Zoeken in deze blog 🔎🔎

zondag 8 september 2019

The Untold Story of Christian Zionism’s Rise to Power





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













































































































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 | Darby dispensations
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.
Charles Russell | American Jews
Russell addresses an audience of American Jews in New York in 1910. Photo | Public Domain
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 petitionthat 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.
Kaiser Wilhelm | Herzl
Herzl gives Kaiser Wilhelm II a tour of an early Jewish settlement near Jaffa, Palestine in 1898. Photo | Israel GPO
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 Carnegiemembers of the Vanderbilt family, and famous American writer Samuel Clemens, better known by his pen name, Mark Twain. 
Scofield Israel
Pastor Scofield, center, with the Deacons of the First Congregational Church of Dallas, circa 1880s
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.”
Jerry Falwell | private jet
Jerry Falwell travels with his son Jonathan, right, aboard his private jet in 2004. Todd Hunley | Thomas Road Baptist Church
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. 
Falwell and Netanyahu
Netanyahu, left, meets Falwell at a hotel in Washington, Jan. 19, 1998. Greg Gibson | AP
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 Timesdescribed 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.
Mike Pence, John Hagee
Vice President Pence, left, greets Hagee at CUFI’s annual summit, July 8, 2019, in Washington. Patrick Semansky | AP
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. 

De Zionistische Meute 18

Hoe erg de zelfbenoemde ‘half joodse’ antiekhandelaar Constant Vecht met een identiteitscrisis kampt, blijkt wel uit het feit dat hij zaterdag 7 september 2019 op Facebook verwees naar een opinie-artikel in NRC Handelsblad van Jolande Withuis. Als sociologe had Withuis een dag eerder onder de kop ‘Alleen al aan zijn woorden herken je de vijand’ laten weten dat ‘Identiteitspolitiek mensen op[sluit] in slechts één aspect van hun identiteit,’ en ‘Dat is ideologische blindheid, en helpt de strijd tegen rassendiscriminatie niet.’ Afgaande op Withuis’ tekst was dit voor de hand liggende feit nog niet in zijn volle omvang doorgedrongen tot de voormalige communist Vecht, die op zijn oude dag van alles in het werk stelt om voor een volle jood te worden aangezien. Withuis schreef:

Wat ben ik blij dat er eindelijk een boek is verschenen dat de naargeestige identiteitspolitiek bekritiseert: 'Witte schuld' van journaliste Elma Drayer. Toen ik het las, trof het me opnieuw hoe angstvallig Nederlandse wetenschappers er het zwijgen toe doen inzake de identiteitsideologie. Waar zijn de sociologen, antropologen, politicologen, historici en psychologen die uitleggen dat het begrip identiteit zoals gebruikt in de identiteitspolitiek een ideologische constructie is en niet berust op een empirische werkelijkheid? Die uitleggen dat er niet zoiets bestaat als één vaste, ahistorische totaalidentiteit die het complete leven van mensen bepaalt?

Vermoedelijk geldt hier nog steeds wat Karel van het Reve in 1975 schreef over de toenmalige marxistische sociologie: als wetenschappers van die richting eens wat minder eropuit waren de wereld te verbeteren maar deze met een onbevangen blik ‘zouden beschouwen als een curieus organisme, even ver van hun bed als een black hole van het bed van een astronoom,’ dan zou de sociologie wellicht nog eens nuttige kennis opleveren. Het ging Van het Reve om waarheidsvinding. Het even gemakzuchtige als gevaarlijke idee dat ‘de waarheid niet bestaat’ en slechts een product is van macht, was hem vreemd.

Met mijn boek over mijn vader (Raadselvader. Kind in de Koude Oorlog. svh) heb ik vorig jaar nogal uitgepakt over de nadelen van een communistische opvoeding. Zo’n nadeel was dat ik beide broeders Reve lang ongelezen heb gelaten, dus dit citaat ontleen ik aan het boek van Drayer.

Uit de rest van de tekst maak ik op dat ook voor de feministe Jolande Withuis de ‘identiteitspolitiek’ deels nog terra incognita is. En dat is opmerkelijk, want al in 2017 verscheen het boek van de van origine Joods-Israelisch intellectueel Gilad Atzmon Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, waarin hij stelde dat:

the transition from traditional Left ideology into New Left politics can be understood as the aggressive advocacy of sectarian and divisive ideologies. While the old Left made an effort to unite us all: gays, blacks, Jews or Whites into a political struggle against capital, the New Left has managed to divide us into ID sectors. We are trained to speak ‘as a…’: ‘as a Jew,’ ‘as a black,’ ‘as a Lesbian.’ The new left has taught us to identify with our biology, with our gender, sex orientation and our skin colour, as long as it isn’t ‘White’ of course.

Tragically, ID politics is a vey dangerous political game. It is designed to pull people apart. It is there to introduce conflict and division. ID politics doesn’t offer a harmonious vision of society as a whole. Quite the opposite, it leads to an increasingly fractured social reality. Take, for instance, the continuous evolution of the LGBT group. It is constantly expanding to include more and more sectarian sexually oriented social subgroupings (LGBTQ, LGBTQAI and even LGBTQIAP).

In the New Left social reality, we, the people are shoved into ID ghettos that are defined by our biology: skin colour, sexual orientation, the Jewish mother, etc.

Instead of what we need to do: fight together against big money, the bankers, the mega-corporations, we fight each other, we learn to hate each other. We even drive our cars over each other.

I am opposed to all forms of ID politics, whether it is White, Black, Jewish, Gender or sex oriented. But, obviously if Jews, Gays and others are entitled to identify with their ‘biology,’ white people are entitled to do the same. I think that universalism is what we used to call it when we still cared about intellectual integrity.

The problem created by ID politics is extremely grave. ID politics doesn’t offer a prospect of peace and harmony. Within the context of ID politics, we cannot envisage a peaceful resolution of the current ID clash. Can anyone foresee the LGBT community embracing KKK activists into their notion of ‘diverse society?’ The same can be said about the KKK, are they going to open their gates to cultural Marxists? 

ID politics equals ID clash, an irreconcilable conflict with no end, the complete destruction of American and, to a certain extent, Western civilization. This may explain why George Soros and his open society are invested in this battle. As long as the working people are fighting each other, no one bothers to challenge the root cause of our current dystopia, namely the banks, global capitalism, wall street, Mammonism and so on.

Groot was dan ook in eerste instantie mijn verbazing dat nu juist of all people Constant Vecht naar de tekst van mevrouw Withuis verwees. Een week eerder, zondag 1 september 2019, had ik namelijk op mijn weblog het volgende geschreven:  

Constant Vecht’s metamorfose van communist naar tribalist is een kenmerkende hedendaagse reactie op het feit dat de postmoderne massamens vervreemd is geraakt van niet alleen de technocratie waarin hij leeft, maar ook van zijn anonieme directe omgeving, en uiteindelijk van zichzelf. De van origine Joods-Israelische auteur Gilad Atzmon zet in zijn boek Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto (2017) terecht uiteen dat ‘the transition from traditional Left ideology into New Left politics can be understood as the aggressive advocacy of sectarian and divisive ideologies…’

Wat is hier nu het geval? Waarom zou iemand die als zionist verlangt naar een zo volwaardig mogelijke ‘Joodse’ identiteit, nu ineens zijn eigen tribale streven lachwekkend maken? Heeft hij wellicht mijn citaat van Atzmon gelezen en beseft hij als oud-CPNer plotseling dat ‘de identiteitspolitiek een ideologische constructie is en niet berust op een empirische werkelijkheid?’ Heeft hij als goed boerende antiekhandelaar zich nog niet helemaal weten los te maken van zijn voormalige marxistische identiteit? Wil hij nu zowel een vrije kosmopoliet zijn als tegelijkertijd een joodse tribalist? Ik ga hier vanmiddag verder over nadenken. 


Het Zionisme in de praktijk.

Kritische joden door CIDI geweerd bij lezing minister Kaag

Het Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israël (CIDI) weigert twee medewerkers van The Rights Forum, de voorzitter van Een Ander Joods Geluid en een journalist toegang tot een bijeenkomst waar minister Kaag over haar beleid zal spreken. Reden voor de boycot is dat de vier kritisch zijn over het opereren van het CIDI. Drie van hen zijn nota bene van joodse komaf.

Het Mauritshuis in Den Haag, waar op 8 september de CIDI-bijeenkomst met minister Kaag plaatsvindt.Zairon / Wikipedia 
Het gaat om directeur Gerard Jonkman en eindredacteur Martijn de Rooi van The Rights Forum, voorzitter Jaap Hamburger van Een Ander Joods Geluid (tevens bestuurslid van The Rights Forum) en een onafhankelijke blogger/journalist. De drie laatstgenoemden zijn van joodse komaf.
Het viertal had een uitnodiging ontvangen van het ministerie voor Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking om op zondag 8 september aanwezig te zijn op een bijeenkomst in het Mauritshuis in Den Haag. Daar zal minister Sigrid Kaag in de vooravond spreken over haar beleidsnota Investeren in Perspectief. Kaag gaf gehoor aan een uitnodiging van het CIDI, dat de bijeenkomst organiseerde. Afspraak was dat het ministerie eigen gasten kon uitnodigen.
Enkele dagen voor de bijeenkomst werden de vier door het ministerie gebeld met de mededeling dat het CIDI een streep door hun namen had gezet. Zij zijn niet welkom omdat zij kritisch zijn over het opereren van het CIDI. De Rooi kreeg te horen dat hem de toegang wordt geweigerd omdat hij het CIDI ‘in artikelen heeft aangevallen’. Voor Jonkman volstond klaarblijkelijk het feit dat hij directeur van The Rights Forum is.

Teken van zwakte

The Rights Forum is van mening dat het weren van mensen met onwelgevallige opvattingen haaks staat op het principe van vrije en open uitwisseling van standpunten en meningen, een wezenskenmerk van de democratie. Directeur Jonkman spreekt van ‘een enorm teken van zwakte’:
Kennelijk is het CIDI zo bevreesd voor onze opvattingen dat het ons met deze maatregel nu letterlijk buiten het debat probeert te houden. Dat is een enorm teken van zwakte.
Jonkman benadrukt dat The Rights Forum juist een groot voorstander is van open debat. De organisatie heeft het CIDI meermalen uitgenodigd om publiekelijk in discussie te gaan over het thema Palestina/Israël, waarop beide organisaties sterk van mening verschillen. Jonkman:
Het CIDI heeft op geen van onze uitnodigingen zelfs maar gereageerd. Organisaties als het CIDI gaan debat met politieke opponenten consequent uit de weg. Ze zijn er juist op uit om kritisch debat te voorkomen.

Aanval op beleid minister Kaag

De weigering van het CIDI om het viertal toe te laten is des te opmerkelijker omdat de toespraak van Kaag niet specifiek in het teken staat van Palestina/Israël. Vermoedelijk beschouwt het CIDI de bijeenkomst echter juist als een mogelijkheid om Kaag met kritiek op haar Palestina/Israël-beleid te bestoken. De aanwezigheid van mensen die achter dat beleid staan komt dan slecht uit.
Het CIDI speelde eerder een stuwende rol in de lastercampagne tegen Kaag, meteen al bij haar aantreden in het najaar van 2017. Van beleid was toen nog geen sprake; de campagne was louter op de persoon gericht, een bekend patroon in de CIDI-uitingen. Nadat The Rights Forum daarover had gepubliceerd kwam ook een hetze op gang tegen oprichter en erevoorzitter Dries van Agt van The Rights Forum.

Boycot

De toegangsweigering door het CIDI past in het internationale offensief van de Israëlische regering en de zogenoemde Israël-lobby tegen personen en organisaties met onwelgevallige opvattingen. In tal van landen wordt geprobeerd hen monddood te maken. Daarbij worden zij steevast beschuldigd van anti-Israëlische en/of antisemitische opvattingen en geregeld ook van banden met terroristische organisaties. Met name organisaties die sympathiseren met de BDS-beweging moeten het ontgelden. Het is ironisch dat het CIDI, vlaggenschip van de Nederlandse Israël-lobby, nu zelf het boycotwapen hanteert.
Saillant is ook dat drie van de vier door het CIDI geweerde personen van joodse komaf zijn. Het CIDI spreekt sinds jaar en dag schande van alles wat zweemt naar uitsluiting van joden, en werpt zich graag op als vertegenwoordiger van de Nederlandse joodse gemeenschap. Maar joden met onwelgevallige opvattingen over Israël moeten hun mond houden. Die worden – in dit geval letterlijk – buitengesloten.
Ook dat is een internationale ontwikkeling, zegt Martijn de Rooi van The Rights Forum, die eerder het ‘gesol’ met joodse belangen door organisaties als het CIDI aan de kaak stelde:
In de VS, Duitsland en andere Europese landen zie je dat alles in het werk wordt gesteld om joden met onwelgevallige opvattingen over Israël verdacht te maken en van het publieke podium te schoppen. In Israël gebeurt hetzelfde. Israël weigert joden met kritische opvattingen zelfs geregeld de toegang tot het land.
De Rooi is benieuwd hoe Rick Nieman, zondag gespreksleider tijdens de bijeenkomst met minister Kaag, zal reageren op het weren van het viertal. De Rooi werkte in het verleden lang met Nieman samen bij RTL Nieuws:
Ik ken Rick als een presentator die de journalistieke principes – denk aan hoor en wederhoor – hoog in het vaandel heeft. Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat hij zich kan vinden in het weren van mensen, van wie er twee nota bene net als hij journalist zijn.
https://rightsforum.org/nieuws/the-rights-forum-en-eajg-geweerd-van-bijeenkomst-cidi-met-minister-kaag/?fbclid=IwAR1SgeE19o0dUTvKBbRGlaqdhccOnK_P0Z_PjCwnD_grSOzhifj_tPKfSHg





De Zionistische Meute 17

The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
― Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger

The Israeli leaders now state freely, though usually unofficially, their demand for an ever-increasing empire. Their present boundaries are regarded by them as only a beachhead.
—CIA report, eleven months after Israel declared statehood, the term ‘present boundaries’ referring not to the borders Israel agreed to with Resolution 181, but to the Armistice Line, which included more than half the land designated for a Palestinian state and which was supposed to be temporary.

Om de lezer een helder inzicht te geven in het Joods-Israelisch fascisme citeer ik ditmaal wat uitgebreider uit de onthullende studie State of Terror. How terrorism created modern Israel (2016), geschreven door de Amerikaanse auteur en violist Thomas Suárez. Zich baserend op officiële documenten uit ondermeer eind jaren veertig en begin jaren vijftig van de vorige eeuw draagt de schrijver pagina’s lang bewijzen aan van de grootschalige terreur van de zionistische staat. Hoofdstuk 8 getiteld ‘Israel sans frontières’:

In the meantime, the systematic expulsion of non-Jews continued: 5,548 people were known to have been pushed over the Line in the half year ending January, 1951, or one every forty-seven minutes. Atrocities were white-washed by the government to the extent of forging victims’ statements, and ‘the brutality,’ Glubb (Sir John Bagot Glubb, Britse militair, geleerde en auteur. svh) noted, ‘is too general to be due only to the sadism of ordinary soldiers.’ For example, when on the night of 20 October (1950) IDF soldiers seized and tortured seven Palestinians in the (predominantly Christian) town of Jish in upper Galilee, some suffering severe injuries, they did so under the leadership of the local military governor. 

On the 2nd of November, an Israeli patrol of twelve soldiers penetrated about 400 metres into the West Bank and discovered three children from Yalo village collecting wood. One, an eight-year old girl, ran away at the sight of the patrol, escaping with a bullet in her thigh. The soldiers dragged away the other two children, a brother and sister aged twelve and ten, just as their father and uncle rushed to the scene. As described by Glubb, the children were forced into a ditch ‘and there butchered by one soldier with a sten-gun, while the rest of the patrol looked on. All this was plainly visible to their parents, standing helpless on the border only a few hundred yards away’

The boy was dead, with two bullets in his head and one in his shoulder. The girl — ten-year old Fakhriyeh Muhammad Ali Alayyan — had been shot seven times, but was still breathing. Once the soldiers moved on, her father carried her away, while the uncle carried the boy’s body. Fakhriyeh lived several hours, long enough to make a statement to the authorities. Like Wadi Araba, this atrocity was unusual in that it was witnessed, documented, and hit the British press, saddling Israel with another public relations problem. Questions were raised in the House of Commons, and the British Zionist establishment’s denials convinced few. Both the MAC and UN observers confirmed the incident as do, we know these decades later, internal Israeli records. As for the children’s village, in 1967 Israel ethnically cleansed and levelled Yalo, and today Israel’s Canada Park is built on its ruins and those of neighbouring Deir Ayyub and Beit Nuba.609 Yalo was targeted again less than three months later, on 29 January (1951). About sixteen Israeli soldiers descended on the village, approaching simultaneously from two directions while attacking with gunfire and grenades. The Tulkarm area was invaded by Israeli soldiers on the night on 2 February, and the following day the IDF killed three Palestinians in an attack on Saffa. The attacks grew bolder. On the night of 7 February, the soldiers invaded Sharafat, near Jerusalem, and blew up two houses, killing thirteen and wounding five. Twelve of those killed were women and children, and more than half were under fifteen. Beit Nuba and Emmaus — like Yalo, depopulated, razed, and confiscated by Israel sixteen years later—were next. ‘In the small hours of the morning of February 9,’ an Israeli patrol slipped about two kilometres inside Jordanian territory and attacked with Bren and Sten gun fire. They lobbed a grenade into a house, killing a man, his son, and his daughter. The targets were apparently random, and no explanation was offered.

At the MAC meeting later that day, the Israeli representative insisted that the Sharafat massacre be put at the bottom of the list of outstanding matters and walked out when this was not agreed to. The UN Information Officer confirmed that the attack was carried out by the Israeli army with Israeli army equipment, but that ‘in view of the Israeli delegation’s attitude there was no likelihood of M.A.C. being able to do anything in the matter.’

The bombing followed ‘a period of mounting attacks against Arab villages,’ as the Manchester Guardian reported. The paper, which had for years been staunchly pro-Zionist, now suggested that Israel was engaged in a ‘deliberate terroristic policy’ against the Palestinians, whereas Haaretz defended the attacks even as it acknowledged that the victims were innocent. Most tellingly, the ‘liberal’ Israeli paper claimed that events perhaps justified ‘the ultimate acquisition by Israel of Arab Palestine’ — that is, that Israel should annex the West Bank (which included East Jerusalem) and Gaza. 

A week after Sharafat, Jordanian officials, hoping to establish frontier cooperation, met in Jerusalem with Israel’s General Mordechai Maklef, a veteran of notorious Operation Hiram and soon to become Israeli Chief of Staff. When Maklef blamed the troubles on ‘infiltrators,’ the Jordanian representatives asked for more information. In response, the General ‘waved his arm in a noble gesture and said he was prepared to forgive us.’ Similarly, when at a MAC meeting the Israeli representative was asked why they made their allegations difficult for the MAC to investigate, he answered that since the Arabs knew what they did, why should Israel have to give any details?


The investigative journalist Colin Reid published an analysis of Israel’s interaction with the MAC in January (1951). His conclusions mirrored those of British government documents which he could not have seen. ‘As a matter of policy,’ he found, ‘details were not published or reported to the authorities. Only the charge was reported, and often too late to follow up.’ Israel constantly varied its claims, no two statements coinciding, with even the place names changing, so that a single claim appeared to be many claims. The allegations were filed as much as five months after the alleged incidents, and accompanied by artificial complaints of Palestinian aggression so as to ‘considerably obscure the issue’ to the press. Allegations never bore any date of origin or filing, rarely indicated the date of the act complained of, and were submitted in batches. In concert with these methods, Israel subjected Palestinian charges to ‘skillfully constructed procedural obstruction.’ 

On 2 April (1951), an Israeli patrol attacked four unarmed Palestinians collecting brushwood near Hebron; two escaped, but the bodies of the other two, aged eighteen and sixty-two, were later recovered by the MAC and IRC investigators. The IDF had cut off their sexual organs, skinned their buttocks, stabbed their sides with bayonets, and fired Sten gun rounds into their skulls.

Ben-Gurion, in New York in May (1951), reiterated Israel’s refusal to address the Palestinian land it had stolen beyond the Partition, and stated that it would take all the demilitarized zones as well. It was illegally draining Lake Hula in the north and continued to do so in defiance of the UN and threat of US sanctions, both of which had proven impotent. For a moment, it appeared that Israel had finally gone too far when it pirated aircraft parts from a US vessel, prompting the State Department to withhold arms exports. But this was quickly reversed: the US Congress instead prepared an unconditional grant of $150m to Israel, leading US Secretary of Labor Maurice Tobin, then in Israel, to propose that the grant at least be contingent on Israel abiding by UN Resolutions. This, too, failed.

Idna, the target of several earlier attacks, was invaded again on 23 May. On the 11th of July, six to eight Israeli soldiers threw grenades into a house in Khirbet Najjar, located two kilometres inside the West Bank, killing an eight-year-old girl and wounding her brother and mother. An Israeli patrol penetrated to the south-eastern end of the Dead Sea on 25 September and blew up a house in Ghor Safi village, killing a twelve-year-old girl and her mother as they slept inside, and wounding a boy and two women.

A tragedy unfolded at the end of 1951 which, like the Wadi Araba incident (zie aflevering 16. svh), offers a glimpse inside the Israeli state’s need for a perceived external threat, terror in the service of expansionism, and manipulation of news and information. It began with the rape and murder of a young Israeli woman from the town of Malha. On the 4th of December, eighteen-year-old Lea Festinger disappeared. Twenty-two days later, her body was discovered in a cave. There were no tracks, as rains had flooded the area, no evidence, and no suspects. ‘Arab infiltrators’ were, however, automatically blamed. Similarly, when on the night of 30 December a woman in Jerusalem was murdered, the ‘notoriously overworked and understaffed’ Israeli police blamed ‘Arab infiltrators’ because someone claimed to have seen ‘men in torn khaki clothes’ in the area. Yet Israel’s domestic violent crime was so rampant that when Lea Festinger’s body was discovered, even the Jerusalem Post warned against using ‘infiltrators’ as scapegoats. Murder, rape and robbery in Israel have taken on alarming proportions. By no means all the incidents can be blamed on infiltrators or remnants of war psychosis among either immigrants or old timers: to a large extent this is merely a final consequence of the general and contemptuous disregard for law that has grown up around us... we are faced with a political situation in which no crime is too crude or pathological to be exploited.

‘Intolerance,’ as a British report noted, ‘explodes into violence with appalling ease in Israel,’ whose domestic domestic murder rate in 1951 was fourteen times England’s. Nonetheless, Jordan, aware that West Bankers were the presumed suspects, immediately asked Israel ‘for any evidence they might have about the murderer so that steps could be taken.’ Israel replied that there ‘was no need for Arabs to bother with evidence,’ since ‘we have our own methods of dealing with this sort of thing.’ 

1952. Those ‘methods’ came to pass on the night of Eastern Christmas Eve, 6 January: three attacks surrounding Bethlehem, timed to coincide with the start of the great midnight procession to the Church of the Nativity in this predominantly Christian area. One Israeli patrol blew up a house near Beit Jala, about two kilometres west of Bethlehem. Another patrol bombed two houses one kilometre north of Bethlehem, near the Greek Orthodox monastery of Mar Elias. A third IDF patrol crossed three kilometres of no man’s land in the Latrun Salient and opened fire on the village of Imwas. (Fifteen years later, Imwas would be levelled on the orders of Yitzhak Rabin.) It happened that some British MPs had come for the Christmas Eve procession, and so there were early outside witnesses to the carnage. The MAC’s US Commander E. H. Hutchison was there as well: ‘No person could live long enough,’ he wrote, ‘to become calloused to such a sight’ of massacred men, women, and children.

Israeli leaflets, printed on pink paper by cyclostyle, were in Beit Jala and Mar Elias, announcing that the attacks were in retaliation for the rape and murder of the Jewish girl on 4 December. The leaflets were identical except for the name of the accused village.

Israel, to be sure, had never named any suspects for Lea Festinger’s murderer, and had still never named any suspects when at the next MAC meeting the Jordanian representative put on record the names of the victims of the Christmas Eve massacre. Upon presenting the Committee with the names of the dead, an extraordinary fraud took place right in front of the MAC: 

‘Some minutes after the occupants of the demolished houses were named in the MAC by the Jordan representative, one of the Israeli representatives left the room and returned with a slip of paper on which were written three names, allegedly those of the Jewish girl’s murderers: they were those of the householders just previously named by Jordan as the victims of the assault. The Senior Israeli delegate then said: ‘We have the names of the people who carried out [the rape and murder], but I did not want to pass them on before.’

And so Israel posthumously framed three of its Christmas eve victims for Lea Festinger’s rape and murder. Spreading the lie to the media, Israel announced that the houses blown up on Christmas Eve ‘appeared to be inhabited by the three infiltrators whose names were given [by Israel to] the Jordanian delegation as responsible.’ When Ramati, the Israeli representative, was pushed to find those responsible for the massacre, he replied that the MAC only provides for prevention. Nor could Israel make any attempt to discover the young woman’s actual murderer, as the attempt itself would contradict its official lie. The MAC chairman suspected that the Christmas eve atrocities were ‘intended to provoke Arab hostilities which would be capitalized abroad by the Israelis. 

A week after the Bethlehem massacre, on 13 January, a father and son working on the lands of Cremisan, the area near Bethlehem known for its wine, were seized by nine IDF soldiers, ‘taken into the Israel area, and butchered.’ Five days later, three villagers working a vegetable plot (on the Israeli side, but under agreement) were murdered in similar fashion, ‘marched a few hundred metres further into Israel [that is, to make them ‘infiltrators’] and gunned down at point-blank range.’ The same formula was used in the murder of two more villagers the next day. Between February and May, thirty-nine Israeli attacks on the West Bank were recorded, involving the murder of civilians, including farmers asleep in their field, the targeting of UN observers, theft of livestock, and kidnappings.

On the 7th of May, about a kilometer inside Jordanian territory between Qaffin and Nazlot Issa, an Israeli patrol of about 32 soldiers opened fire on harvesters at a range of about 200 yards, among them a sixty-year-old woman too feeble to run. On the night of 20 May, an Israel patrol laid a delayed-action mine against a house on the outskirts of Qaffin village (northwest Palestine). When it exploded at about 1:30 in the morning, a sixteen-year-old boy and two children aged five and six were killed outright, and a baby of one and a half years died while being extracted from the rubble. The father was asleep in his field, having left the teenage son to take care of the family in his absence. As in distant Bethlehem, leaflets were left behind announcing that the bombing was retribution for the murder of a Jewish girl (presumably Lea Festinger). A senior Belgian UN observer joined those warning that Israel was attacking in order to create a war: Jews are deliberately working up the tension and the shooting with a view to provoking the Arab Legion to retaliate and then blaming us and starting up the war again.

Relations between Israel and the United Nations reached a crisis in June of 1952 over Mt. Scopus, an area in northeast Jerusalem that lay on the Palestinian side of the Armistice Line but which Israel occupied. The UN tolerated Israel’s occupation of Mt. Scopus with the stipulation that it not be militarized. Israel, however, was digging trenches along the hill, defying UN demands that it stop, and smuggling in weapons. It was caught on 4 June, when one of its convoys heading for Mt. Scopus was stopped at the UN border about 200 yards, among them a sixty-year-old woman too feeble to run. On the night of 20 May, an Israel patrol laid a delayed-action mine against a house on the outskirts of Qaffin village (northwest Palestine). When it exploded at about 1:30 in the morning, a sixteen-year-old boy and two children aged five and six were killed outright, and a baby of one and a half years died while being extracted from the rubble. The father was asleep in his field, having left the teenage son to take care of the family in his absence. As in distant Bethlehem, leaflets were left behind announcing that the bombing was retribution for the murder of a Jewish girl (presumably Lea Festinger). 

A senior Belgian UN observer joined those warning that Israel was attacking in order to create a war: Jews are deliberately working up the tension and the shooting with a view to provoking the Arab Legion to retaliate and then blaming us and starting up the war again.625 Relations between Israel and the United Nations reached a crisis in June of 1952 over Mt. Scopus, an area in northeast Jerusalem that lay on the Palestinian side of the Armistice Line but which Israel occupied. The UN tolerated Israel’s occupation of Mt. Scopus with the stipulation that it not be militarised. Israel, however, was digging trenches along the hill, defying UN demands that it stop, and smuggling in weapons. It was caught on 4 June, when one of its convoys heading for Mt. Scopus was stopped at the UN border crossing at the Mandelbaum Gate, and a UN guard dipped a test rod into one of the oil drums it was transporting. The rod struck a ‘heavy object concealed beneath.’ As the drum was removed from the truck to be checked, the Israeli driver pretended to have engine trouble, pushed the truck to make it roll toward the Israeli check post, jumped in, and escaped with the rest of the evidence. After much deliberation, the decision was made to open the impounded barrel in front of international observers and representatives from Israel and Jordan, on 20 June at half past noon. For safekeeping until then, it was rolled into the bathroom of the MAC headquarters and locked. That meeting, however, never took place. As described by US Commander Hutchison, at noon on the appointed day, the door of the MAC office burst open and three Israeli officers, with pistols drawn and escorted by two enlisted men who were holding Thompson sub-machine guns at the ready, marched into the room.

The Israelis commandeered the UN office, prevented the examination of the barrel, replaced the MAC’s key to the bathroom with their own, kept guard over UN personnel and answered the UN’s phones. The MAC itself now hijacked by Israel, MAC personnel kept vigil by the door, taking turns throughout the night to prevent any action going unwitnessed. Israel’s next move was its smokescreen: it issued an Aide Memoire requesting ‘the immediate replacement of the United Nations Personnel involved in this disreputable incident.’ 

A new date was set — 10 July — to open the barrel, now with the presence of the US’ General William Riley, Commander of the UN Truce Supervision Organization. With Riley in charge, Israel had no objections to proceeding. Riley had the dip rod inserted again, confirmed that it concealed contraband, but then to everyone’s astonishment, he declared that it would be returned to Israel unopened — ‘against violent opposition by [MAC chairman Colonel] de Ridder and Sloan and against the views of almost his whole staff.’ As Hutchison explained, Riley’s action made the entire peace-keeping endeavor meaningless, since Israel’s violations carried no risk. Foreseeing the barrel incident ‘win’ as another watershed in Israeli intransigence, the British in Jerusalem warned the Foreign Office that ‘the Israeli use of force has thus paid handsome dividend and I fear the consequences may be far-reaching.’

Describing Israel’s occupation of Mt. Scopus as ‘a dangerous anomaly,’ officials wrote in despair of their inability inability ‘to bring the Israelis to heel (hen dwingen zich aan de regels te houden. svh).’  Some advocated the suspension of UN convoys to Mt. Scopus until Israel cooperated, but this, too, was not pursued because of the surety that Israel would respond with force. In the words of Commander Hutchison — who by his own account had gone to the Middle East pro-Israel — ‘had the Jordanians been guilty of these deeds, Israel would have spelled them out in banner headlines from Baghdad to Fresno.’


Israel’s ‘passive’ ethnic cleansing of non-Jews continued. ‘Israel intends to make it so uncomfortable for its remaining Arabs,’ the CIA reported in late 1952, ‘that eventually they will all try to emigrate.’ Among those ‘passive’ methods, Bedouin were forced to sign ‘requests’ to move to Jordan under the threat of expulsion to unproductive desert if they refused. In another method, witnessed by Hutchison, the IDF broke and ignited benzene-filled beer bottles over the humps of their camels, burning the animals alive in order to make even the hides unsalvageable. Moshe Dayan stuck to the script of an existential threat: According to future Jerusalem mayor Kollek, Dayan had his soldiers chase Bedouin in jeeps, firing at them and killing several in order to provoke them to attack army patrols — which ‘was what Dayan was looking for,’ giving him the ‘reason’ to wage a ‘mopping up campaign.’ The commandeering of Palestinian homes by Jewish Israelis continued with impunity, Israel maintaining that it ‘cannot evict a Jew from a house’ once he has gone inside it. 

The stranger-than-fiction intrigue of Mt. Scopus continued on the night of 13 December (1952), when Israeli soldiers were caught running an arms cache past the border. They fled, leaving behind six US Army manpacks filled with 1,000 rounds of rifle ammunition, 2,000 rounds of stengun ammunition, six 81 mm mortar shells, six 2” mortar shells, three 90-volt dry batteries, 24 hand grenades, and a tin of detonators — all destined for Mt. Scopus. Twice during the night, the Israelis attempted to retrieve the arms, but were driven back. Throughout the next day (14th), the MAC tried to contact Israeli authorities, but were continually told that no one ‘was available’ to speak to them, the very UN-administered peace-keeping mission that had just foiled their nocturnal arms-running to occupied territory. The ritual obfuscation came the following day, when Israel filed what Hutchison described as ‘perhaps the most ridiculous allegation received during the history of the [MAC] mission’: the culprits were not Israeli, but ‘Jordanian marauders’ who had stolen ammunition from an Israeli army dump and wounded an Israeli soldier. To the MAC’s credit, it nonetheless took the allegation seriously, and had the Israelis submit evidence and walk the investigators through the alleged events. After the Israeli claim proved farcical and the MAC condemned Israel for the breach of the Armistice, Israel responded by launching an international campaign against Chairman de Ridder. Soon, de Ridder needed a bodyguard. The harassment continued, and although de Ridder stood firm, the UN did not. Under what Hutchison referred to as Israel’s constant pressure on the UN, he was eventually removed from his position. The Israeli ‘smokescreen of words’ was described by John Wilson upon leaving the British delegation in Tel Aviv in mid-1953. Israeli officials have built up ‘a sickening jargon... the air is thick with propaganda… Misleading stories and press campaigns are worked up [and] censorship stifles the dissemination of honest news.’ Several observers noted how the Israeli state, following in the footsteps of the Jewish Agency, conjured such hysteria with its manipulation of the news that it found itself having to take action against the threats it had invented.

Precies dezelfde tactieken om de slachtoffers buiten spel te zetten, gebruikt het criminele zionisme, nu 70 jaar later, nog steeds. En nog steeds wordt de zelfbenoemde ‘Joodse staat,’ daarin gesteund door de even misdadige joodse lobby in de VS en Europa en door de westerse elite. Inderdaad, al in 1952 wist de CIA dat:

Israel intends to make it so uncomfortable for its remaining Arabs, that eventually they will all try to emigrate,

en inderdaad, ook toen al hadden ‘Israelische functionarissen’ een ‘sickening jargon’ gecreëerd, en was ‘the air thick with propaganda… Misleading stories and press campaigns are worked up [and] censorship stifles the dissemination of honest news.’  


Deze genocidale politiek is één van de grootste misdaden van na de Tweede Wereldoorlog. En het meest wrange is dat de nazaten van Joodse slachtoffers van de nazi’s vandaag de dag even misdadig handelen als de SS en de Gestapo. Een ieder die, net als de voormalig overtuigde communist Constant Vecht, op de een of andere manier de aandacht probeert af te leiden van dit Joods-Israelisch fascisme, deugt niet. Illustrerend voor de houding van Vecht is dat Jaap Hamburger, als joodse voorzitter van Een Ander Joods Geluid, de zelfbenoemde ‘half-jood’ Constant Vecht op donderdag 8 augustus 2019 moest uitleggen dat: 

zo goed als het concept van het communisme helaas voorgoed gecompromitteerd is door de praktijk ervan, zo is het concept van het zionisme gecompromitteerd door de praktijk. Met één verschil: communistische staten bestaan niet meer, maar de zionistische staat woekert maar door.



Meer over het Joods fascisme in Israel de volgende keer.





Censored By Zelensky's Thugs

Anatolij Sharij @anatoliisharii Yulia Mendel, Zelenskyy’s former press secretary, against whom Zelenskyy imposed sanctions two days ago, was...