocalyptic visions of extremist religious Zionists and Christian Zionists regarding a Third Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount is a major driver behind the Deal of the Century and was also a major factor in the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, despite Palestinian hopes that East Jerusalem would serve as the capital of their future state. Notably, Christian Zionists believe that Palestinians must be expelled from the state of Israel. In addition, these end-times beliefs are also a factor in the administration’s push for war with Iran, which Christian Zionists like Hagee and Pompeo believe is also a requisite for the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

While Hagee’s influence and the influence of his organization CUFI are stronger than ever with Trump in the White House, his political clout with the Trump administration is, at least partially, due to the presence of staunch Christian Zionists in two of the top offices in the executive branch: vice president and secretary of state.

Pence and Pompeo push “holy war”

Though several Trump officials spoke at the recent CUFI summit, two stand out — not just for their high-ranking positions but also for their open admissions that their Christian Zionist beliefs guide their policies. These officials are Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

After Trump chose his running mate, Pence’s religious fervor came under media scrutiny, with several outlets noting that he was known to be an ardent Christian Zionist. Pence’s faith gained particular attention owing to his past statements on Israel, which he has often described in prophetic terms.

Though raised Catholic, Pence gradually transitioned to an “evangelical Catholic” and then to an evangelical Protestant and has since become a key political figure representing the fundamentalist Christian movement that promotes “dominionism,” an ideology that varies in its interpretations but ultimately seeks to see the secular nature of the U.S. government shift towards one governed by “Biblical law.” Pence’s association with this movement has led prominent voices in the media to accuse him of supporting a theocratic form of government.

Though many of the initial concerns about Pence revolved around his likely effects on domestic policy, much of his influence has instead been seen in foreign policy, including the administration’s Middle East policy. His public identification as a Christian Zionist and his speech to the 2017 CUFI summit, the first vice president to ever speak at the annual event, have led some to worry that the Christian Zionist view of prophecy is guiding Pence’s political actions.

Following Pence’s first speech at CUFI, Daniel Hummel, a scholar and fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School, told the Washington Post:

Christian Zionism has a long history in American politics, but it has never captured the bully pulpit of the White House. Past administrations often used general biblical language in reference to Israel, but never has the evangelical theology of Christian Zionism been so close to the policymaking apparatus of the executive branch.

By identifying with Christian Zionism while in office, Pence risks the Trump administration’s ongoing search for an ‘ultimate deal’ to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and erodes the U.S.’ claim that it can be an ‘honest broker’ in the Middle East.”

Concerns that the U.S. is under the influence of extremist religious Zionism and Christian Zionism that would prevent the country from acting as an “honest broker” in the Israel-Palestine conflict have, unsurprisingly, been proven true. In fact, Pence’s religious beliefs are believed to have been a major factor in Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the U.S. Embassy to the contested city.

Though Mike Pence is the highest-ranking member of the Trump administration who is openly a Christian Zionist, it is Pompeo that is the most overt and open about how his religious beliefs regarding the end times guide his decision-making as head of the U.S. State Department.

For uch of his political career, Pompeo has framed U.S. counterterrorism policy as a “holy war” between Christianity and Islam, which he believes is the earthly equivalent of a cosmic battle between good and evil. In 2017, as CIA director, Pompeo claimed:

Radical Islamic terror [will] continue to press against us until we make sure that we pray and stand and fight and make sure that we know that Jesus Christ is our savior [and] truly the only solution for our world.”

That same year, Pompeo created a new CIA “mission center” targeting Iran headed by Michael D’Andrea, whose CIA nickname is “The Prince of Darkness.” Pompeo, like many Christian Zionists, believes that war between the United States and Iran is part of the end times, a belief that is outright alarming given his prior control over CIA covert operations and his focus on Iran, as well as his current role as the U.S.’ chief diplomat, in which he has also been laser-focused on promoting an aggressive policy towards Iran.

In addition to his views on “holy war,” Pompeo also frequently discussed his views on the rapture while serving as CIA director. TYT reported last year that Pompeo had spoken about the rapture so frequently that it had reportedly frightened top CIA officials.

According to Michael Weinstein — founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog group on issues of religious freedom in the military and intelligence community — who was quoted in the TYT report:

He [Pompeo] is intolerant of anyone who isn’t a fundamentalist Christian. The people that worked under him at the CIA that came to us were never confused — they never had time to be confused. They were shocked and then they were scared shitless.”

A 2015 video of Pompeo that surfaced while he was CIA director also shows the former congressman describing politics as “a never-ending struggle … until the rapture.”

More recently, a New York Times article published in March again brought Pompeo’s obsession with the end times back into public view. Titled “The Rapture and the Real World: Mike Pompeo Blends Beliefs and Policy,” the article detailed how Pompeo has made it standard operating procedure to mix his Christian Zionist views with his approach to foreign policy. That article also referenced the statement Pompeo made earlier this year, in which he opined that it was “certainly possible” that President Trump had been sent by God to “save the Jewish people from the Iranian menace.”

Pompeo made those statements during an official trip to Jerusalem that was also controversial for other reasons. Indeed, in a state department video shared on social media and meant to publicize Pompeo’s trip, footage of a model of the Third Jewish Temple was included while footage of the Al Aqsa mosque was notably excluded, despite it being the most iconic building in Jerusalem.

 

Given that Pompeo had also visited the tunnels that have worn away the historic mosque’s foundations, many Palestinians took the video as a sign that the Trump administration was colluding with the Temple Activist movement in Israel, which was discussed in detail in Part II of this series.

Joining forces to target Jerusalem

Well before Theodore Herzl founded political Zionism and published The Jewish State, Christian Zionists in the United States and England were already seeking to direct and influence the foreign policy of both nations in service of a religious obsession with ushering in the end times. The historical record clearly shows how Christian Zionists have influenced events throughout history, particularly in regard to the founding of the state of Israel and subsequent developments in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

In the pursuit of these dispensationalist end-times prophecies, Christian Zionists have forged alliances with Jewish Zionists and each has opportunistically used the other in order to usher in the common events that are believed to facilitate the coming of their respective apocalypses or to aid more secular, political goals. From Hechler and Herzl, to Scofield and Untermeyer, to Begin and Falwell, these alliances have shaped the policy of Western governments, particularly the U.S. and England, for over a century.

Today, only one such prophecy has yet to be fulfilled, the construction of a Third Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, which is currently occupied by the Al Aqsa mosque compound. Now, more than ever before, Israel’s government, as shown in Part II, is filled with high-ranking officials who openly call for Al Aqsa’s destruction and seek to hastily construct a Third Temple. Similarly, as this report has shown, the Trump administration is greatly influenced by Christian Zionists who also seek the mosque’s destruction, in hopes that the Third Temple will soon be built.

Yet, the Trump administration’s ties to this apocalyptic ideology go even deeper than has been discussed in this article, as many other influential members in the Trump administration — especially top Trump advisers Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, and U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman — also share and actively promote this extremist religious Zionist ideology that seeks to rebuild a Third Temple. As will be seen in the next installment of this series, this ideology is also a driving factor for top Trump and Republican Party donors such as Sheldon Adelson.

The end result is that the hold of this apocalyptic ideology on both the governments of Israel and the United States appears to be stronger now than ever, meaning that the danger currently facing Al Aqsa mosque, and with it world peace, looms large.

Correction |  An earlier version of this article stated that Hal Lindsey was a co-author of the popular Left Behind book series. This was incorrect, as that series was co-written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, both of whom were influenced by Lindsey’s earlier books including  The Late Great Planet Earth.

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.

This article was originally published by “Mint Press” –

Pandering to Christian Zionism: Trump Outreach on Display in Washington

Philip Giraldi

Christian Zionist involvement in American politics on behalf of the Washington’s relationship with Israel does not serve any conceivable US national interests unless one assumes that Israel and the United States are essentially the same polity, which is unsustainable.

In Washington on the weekend after the Fourth of July, Israel was praised and Iran was condemned in the strongest terms, with a bit of a call to arms thrown in to prepare the nation for an inevitable war. It might just seem like a normal work week in the nation’s capital, but this time around there was a difference. The rhetoric came from no less than five senior officials in the Trump Administration and the audience consisted of 5,000 cheering members from the Christian Zionist evangelical group called Christians United for Israel (CUFI).

Christian Zionism is not a religion per se, but rather a set of beliefs based on interpretations of specific parts of the Bible – notably the book of Revelations and parts of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Isaiah – that has made the return of the Jews to the Holy Land a precondition for the Second Coming of Christ. The belief that Israel is essential to the process has led to the fusion of Christianity with Zionism, hence the name of the movement. The political significance of this viewpoint is enormous, meaning that a large block of Christians promotes and votes for a non-reality based foreign policy based on a controversial interpretation of the Bible that it embraces with considerable passion.

It would be a mistake to dismiss CUFI as just another group of bible-thumpers whose brains have long since ceased to function when the subject is Israel. It claims to have seven million members and it serves as a mechanism for uniting evangelicals around the issue of Israel. Given its numbers alone and concentration is certain states, it therefore constitutes a formidable voting bloc that can be counted on to cast its ballots nearly 100% Republican, as long as the Republican in question is reliably pro-Israel. Beyond that, there are an estimated 60 million evangelical voters throughout the country and they will likely follow the lead of groups like CUFI and vote reflecting their religious beliefs, to include Trump’s highly visible support for the Jewish state.

Trump’s reelection campaign is reported to be already “…developing an aggressive, state-by-state plan to mobilize even more evangelical voters than supported him last time.” This will include, “voter registration drives at churches in battleground states such as Ohio, Nevada and Florida.” Without overwhelming evangelical support, Trump reelection in 2020 is unlikely, hence the dispatch of all available White House heavyweights to CUFI’s annual summit at the Washington Convention Center.

Though it is an organization that defines itself as Christian, CUFI makes no effort to support surviving Christian communities in the Middle East as most of them are hostile to Israel. The group also supports war against Iran as a precursor to total global conflict. Hagee has explained that “The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.”

CUFI operates out of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio Texas. It was founded at the church in 2006 and is headed by John Hagee, a leading evangelical who has been courted both by the Trump Administration and by Israel itself, which presented him with a a Lear business yet complete with a crew so he would be able to do his proselytizing in some comfort. He frequently appears at commemorations in Israel, is a regular at the annual AIPAC meeting and has been a guest at the White House. He was present at the Trump administration’s ceremony last year when it moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem and gave a speech. He has said that “there has never been a more pro-Israeli president than Donald Trump.”

Present at the CUFI summit were Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and US negotiator in the Middle East Jason Greenblatt. Lest there be any confusion, the White House was represented by two Christian Zionists, two Jewish Zionists and John Bolton, who has been variously described. All five have been urging a military response against Iran for its alleged “aggression” in the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister also addressed the conference via videolink, with his similar “analysis” of the Iranian threat. There were also a number of Republican Senators present, to include Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Roy Blunt and Tim Scott.

The speeches were all pretty much the same but perhaps the most suggestive was the 2,000 word plus exhortation delivered by Pompeo. His presentation was entitled “The US and Israel: a Friendship for Freedom.” He asked, in a speech full of religious metaphors and biblical references, his audience to “compare Israel’s reverence for liberty with the restrictions on religious freedom facing Christians and people of all faiths throughout the rest of the Middle East,” where “if a Muslim leaves Islam it is considered an apostasy, and it is punishable indeed by death.”

Pompeo was more interested in stirring up his audience than he was in historical fact. He said “In Iraq, Syria, and other countries in the region, the last remnants of ancient Christian communities are at near-extinction because of persecution from ISIS and other malign actors. And just one example: before 2003, there were an estimated 1.5 million Christians living in Iraq. Today, sadly, almost a quarter of a million.”

Pompeo, whose grasp of current events appears to be a bit shaky, did not mention two of the principal reasons that Christianity has been declining in the region. First and foremost is the Iraq War, started by the United States for no good reason, which unleashed forces that led to the destruction of religious minorities. Second, he did not note the constant punishment delivered by Israel on the Palestinians, which has led to the departure of many Christians in that community. Nor did he say anything about the reverse of the coin, Syria, where Christians are well integrated and protected by the al-Assad government which Pompeo and Bolton are seeking to destroy to benefit Israel.

The Secretary of State also delivered the expected pitch for four more years of Donald Trump, saying “But thank God. Thank God we have a leader in President Trump – an immovable friend of Israel. His commitment, his commitment – President Trump’s commitment is the strongest in history, and it’s been one of the best parts of my job to turn that commitment into real action.”

But it has to be Pompeo’s conclusion that perhaps should be regarded as a joke, though it appears that no one in the audience was laughing. He said “Our country is intended to do all it can, in cooperating with other nations, to help create peace and preserve peace [throughout] the world. It is given to defend the spiritual values – the moral code – against the vast forces of evil that seek to destroy them.”

It was a reiteration of Pompeo’s earlier “America is a force for good” speech delivered in Cairo in January. Nobody believed it then and nobody believes it now, given what has been actually occurring over the past 18 years. It would be interesting to know if Pompeo himself actually thinks it to be true. If he does, he should be selling hot dogs from a food truck rather than presiding as Secretary of State.

So, the bottom line is that the Trump Administration pandering to Hagee and company is shameful. Christian Zionist involvement in American politics on behalf of the Washington’s relationship with Israel does not serve any conceivable US national interests unless one assumes that Israel and the United States are essentially the same polity, which is unsustainable. On the contrary, the Christian Zionist politicizing has been a major element in supporting the generally obtuse US foreign policy in the Middle East region and vis-à-vis other Muslim countries, a policy that has contributed to at least four wars while making the world a more dangerous place for all Americans. Christian Zionist promoted foreign policy serves a particularly narrowly construed parochial interest that, ironically, is intended to do whatever it takes to bring about the end of the world, possibly a victory for gentlemen like Pastor John Hagee if his interpretation of the bible is correct, but undeniably a disaster for the rest of us.

In Israel the Push to Destroy Jerusalem’s Iconic Al-Aqsa Mosque Goes Mainstream

Al-Aqsa Feature photo

TWO CENTURIES IN THE CROSS-HAIRS

In Israel the Push to Destroy Jerusalem’s Iconic Al-Aqsa Mosque Goes Mainstream

This ancient site that dates back to the year 705 C.E. is being targeted for destruction by extremist groups that seek to erase Jerusalem’s Muslim heritage in pursuit of colonial ambitions and the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.

The iconic golden dome of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque, located on the Temple Mount or Haram el-Sharif, is the third holiest site in Islam and is recognized throughout the world as a symbol of the city of Jerusalem. Yet, this ancient site that dates back to the year 705 C.E. is being targeted for destruction by increasingly influential extremist groups that seek to erase Jerusalem’s Muslim heritage in pursuit of colonial ambitions and the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.

Some observers may have noticed the growing effort by some Israeli government and religious officials to remove the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque from the Jerusalem skyline, not only erasing the holy site in official posters, banners and educational material but also physically removing the building itself. For instance, current Knesset member of the ruling Likud Party, American-born Yehuda Glick, was also the director of the government-funded Temple Institute, which has created relics and detailed architectural plans for a temple that they hope will soon replace Al-Aqsa. Glick is also close friends with Yehuda Etzion, who was part of a failed plot in 1984 to blow up Al-Aqsa mosque and served prison time as a result.

“In the end we’ll build the temple and it will be a house of prayer for all nations,” Glick toldIsraeli newspaper Maariv in 2012. A year later, Israel’s Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel stated that “[w]e’ve built many little, little temples…but we need to build a real Temple on the Temple Mount.” Ariel stated that the new Jewish Temple must be built on the site where Al-Aqsa currently sits “as it is at the forefront of Jewish salvation.” Since then, prominent Israeli politicians have become more and more overt in their support for the end of Jordanian-Palestinian sovereignty over the mosque compound, leading many prominent Palestinians to warn in recent years of plans to destroy the mosque.




In recent years, a centuries-old effort by what was once a small group of extremists has gone increasingly mainstream in Israel, with prominent politicians, religious figures and political parties advocating for the destruction of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque in order to fulfill a specific interpretation of an end-times prophecy that was once considered fringe among practitioners of Judaism.

As Miko Peled, Israeli author and human-rights activist, told MintPress, the movement to destroy Al-Aqsa and replace it with a reimagined Temple “became notable after the 1967 war,” and has since grown into “a massive colonial project that uses religious, biblical mythology and symbols to justify its actions” — a project now garnering support from both religious and secular Israelis.

While the push to destroy Al-Aqsa and replace it with a physical Third Temple has gained traction in Israel in recent years, this effort has advanced at a remarkably fast pace in just the past few weeks, owing to a confluence of factors. These factors, as this report will show, include the upcoming revelation of the so-called “Deal of the Century,” the push for a war with Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and the Trump administration’s dramatic lenience in regards to the activity of Jewish extremist groups and extremist settlements in Israel.

These factors correlate with a quickening of efforts to destroy Al-Aqsa and the very real danger the centuries-old holy site faces. While the U.S. press has occasionally mentioned the role of religious extremism in dictating the foreign policy of prominent U.S. politicians like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, it has rarely shone a light on the role of Jewish extremism in directing Israel’s foreign policy — foreign policy that, in turn, is well-known to influence American policies.

When taken together, the threats to Al-Aqsa are clearly revealed to be much greater than the loss of a physical building, though that itself would be a grave loss for the world’s Muslim community, which includes over 1.8 billion people. In addition, the site’s destruction would very likely result in a regional and perhaps even global war with clear religious dimensions.

To prevent such an outcome, it is essential to highlight the role that extremist, apocalyptic interpretations of both the Jewish and Christian faiths are playing in trends that, if left unchecked, could have truly terrifying consequences. Both of these extremist groups are heavily influenced by colonial ambitions that often supersede their religious underpinning.

In Part I of this two-part series, MintPress examines the growth of extremist movements in Israel that openly promote the destruction of Al-Aqsa, from a relatively isolated fringe movement within Zionism to mainstream prominence in Israel today; as well as how threats to the historic mosque have grown precipitously in just the past month. MintPress interviewed Israeli author and activist Miko Peled; Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta in New York; Imam and scholar of Shia Islam, Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini, of the Islamic Institute of America; and Palestinian journalist and academic Ramzy Baroud for their perspectives on these extremist groups, their growing popularity, and the increasing threats to the current status quo at Haram El-Sharif/Temple Mount.

The second part of this series will detail the influence of this extremist movement in Israeli politics as well as American politics, particularly among Christian Zionist politicians in the United States. The ways in which this movement’s goal have also influenced Israeli and U.S. policy — particularly in relation to the so-called “Deal of the Century,” President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and the push for war against Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah — will also be examined.

 

Two centuries in the cross-hairs

Though efforts to wrest the contested holy site from Jordanian and Palestinian control have picked up dramatically in recent weeks, the Al-Aqsa mosque compound had long been targeted prior to Israel’s founding and even prior to the formation of the modern Zionist movement.

For instance, Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Kalisher — who promoted the European Jewish colonization of Palestine from a religious perspective well before Zionism became a movement — expounded on an early form of what would later be labeled “religious Zionism” and was particularly interested in the acquisition of Haram el-Sharif (i.e., the Temple Mount) as a means of fulfilling prophecy.

As noted in the essay “Proto-Zionism and its Proto-Herzl: The Philosophy and Efforts of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalisher” by Sam Lehman-Wilzig, Professor of Israeli Politics and Judaic Studies at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, Kalisher sought to court wealthy European Jews to finance the purchase of Israel for the purpose of resettlement, particularly the Temple Mount. In an 1836 letter to Baron Amschel Rothschild, Kalisher suggested that the eldest brother of the wealthy banker family use his abundant funds to bring Jewish sovereignty to Palestine, specifically Jerusalem and the Temple Mount:

[E]specially at a time like this, when the Land of Israel is under the dominion of the Pasha… perhaps if his most noble Excellency pays him a handsome sum and purchases for him some other country (in Africa) in exchange for the Holy Land, which is presently small in quantity but great in quality… this money would certainly not be wasted… for when the leaders of Israel are gathered from every corner of the world… and transform it into an inhabited country, the many G-d-fearing and charitable Jews will travel there to take up their residency in the Holy Land under Jewish sovereignty… and be worthy to take up their portion in the offering upon the altar. And if the master (Ibrahim Pasha) does not desire to sell the entire land, then at least he should sell Jerusalem and its environs… or at least the Temple Mount and surrounding areas.” (emphasis added)

Kalisher’s request was met with a noncommittal response from Baron Rothschild, leading Kalisher to pursue other wealthy European Jewish families, like the Montefiores, with the same goal in mind. And, though Kalisher was initially unsuccessful in winning the support of the Rothschild family, other notable members of the wealthy European banking dynasty eventually did become enthusiastic supporters of Zionism in the decades that followed.

Kalisher was also influential in another way, as he was arguably the first modern Rabbi to reject the idea of patiently waiting for God to fulfill prophecy and proposed instead that man should take concrete steps that would lead to the fulfillment of such prophecies, a belief that Kalisher described as “self help.” For Kalisher, settling European Jews in Palestine was but the first step, to be followed by other steps that would form an active as opposed to a passive approach towards Jewish Messianism. These subsequent steps included the construction of a Third Temple, to replace the Second Temple destroyed by the Romans around the year 70 C.E., and the reinitiation of ritual animal sacrifices in that Temple, which Kalisher believed could only be placed on the Temple Mount, where Al-Aqsa then sat and still sits.

Kalisher wasn’t alone in his views, as his contemporary, Rabbi Judah Alkalai, wrote the following in his book Shalom Yerushalayim:

It is obvious that the Mashiach ben David [Messiah of the House of David] will not appear out of thin air in a fiery chariot with fiery horses, but will come if the Children of Israel bend to the task of preparing themselves for him.”

Though Kalisher wasn’t the lone voice promoting these ideas, his beliefs — aside from promoting the physical settlement of European Jews in Palestine — remained relatively fringe for decades, if not more than a century, as secular Jews were hugely influential in the Zionist movement after its official formation. However, prominent religious Zionists did influence the Zionist movement in key ways prior to Israel’s founding. One such figure was Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who sought to reconcile Zionism and Orthodox Judaism as the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, a position he assumed in 1924.

Yet, Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Neturei Karta, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish group based in New York that opposes Zionism, told MintPress that many religious Zionists have since latched onto Kalisher’s ideas, which were widely rejected during his lifetime, in order to justify neocolonial actions sought by secular Zionists. “This rabbi, at the time, other rabbis ‘roared’ against him and his beliefs weren’t accepted,” Rabbi Weiss stated, “But now, the ones who are talking about building this Third Temple….these are Zionists and they have found some rabbi whose ideas benefit them that they have been using to justify Zionist acts” that are not aligned with Judaism “and make them kosher.”

Al-Aqsa and temple mount 1974

The famous Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, at center, and the dome of Al-Aqsa Mosque pictured on May 15, 1976. Horst Faas | AP

Weiss further expanded on this point, noting that the participants of the modern religious Zionism movement that seek to build a new Jewish temple where Al-Aqsa currently stands are, at their core, Zionists who have used religious imagery and specific interpretations of religious texts as cover for neo-colonial acts, such as the complete re-making of the Temple Mount.

“It’s like a wolf in a sheepskin…These people who want to incorporate the teachings of this rabbi [Rabbi Kalisher] are proudly saying that they are Jewish, but are doing things Jews are forbidden from doing,” such as ascending to and standing upon the Temple Mount, which Rabbi Weiss stated was “a breach of Jewish law,” long forbidden by that law according to a consensus among Jewish scholars and rabbis around the world that continued well beyond the formation of the Zionist movement in the 19th century.

Weiss also told MintPress:

There are only a few sins in Judaism — which has many, many laws, that lead to a Jew being cut off from God — and to go up to the Temple Mount is one of them…This is because you need a certain level of holiness to ascend and… the process to attain that level of holiness and purity cannot be done today, because [aspects of and the items required by] the necessary purity rituals no longer exist today.”

Rabbi Weiss noted that, for this reason, the Muslim community that has historically governed the area where Al-Aqsa mosque stands never had any problems with the Jewish community in relation to the Temple Mount, as it has been known for centuries that Jews cannot ascend to the area where the mosque currently sits and instead prayed only at the Western Wall. He also stated that the prophetic idea of a Third Temple was, prior to Zionism, understood as indicating not a change in physical structures on the Temple Mount, but a metaphysical, spiritual change that would unite all of mankind to worship and serve God in unison.

Rabbi Weiss asserted that the conflict regarding Al-Aqsa mosque started only with the advent of Zionism and the associated neo-colonial ambition to fundamentally alter the status quo and structures present at the site as a means of erasing key parts (i.e., Palestinian parts) of its heritage. “This [the use of religion to justify ascending to and taking control of the Temple Mount] is a trap for conning other people into supporting them,” concluded the Rabbi.

Nonetheless, Kalisher’s impact can be seen in today’s Israel more than ever, thanks to the rise and mainstream acceptance within Israel of once-fringe elements of religious Zionism, which were deeply influenced by the ideas of rabbis like Kalisher and have served in recent decades as an incubator for some of Israel’s most radical political elements.

Meanwhile, as the debate within Judaism over the Temple Mount has changed dramatically since the 19th century, its significance in Islam has remained steadfast. According to Imam Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini, “Al-Aqsa is the third holiest mosque in Islam…it is considered to be the place where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven and has been mentioned in the Qoran, which glorifies that mosque and identifies it as a blessed mosque. All Muslims, whether they are Sunni or Shia, revere that mosque” — a fact that has remained unchanged for over a millennium and continues to today.

 

Religious Zionism gains political force

The modern rise of the religious Zionist movements that promote the destruction of Al-Aqsa mosque and its replacement with a Third Jewish Temple is most often traced back to the Six Day War of 1967. According to Miko Peled, who recently wrote a piece for MintPress Newsregarding the threats facing Al-Aqsa, “religious Zionism” as a political force became more noticeable following the 1967 war. Peled told MintPress:

After the ‘heartland’ of Biblical Israel came under Israeli control, the religious Zionists, who before then were marginalized, saw it as their mission to settle those newly conquered lands, and to be the new pioneers, so to speak. They took on the job that the socialist Zionist ideologues had in settling Palestine and ridding it of its native Arab population in the years leading up to Israel’s establishment and up to the early 1950s. They saw the “return” of Hebron, Bethlehem, Nablus, or Shchem and, of course, the Old City of Jerusalem as divine intervention and now it was their turn to make their mark.

It began with a small group of Messianic fanatics who forced the government – who at that point, after 1967, was still secular Zionist – to accept their existence in the highly populated areas within the West Bank. That was how the city of Kiryat Arba [illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank] was established. The government, it is worth noting, was happy to be forced into this. From a small group that people thought were fringe lunatics to a Jewish city in the heart of Hebron region.”

Peled further noted that this model, employed by the religious extremist groups that founded illegal West Bank settlements like Kiryat Arba, “has been used successfully since then and it is now used by the groups that are promoting the new Temple in place of Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.” He continued, pointing out that “whereas 20-30 years ago they were considered a fringe group, this year they expect more than 50,000 people to enter the compound to support the group and their goals. Religious Israeli youth who opt out of military service and choose national service instead may work with the [Third] Temple building organizations.”

Extremist settlers storm Al-Aqsa

Extremist settlers escorted by Israeli after they stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound on July 22, 2018. Mostafa Alkharouf | Anadolu

Dr. Ramzy Baroud — journalist, academic and founder of The Palestine Chronicle — agreed with Peled’s sense that the Third Temple movement or Temple Activist movement has grown dramatically in recent years and has become increasingly mainstream in Israel. Baroud told MintPress: 

There has been a massive increase in the number of Israeli Jews who force their way into the Al-Aqsa mosque compound to pray and practice various rituals…In 2017 alone, over 25,000 Jews who visited the compound — accompanied by thousands of soldiers and police officers and provoking many clashes that resulted in the death and wounding of many Palestinians. Since 2017, the increase in Jews visiting the compound has been very significant if compared to the previous year when around 14,000 Jews made that same journey.”

Baroud also noted:

[The Temple Activist movement] has achieved a great deal in appealing to mainstream Israeli Jewish society in recent years. At one point, it was a marginal movement, but with the rise of the far right in Israel, their ideas and ideologies and religious aspirations have also become part of the Israeli mainstream.”

As a result, Baroud asserted:

[There is] an increasing degree of enthusiasm among Israeli Jews that is definitely not happening at the margins [of society], but is very much a part of the mainstream, more so than at any time in the past, to take over the Al-Aqsa mosque, demolish the mosque in order to rebuild the so-called Third Temple.”

However, Rabbi Weiss disagreed with Peled and Baroud that this faction presents a real threat to the mosque, given that the mosque’s destruction is widely rejected by Diaspora Jewry (i.e., Jews living outside of Israel) and that destroying it would not only cause conflicts with the global Muslim community but also numerous Jewish communities outside of Israel.

As Rabbi Weiss told MintPress:

Some of the largest and most religious [i.e. ultra-orthodox] Jewish communities outside of Israel, like the second largest community of religious [ultra-orthodox] Jews in Williamsburg, Brooklyn [in New York], and also in Israel … are opposed to this concept of taking over the Temple Mount and other related ideas.”

Weiss argued that many of these religious Zionists in Israel that are pushing for a new Temple “do not follow Jewish law to the letter and don’t come from the very religious communities, including the settlers…They don’t go to expressly religious schools, they go to Zionist schools. Their whole view is built on Zionism and [secondarily] incorporates the religion,” as opposed to the reverse. As a result, the destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque, in Weiss’ view, could greatly alienate the state of Israel from these more religious and ultra-orthodox communities.

In addition, Rabbi Weiss felt that many Jewish and secular Israelis would also reject such a move because it would create even more conflicts, which many Israelis do not want. He described the Temple Activists as “a vocal minority” that represented a “fringe” among adherents to Judaism and a group within Zionism that has tried to use the Temple Mount “in order to be able to excuse their occupation and to try to portray this [the occupation of Palestine] as a religious conflict,” with the conflict surrounding the Temple Mount being an extension of that.

An Israeli police officer raises his baton on Palestinians worshipers near the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem's Old City, July 27, 2017 (AP/Mahmoud Illean)

An Israeli police officer raises his baton on Palestinians worshipers near the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City, July 27, 2017. Mahmoud Illean | AP

Weiss believed that the push to take over the Temple Mount was a “scare tactic” aimed at securing the indefinite nature of the occupation, and noted that many Israelis did not want a spike in or renewal of conflict that would inevitably result if the mosque were to be destroyed. He also added that he did not think there was a “real threat” of the mosque being targeted because international rabbinical authorities have stood fast in their opposition to the project promoted by the Temple Activists.

 

“Tomorrow might be too late”

It is hardly a coincidence that the growth of Temple Activism and associated movements like “neo-Zionism” have paralleled the growth in threats to the Al-Aqsa mosque itself. Many of these threats can be understood through the doctrine developed by Rabbi Kalisher and others in the mid-19th century — the idea that “active” steps must be taken to bring about the reconstruction of a Jewish Temple at Haram El-Sharif in order to bring about the Messianic Age.

Indeed, during the 1967 war, General Shlomo Goren, the chief rabbi of the IDF, had told Chief of Central Command Uzi Narkiss that, shortly after Israel’s conquest of Jerusalem’s Old City, the moment had come to blow up the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. “Do this and you will go down in history,” Goren told Narkiss. According to Tom Segev’s book 1967, Goren felt that the site’s destruction could only be done under the cover of war: “Tomorrow might be too late.”

Goren was among the first Israelis to arrive at the then-recently conquered Old City in Jerusalem and was joined at the newly “liberated” Al-Aqsa compound by a young Yisrael Ariel, who now is a major leader in the Temple Activist movement and head of the Temple Institute, which is dedicated to constructing a Third Temple where Al-Asqa mosque currently stands.

Narkiss rejected Goren’s request, but did approve the razing of Jerusalem’s Moroccan quarter. According to Mondoweiss, the destruction of the nearly seven centuries old Jerusalem neighborhood was done for the “holy purpose” of making the Western Wall more accessible to Jewish Israelis. Some 135 homes were flattened, along with several mosques, and over 700 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed as part of that operation.

Following the occupation of East Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa has come under increasing threat, just as extremist movements who seek to destroy the site have grown. In 1969, a Christian extremist from Australia, Daniel Rohan, set fire to the mosque. Rohan had been studying in Israel and, prior to committing arson, had told American theology student Arthur Jones, who was studying with Rohan, that he had become convinced that a new temple had to be built where Al-Aqsa stood.

Then, in 1984, a group of messianic extremists known as the Jewish Underground was arrested for plotting to use explosives to destroy Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock. Ehud Yatom, who was a security official and commander of the operation that foiled the plot, told Israel’s Channel 2 in 2004 that the planned destruction of the site would have been “horrible, terrible,” adding that it could provoke “the entire Muslim world [into a war] against the state of Israel and against the Western world, a war of religions.”

One of those arrested in 1984 in connection with the bomb plot, former Jewish Underground member Yehuda Etzion, subsequently wrote from prison that his group’s mistake was not in targeting the historic mosque, which he called an “abomination,” but in acting before Israeli society would accept such an act. “The generation was not ready,” Etzion wrote, adding that those sympathetic to the Jewish Underground movement “must build a new force that grows very slowly, moving its educational and social activity into a new leadership.”

“Of course I cannot predict whether the Dome of the Rock will be removed from the Mount while the new body is developing or after it actually leads the people,” Etzion stated, “but the clear fact is that the Mount will be purified [from Islamic shrines] with certainty…”

Upon his release from prison, Etzion founded the Chai Vekayam (Alive and Existing) movement, a group that Al Jazeera’s Mersiha Gadzo described as aimed at “shaping public opinion as a prerequisite for building a Third Temple in the religious complex in Jerusalem’s Old City where Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are located.” Gadzo also notes that “according to messianic belief, building the Third Temple at the Al Aqsa compound — where the First and Second Temples stood some 2,000 years ago — would usher the coming of the Messiah.”

Six years later, another group called the Temple Mount Faithful, which is dedicated to building the Third Temple, provoked what became known as the Al-Aqsa massacre in 1990 after its members attempted to place a cornerstone for the Third Temple on the Temple Mount / Haram El-Sharif, leading to riots that saw Israeli police shoot and kill over 20 Palestinians and wound an estimated 150 more.

Al-Aqsa 1996 massacre

Blood-stained footmarks mark the entrance to Al Aqsa Mosque after Israeli police opened fire on Palestinian worshipers in 1996. Khaled Zighari | AP

This was followed by the riots in 1996 after Israel opened up a series of tunnels that had been dug under Al-Aqsa mosque that many Palestinians worried would be used to damage or destroy the mosque. Those concerns may have been well-founded, given the involvement of then- and current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Third Temple activist groups in creating the tunnels and in subsequent excavations near the holy site, which were and continue to be officially described as “archaeological” in nature. During the 1996 incident, 80 Palestinians and 14 Israeli police officers were killed.

Some Israeli archaeologists have argued that these tunnels have not been built for archaeological or scientific purposes and are highly unlikely to result in any new discoveries. One such Israeli archaeologist, Yoram Tseverir, told Middle East Monitor in 2014 that “the claims that these excavations aim at finding scientific information are marginal” and called the still-ongoing government-sponsored excavations under Al-Aqsa “wrong.” When those “archaeological” excavations at Al-Aqsa resulted in damage to the Western Wall near Al-Aqsa last year, a chorus of prominent Palestinians, including the spokesman for the Fatah Party, claimed that Israel’s government had devised a plan to destroy the mosque.

 

Since 2000, Al-Aqsa mosque has been the site of incidents that have resulted in new state crackdowns by Israel against Palestinians both within and well outside of Jerusalem. Indeed, the Second Intifada was largely provoked by the visit of the then-Likud candidate for prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who entered Al-Aqsa mosque under heavy guard. Then-spokesman for Likud, Ofir Akounis, was later quoted by CNN as saying that the reason for Sharon’s visit was “to show that under a Likud government it [the Temple Mount] will remain under Israeli sovereignty.”

That single visit by Sharon led to five years of heightened tensions, more than three thousand dead Palestinians and an estimated thousand dead Israelis, as well as a massive and still continuing crackdown on Palestinians living under Israeli occupation and in the blockaded Gaza Strip.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud told MintPress that Sharon’s provocation in particular, and subsequent provocations, are often planned and used by Israeli politicians in order to justify crackdowns and restrictions on Palestinians. He argued:

[Some powerful Israeli politicians] use these regular provocations at Al Aqsa to create the kind of tensions that increase violence in the West Bank and to [then] carry out whatever policies they have in mind. They know exaclty how to provoke Palestinians and there is no other issue that is as sensitive and unifying in the Palestinian psyche as Al-Aqsa mosque.

Not only do we need to be aware of the fact that [provocations at] Al-Aqsa mosque are being used to implement archaic, destructive plans [i.e., destruction of Al-Aqsa and construction of a Third Temple] by certain elements that are now very much at the core of Israeli politics, but also the fact that this type of provocation is also used to implement broader policies pertaining to Palestinians elsewhere.”

 

Drums beating loud

While there have long been efforts to destroy the historic Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, recent weeks have seen a disturbing and dramatic uptick in incidents that suggest that the influential groups in Israel that have long pushed for the mosque’ s destruction may soon get their way. This reflects what Ramzy Baroud described to MintPress as how support for the construction of the Third Temple where Al-Aqsa currently sits is now “greater than at any time in the past” within Israeli society.

Earlier this month on June 2, a religious adviser to the Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Al-Habbash, took to social media to warn of an “Israeli plot against the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” adding that “If the Muslims don’t act now [to save the site]… the entire world will pay dearly.”

Al-Habbash’s statement was likely influenced by a disturbing event that occurred that same day at the revered compound when Israeli police provided cover for extremist Israeli settlers who illegally entered the compound during the final days of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Israeli police used pepper spray and rubber bullets to disperse Palestinian worshippers who had gathered at the mosque during one of Islam’s most important holidays while allowing over a thousand Israeli Jews to enter the compound. Forty-five Palestinians were wounded and several were arrested.

Though such provocative visits by Jewish Israelis to Al-Aqsa have occurred with increasing frequency in recent years, this event was different because it up-ended a long-standing agreement between Jordan’s government, which manages the site, and Israel that no such visits take place during important Islamic holidays. As a consequence, Jordan accused Israel’s government of “flagrant violations” of that agreement by allowing visits from religious nationalists, which Jordan described as “provocative intrusions by extremists.”

Less than a week after the incident, Israel’s Culture and Sports Minister, Miri Regev, a member of the Netanyahu-led Likud Party, called for more settler extremists to storm the compound, stating: “We should do everything to keep ascending to the Temple Mount … And hopefully, soon we will pray in the Temple Mount, our sacred place.” In addition, Regev also thanked Israel’s Interior Security Minister, Gilad Erdan, and Jerusalem’s police chief for guarding the settler extremists who had entered the compound.

In 2013, then-member of the Likud Party Moshe Feiglin told the Knesset that allowing Jewish Israelis to enter the compound is “not about prayer.” “Arabs don’t mind that Jews pray to God. Why should they care? We all believe in God,” Feiglin — who now heads the Zehut, or Identity, Party — stated, adding, “The struggle is about sovereignty. That’s the true story here. The story is about one thing only: sovereignty.”

In other words, Likud and its ideological allies view granting Jewish Israelis entrance to “pray” at the site of the mosque as a strategy aimed at reducing Palestinian-Jordanian control over the site. Feiglin’s past comments give credibility to Rabbi Weiss’ claim, referenced earlier on in this report, that the religious underpinnings and religious appeals of the Temple Activists are secondary to the settler-colonial (i.e., Zionist) aspect of the movement, which seeks to remove Palestinian and Muslim heritage from the Temple Mount as part of the ongoing Zionist project.

Feiglin, earlier this year in April, called for the immediate construction of the Third Temple, telling a Tel Aviv conference, “I don’t want to build a [Third] Temple in one or two years, I want to build it now.” The Times of Israel, reporting on Feiglin’s comments, noted that the Israeli politician is “enjoying growing popularity.”

Earlier this month, and not long after Miri Regev’s controversial comments, an event attended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli mayor of Jerusalem, Moshe Leon, used a banner that depicted the Jerusalem skyline with the Dome of the Rock noticeably absent. Though some may write off such creative photo editing as a fluke, it is but the latest in a series of similar incidents where official events or materials have edited out the iconic building and, in some cases, have replaced it with a reconstructed Jewish temple.

al-Aqsa third temple

US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman poses with a picture of the ‘Third Temple,’ May 22, 2018. Israel Cohen | Kikar Hashabat

The day before that event, Israeli police had arrested three members of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound’s Reconstruction Committee, which is overseen by the government of Jordan. Those arrested included the committee’s head and its deputy head, and the three men were arrested while performing minor restoration work in an Al-Aqsa courtyard. The Jordan-run authority condemned the arrests, for which no official reason was given, and called the move by Israeli police “an intervention in their [the men’s] reconstruction work.” According to Palestinian news agency Safa, Israeli police have also prevented the entry of tools necessary for restoration work to the site and have restricted members of the authority from performing critical maintenance work.

In addition, another important figure at Al-Aqsa, Hanadi Al-Halawani, who teaches at the mosque school and has long watched over the site to prevent its occupation by Israeli forces, was arrested late last month.

Arrests of other key Al-Aqsa personnel have continued in recent days, such as the arrest of seven Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, including guards of the mosque, and their subsequent ban from entering the site. The Palestinians were arrested at their homes last Sunday night in early morning raids and the official reason for their arrest remains unclear. So many arrests in such a short period have raised concerns that, should the spate of arrests of important Al-Aqsa personnel continue, future incidents at the site, such as the mysterious firethat broke out last April at Al-Aqsa while France’s Notre Dame was also ablaze, may not be handled as effectively owing to staff shortages.

Soon after those arrests, 60 members of a settler extremist group entered the al-Aqsa compound under heavy guard from Israeli police. Safa news agency reported that these settlers have recently been accompanied by Israeli intelligence officials in their incursions at the site.

All of these recent provocations and arrests in connection with the mosque come soon after the King of Jordan, Abdullah II, publicly stated in late March that he had recently come under great pressure to relinquish Jordan’s custodianship of the mosque and the contested holy site upon which it is built. Abdullah II vowed to continue custodianship over Christian and Muslim sites in Jerusalem, including Al-Aqsa, and declined to say who was pressuring him over the site. However, his comments about this pressure to cede control over the mosque came just days after he had visited the U.S. and met with American Vice President Mike Pence, a Christian Zionist who believes that a Jewish Temple must replace Al-Aqsa to fulfill an end times prophecy.

In May, an Israeli government-linked research institute, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, wrote that Abdullah II had nearly been toppled in mid-April, just weeks after publicly discussing external pressure to relinquish control over Al-Aqsa. The report stated that Abdullah II had been a target of a “plot undermining his rule,” which led him to replace several senior members of his government. That report further claimed that the plot had been aimed at removing obstacles to the Trump administration’s “Deal of the Century,” which is supported by Israel’s government.

Last year, some Israeli politicians sought to push for a transfer of the site’s custodianship to Saudi Arabia, sparking concern that this could be connected to plans by some Third Temple activists to remove Al-Aqsa from Jerusalem and transfer it piece-by-piece to the Saudi city of Mecca. On Thursday, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs published an article asserting that “tectonic shifts” were taking place in relation to who controls Al-Aqsa, with a Saudi-funded political group making dramatic inroads that could soon alter which country controls the historic mosque compound.

Sayyed Hassan Al-Qazwini told MintPress that, in his view, the current custodianship involving Jordan’s government is not ideal, as control over the Al-Aqsa mosque “should in the hands of its people, [and] Al-Aqsa mosque belongs Palestine;” if not, at the very least, a committee of Muslim majority nations should be formed to govern the holy site because of its importance. As for Saudi Arabia potentially receiving control over the site, Al-Qazwini told MintPress that “the Saudis are not qualified as they are not even capable of running the holy sites in Saudi Arabia itself. Every year, there has been a tragedy and many pilgrims have died during hajj time [annual Islamic pilgrimage].”

 

Once fringe, now approaching consensus

The threat to Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock compound, the third holiest site in Islam and of key importance to three major world religions, is the result of the dramatic growth of what was once a fringe movement of extremists. After the Six Day War, these fringe elements have fought to become more mainstream within Israel and have sought to gain international support for their religious-colonialist vision, particularly in the United States. As this article has shown, the threats to Al-Aqsa have grown significantly in the past decades, spiking in just the past few weeks.

As former Jewish Underground member Yehuda Etzion had called for decades ago, an educational and social movement aimed at gaining influence with Israeli government leadership has been hugely successful in its goal of engineering consent for a Third Temple among many religious and secular Israelis. So successful has this movement been that numerous powerful and influential Israeli politicians, particularly since the 1990s, have not only openly promoted these beliefs, and the destruction of Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, but have also diverted significant amounts of government funding to organizations dedicated to replacing the historic mosque with a new temple.

As the second and final installment of this series will show, this movement has gained powerful allies, not just in Israel’s government, but among many evangelical Christians in the United States, including top figures in the Trump administration who also feel that the destruction of Al-Aqsa and the reconstruction of a Jewish Temple are prerequisites for the fulfillment of prophecy, albeit a different one. Furthermore, given the influence of such movements on the Israeli and U.S. governments, these beliefs of active Messianism are also informing key policies of these same governments and, in doing so, are pushing the world towards a dangerous war.

Feature photo | Israeli police stand next to the Dome of the Rock mosque at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem’s Old City, July 27, 2017. Mahmoud Illean | AP

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism