ZIONISM THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS

ZIONISM THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS

Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams: Chapter 158

Palash Biswas

Solomon's Temple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Artist's depiction of Solomon's Temple (Drawing by Christiaan van Adrichem (1584).)Solomon's Temple (Hebrew: ??? ??????, transliterated Beit HaMikdash), also known as the First Temple, was, according to the Hebrew Bible, the first temple of the ancient religion of the biblical Israelites in Jerusalem and originally constructed by King Solomon.

According to the Bible, it functioned as a religious focal point for worship and the sacrifices known as the korbanot in ancient Judaism. Completed in 960 BCE, it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. A reconstructed temple in Jerusalem, which stood between 516 BCE and 70 CE, was the Second Temple. Jewish eschatology commonly includes belief that a Third Temple will be built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon's_Temple

Hebrew Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term Hebrew Bible is a generic reference to those books of the Bible originally written in Biblical Hebrew (and Biblical Aramaic). The term closely corresponds to contents of the Jewish Tanakh and the Protestant Old Testament (see also Judeo-Christian) but does not include the deuterocanonical portions of the Roman Catholic or the Anagignoskomena portions of the Eastern Orthodox Old Testaments. The term does not imply naming, numbering or ordering of books, which varies, see also Biblical canon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible



Mind you, the HINDUTV RSS FASCIST Movement is also centred on a TEMPLE, RAMMANDIR. And it is NEVER a COINCIDENCE as BABRI DEMOLITION happens to be the DRESS REHERASAL for the RECREATION OF SOLOMON TEMPLE. The PROPHESIES must be analysed to understand the ZIONIST State, Ideology and Order. It has nothing to do with JUDAISM!

Prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible

The (Jewish) writers of the New Testament asserted that the Old Testament spoke of a coming Messiah and quoted from it extensively to prove their point. Even Jesus himself - whom many Jewish people will declare to be a good rabbi and teacher - said to those who sat under his teaching, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. " (Luke 24:25-27)

Since the first century, the issue of "messianic prophecy" has been a hot-button topic. Does Isaiah 53 speak of Israel, or of a Messiah? Did Isaiah really talk about a virgin giving birth? Did King David describe someone who would be "pierced" in Psalm 22? Or did the Christians misunderstand what the Hebrew Bible said, or even worse - did they deliberately distort things, or arrange events so that Jesus appeared to fulfill the prophecies?
http://jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy



Ted Pike - Zionism and Christianity: Unholy Alliance
A century ago the Arab world was at peace with the West. Then Jewish Zionists, encouraged by Christian evangelicals, established themselves in Palestine. From that moment, mideast tensions mounted. Ultimately, after nearly a century of Zionist abuses, the Arab world has been driven to frenzy. This is not only against Israel, but against its arch supporter, Christian America. Such outrage erupted in fury on September 11, 2001. Why has Jewish presence in Palestine proven so abrasive to the Arab world? Why do most evangelical Christians unblinkingly support Israel? These are questions which have very deep roots - roots which "Zionism and Christianity: Unholy Alliance" plumbs as never before.
1:35:23 - Oct 14, 2006 - 2 years ago -
(69 Ratings) - - Rate:
video.google.com
A century ago the Arab world was at peace with the West. Then Jewish Zionists, encouraged by Christian evangelicals, established themselves in Palestine. From that moment ...
A century ago the Arab world was at peace with the West. Then ...

Watch this video on video.google.com
Video from video.google.com
View thumbnails | Watch video here

Rabbi Against Israel (Zionism) 04:17 - Aug 5, 2006 - 2 years ago -
(1,582 Ratings) - - Rate:
youtube.com
Fox interview of a Rabbi against Israel's zionism ... Israel Lebanon Palestine politics UN Hezbollah Jew Muslim Fox Zionism Rabbi Law State United Against Christianity ...
Fox interview of a Rabbi against Israel's zionism ... Israel ...

Watch this video on youtube.com
Video from youtube.com
View thumbnails | Watch video here

The Philosopy of Zionism and Israel, Who are Zionists? What ... 37:55 - Apr 9, 2006 - 2 years ago -
(41 Ratings) - - Rate:
video.google.com
People everywhere are asking the questions; "What is Zionism?" and "Why are we here?" You might be amazed to learn, that Islam ...
People everywhere are asking the questions; "What is Zionism ...

Watch this video on video.google.com
Video from video.google.com
View thumbnails | Watch video here

The Real Terrorism by Zionists - Doctrine of Judaism and Zionism 33:04 - Nov 25, 2006 - 2 years ago -
(66 Ratings) - - Rate:
video.google.com
This is the Video Evidence of Evil Beliefs of Zionists and their Ugliest Conspiracies to Achieve their Satanic Goals. In this video, Jewish preachers are openly speaking that ...
This is the Video Evidence of Evil Beliefs of Zionists and ...

Watch this video on video.google.com
Video from video.google.com
View thumbnails | Watch video here

Rabbi Weiss, Outside Annapolis Peace Confab, Rips Zionism 08:25 - Nov 27, 2007 - 1 year ago -
(977 Ratings) - - Rate:
youtube.com
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=Zionism&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=aFqQSYD0Oom9kAXa8PSnDA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

Balad vows to fight Zionism from within


Arab leaders mull elections boycott; activist says 'there is no such thing as Jewish democracy'! To vote or not to vote? That was the dilemma confronted by members of Arab factions not running in the elections during a conference in Sakhnin Wednesday.

Awad al-Fatah, secretary-general of Balad, said he is in favor of voting.



"I would be the last to scorn the call to boycott (the elections.) We are not arguing with the Village Sons about historical data. Israel was indeed established on the ruins of the Palestinian people evicted from their land," he said. "Yet what are our weapons when Israel is already an existing fact?"



"The elections are part of the means available the us; we seek to fight Zionism within its own home," he said.

Meanwhile,nDTV reports:Pakistan's initial response on India's 26/11 dossier has indicated that Delhi will be faced with more questions than answers.

Even before it makes its report on the 26/11 attacks public, Pakistan has issued a terse statement saying it has more questions and that India will have to respond to these questions before it can wrap up its probe.

Pakistan's Defence Coordination Committee which met on Monday issued a statement: "Without substantial evidence from India it will be exceedingly difficult to complete the investigation and proceed with the case.

In order to complete the investigation the questions which are arising from the inquiry carried out by the FIA need to be answered by the Indian authorities. These will be communicated to the Indian authorities shortly."

The Committee was briefed on the progress on the inquiry based on the information provided by Indian authorities concerning the Mumbai attacks.

The meeting decided that on the basis of the inquiry conducted by FIA, the case should be registered and further investigation be carried out so that the perpetrators, wherever they may be, of the heinous crime are brought to justice in accordance with the law of the land.
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/mumbaiterrorstrike/Story.aspx?ID=NEWEN20090083031&type=News




Those Who Reject ZionismAll of the greatest rabbinical sages warned of the dangers Zionism would bring. ... and law makes Zionism and all its activities and entities the greatest enemy ... [Neturei Karta is a community of Orthodox Jews who reject Zionism and ...


Zionism is the enemy of true Jews! In the same manner as Hindutva as well as Brahaminical Hegemony happen to be the REAL greatest Enemy of the Hinduised NON ARYANS!The INDIGENOUS, Aboriginal and Minority communities and their Combined LEGACY as well as HERITAGE, CAPTURED, BRANDED and Mrketed as GLOBAL HINDUISM! As it is a UNIVERSAL LAW, No RELIGION including ISLAM, Hindutva and Christianity, does preach VIOLENCE, in the same manner,Judaism does not condone violence. Judaism demands that Jews be good citizens of the countries in which they reside and that they live peacefully with respect for and subservience to the ruling powers. Judaism teaches us, that the right for the Jewish people to have self rule in the Holy Land is not unconditional. Since the destruction of their Holy Temple over two thousand years ago, the Jewish people have been exiled from this land by Divine decree. The Talmud tells us that G-d obligated us not to rebel against the ruling bodies, and not to take the land of Israel by force (see Babylonian Talmud tractate Kesubos 111A).

Opposition to Zionism from within Judaism is not a fringe movement but rather, an intrinsic characteristic and a mainstay of Judaism itself. This opposition has continually suffersd bloodshed and tremendous tragedy. Jews who are loyal to the Torah find it imperative to have the following points on the record:

Zionism is not Judaism.
The founding principles of Zionism run counter to Judaism.
The State of "Israel" does not represent the Jewish people.
Aggressive acts committed in the name of Zionism are crimes and not religious imperatives.
Zionists have no right to commit violent acts towards anyone – neither Palestinian nor Jew


The aggression that Zionism presents in taking the land from the indigenous Palestinian people is the first flag that exposes this movement for what it is -- a real deviation from Judaism. Judaism forbids us from taking the land away from those who currently have jurisdiction over it. That such things should be done not only in opposition to Judaism, but in the name of the very Judaism it defies is simply large-scale fraud. Zionism, once exposed, proves to be the greatest enemy, the worst nightmare, to the Jewish religion and it's practitioners, that exists to date. Zionism, strikes out regularly at Jews who remain true to Torah and its precepts. There are many Jews who protest against the very existence of the State of Israel, and who are quite vocal, albeit peaceful, about their opposition. Whenever Zionist policies or activities run counter to the Torah stance, Torah-true Jews come forward to unmask the imposter. Unfortunately, they have many opportunities to voice their stand, because few countries in the world tramples on the religious rights of its inhabitants as regularly as does the State of Israel. Witness, the routine autopsies which are done against the stated, tearful wishes of the family. Witness, the ancient, sacred burial grounds ripped open with abandon for the construction of yet another mall, with bare bones, hundreds of years old treated to the absolute desecration of careless disposal, and the list goes on and on... Protesters suffer terribly at the hands of the Zionists, who try to quash all opposition and deal with their peaceful detractors in the most brutal fashion. This fact, too, is yet another proof that this movement cannot speak for Judaism -- because Judaism opposes aggression and would never sanction the bloodshed of brothers who seek only to remain true to the Torah.


Last December only, I came to know about the great work of ALAN HART, `ZIONISM THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS’. My Mumbai based friend Major Siddharth Burve told me in Cuttuck Orrissa about this book. He is in contact of the writer. I was very keen to see the BOOK and know the DISTINCTION between ZIONISM and Judaism. In fact, my people, the EAST Bengal dalit Bengali Resettled, Unsettled and To Be DEPORTED and DESTRUCTED in India scattered and disidentified countrywide have NEVER forgot the Persecution and Holocaust of PARTITION of India! They identify themselves with the jews as the GREAT EXODUS resembles their own EJECTION from their Homeland and CONTINUOUS Persecution predestined.

Right from the BEGINNING of the discussion , we have to keep it in mind: Not all Israelis are zionists, and not all Palestinians are innocent! As all Hindus are not Brahmins and all brahmins are not Aryans. Non aryans races were also made DWIJA to handle the GESTAPO machine run by HOLY SCRIPTs as the Bengali Kayasths were made BRAHMIN to rule the UNTOUCHABLE ABORIGINAL INDIGENOUS VANGA, BENGAL ANCIENT!

My Readers as well as friends ask me whether hitler was justified in ETHNIC CLEANSING of JEWs?

NO!

Never!

If we justfy Hitler then we have to support RSS professing Brahaminical Hindutva and Fascism, Ethnic Cleansing and Manusmriti! Hitler is worshipped by Indian Brahmins not for his DEADLY GENOCIDE Campaign against JEWS. Because the RSS is the greates supporter of Zionism and ISRAEL and MOSSAD. Zionist RACISM is replicated by RSS to MODERNISE and STREAM LINE the MANUSMRITI Order of Political ECONOMY of this DIVIDED BLEEDING Geopolitics!Like everyone, I feel very strongly about what’s happening in Gaza, and what the Israeli’s and Zionist’s are doing and have done over the past sixty years, but this in noway means that what Hitler did was OK or is in anyway justified. He committed ugly crimes against humanity, genocide, ethnic cleansing. His methods were very close to those of the Zionist Israeli’s, and I’m disappointed to see him being quoted over and over on Facebook. Israel is committing and have committed horrible crimes, and so did Hitler.


Then, how we do differentiate the FASCIST HOLOCAUST against the Jews and the Tragedy of Palestine and the theories behind Clash of Civilisation and War against Terrorism?

Hitler hated Jews, alright but he NEVER loved the ARABs! Hitler believed in Segregation of nationalities and Idenities to establish Fascist and Nazi hegemonies. He banked on PURITY of Blood, which is the CENTRAL IDEA of Brahaminical Hegemony and Annihilation of Indigenous Aboriginal masses of Indian, Hinduised by the ARYANs. PURITY and EXCOMMUNICATION are the TOOLs used mercilessly in Manusmriti with Anglo Saxon DIVIDE and RULE Policy. ZIONIST Hegemony and Brahaminical Hegemony is CREATED with the same GENETICALLY MODIFIED CHEMISTRY! We have to understand this.

In my Childhood, I read a BENGALI SEMI FICTION `AAMI SUBHASH BOLCHHI’, the best seller in sixties. The PROTAGONIST being no one else but Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and the Content, his controversial role in the FREEDOM STRUGGLE and AZAD HIND FAUJ, all bengalies countrywide used to read the book. In fact, I came to know the history of world WARS with this book only before I could the real HISTORY! Since we were amongst a persecuted, desettled, degenerated community around us, the BENGALIes and the SIKH refugees resettled in Terai, we were HABITUAL to HATE GANDHI and Nehru whom our People held RESPONSIBLE for Partition. Thus, we were spellbound with the NATIONALISM and Leadership of NETAJI and believed that he never DIED as claimed! The HOT CAKE Bengali BOOK justified netazi`s alliance with Germany and Japan. Doing so, it justified and glorified Fascisim and NAZISM. But at same time, being the part and parcel of a COMMUNITY in continuous EXODUS, we had very deep sympathy with the JEWs. Since the MIDDLE EAST Clash was described a WAR Between Muslims and Jews, our people always tend to SUPPORT the JEWs. Lalkrishna Adwani, the Projected RSS NEXT prime Minister has not got over the REFUGEE PSYCHE of MUSLIM HATRED and Love for JEWs as the Hindu refugees ousted from either West pakistan or East Bengal always suffered the HAMLET psyche of REVENGE against the MUSLIMs. Intense MUSLIM Hatred only leads to ZIONISM. And it has nothing to do with Judaism or the minority ORIGINAL JEWs. The REVENGE theme originates in PROPHESIES in OLD TESTAMENT and with the theory of Promised Land of Israel. Hence, the RSS in India REPLICATES the Solomon TEMPLER with RAM MANDIR. Hence, every terrorist attack or Anti Muslim riot in INDIA relates to Israel and Palestine! We have to understand and analyse the SEQUENCE without which we may not mobilise any Anti Imperialist Anti Fascist and world Peace Movement! Not even the ENVIRONMENT Movement, considered to be most Apolitical or Non political!

Hitler hated jews because he considered them enemies - rivals- menace thus humans . Do you know what he said about Arabs in his book; Arabs = Semi-humans like negroes but negroes are better because they do sports. STOP quoting Hitler please.

This is, unfortunately, a little-known fact - that Zionism is constantly criticized by the fervently Orthodox Jews - critics whose opposition is not predicated on the political correctness of our point in time, and that these detractors do so under pain of physical torture. The secular establishment, which by and large celebrates Zionism as a replacement for Judaism, a transformation that does not mandate any religious observance per se, hogs the traditional media venues and will not be party to letting the voice of the observant Jew, be known. The worldwide Jewish Federations, Jewish Agency and similar organizations claim to speak for all Jews but actually represent only the views of a misguided segment of the Jewish people. "Israel" today is equated with "Jew" - but what a travesty! The Israeli government is quite happy to have gotten away with this fraud, and certainly won't allow news of any cracks in the mask to be recognized. The average reader today will not see this in the press, because the powers to be, don't want you to know this.

Avi Shlaim comments with precision and it would be the GIST of the issues we have to deal with:` Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and the state of Israel is its political expression. Israel used to be a symbol of freedom and a source of pride for the Jews of the Diaspora. Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians, however, has turned it into a liability and a moral burden for the liberal segment of the Jewish community. Some Jews, especially on the left, would go even further by linking Israel's behavior to the upsurge of the new anti-Semitism throughout the world.

Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories since 1967 is the underlying problem. Occupation transformed the Zionist movement from a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jews into a colonial power and an oppressor of the Palestinians.

By Zionism today I mean the ideological, ultra-nationalist settlers and their supporters in the Likud-led government. These settlers are a tiny minority but they maintain a stranglehold over the Israeli political system. They represent the unacceptable face of Zionism. Zionism does not equal racism, but many of these hard-line settlers and their leaders are blatant racists. Their extremism and their excesses have led some people to start questioning not just the Zionist colonial project beyond the 1967 borders but also the legitimacy of the state of Israel within those borders. And it is these settlers who also endanger the safety and well-being of Jews everywhere.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon personifies this xenophobic, exclusive, aggressive and expansionist brand of Zionism. One of the greatest accolades in Judaism is to be a rodeph shalom, a seeker of peace. Sharon is not that by any stretch of the imagination. He is a man of war and the champion of violent solutions.

Sharon's purpose is politicide: to deny the Palestinians any independent political existence in Palestine. His plan for withdrawal from Gaza is called "the unilateral disengagement plan." It is not a peace plan but a prelude to the annexation of large chunks of the West Bank to Israel. Sharon, the unilateralist par excellence, is a Jewish Rambo — the antithesis of the traditional Jewish values of truth, justice and tolerance.’

A debate : Is Zionism today the real enemy of the Jews? published in International Herald tribune on february 4, 2005.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/04/edshlaim_ed3_.php




The Refugee leaders often questions the Justification of my continuous CRUSADE against Zionism. They also may not see any HARM whatsoever with the GENETIC ANGLO SAXON links of Asian Brahaminical Ruling Hegemony with Anglo Saxon Zionism! One of my most INTIMATE friends expressed his OBJECTION while I put `DALIT VOICE’ edited by VTR and ANTI TRI IBLIS
CAMPAIGN based in NAGPUR and led by SHEETAL MAKRAM! Some of our people have been demanding HOMELAND for Hindu Bengali refugees in the line of Palestine and Israel. In fact, most of the Indigenous Aboriginal bengali Refugees based in West Bengal do support the Home land movement led by BANGA BHOOMI movement. A GURUCHAND SENA is active to achieve the goal. I found it always very COMPLEX a topic to distiguish between Zionism and Judaism.

Major BURVE promised me a MEETING with ALAN HART.

When I landed in Mumbai, major BURVE informed me that Alan Hart is not coming India this time. But he arranged a meeting with Mr FIROZE Mithiwala and his associate. I saw the BOOK with him.

On 31st january, Mumbai based ECONOMIST subaltern Mr SP yadav invited all of us on Lunch at his apartment in VORIVOLI and it proved very ENLIGHTING Interaction among us to understand the Post Modern Zionist Brahaminical White Hegemony. Often we happen to MIX up Indigenous legacy defined as HINDUISM with RSS provoked fascist HINDUTA BRAHAMINICAL. In the same way we always MIX up JUDAISM, JEWS and ZIONISM!

The disussion continued for about FIVE hours and we agreed to constitute INDO ARAB League for World Peace aqnd Resistance of Zionism, Brahaminical Hegemony and apartheid! We wil be working on it.

Mr Yadav is a RESOURCEFUL man in VORIVOLI. his son is JET AIRWAYS PIOLOT who owned a PLANE in America. While he returned to Mumbai, he created an Indigenous EROPLANE banking on the experience of the POSTMORTEM of his own CRASHED PLANE in America. But It was not allowed to be TESTED as he belongs to an OBC Converted BUDDHIST family. Then, the father and son tested the Plane on VORIVOLI road and ended into Police Custody. The local MP RAM NAIK got him released. Mr Yada is affliated to the REPUBLICAN Party and is very close with Republican MP ATHAWALE. He gave the FEEDBACK on SATYAM FORGERY before a few years on which ATHAWALE raised question in the Parliament. but the question was IGNORED. As the SATYAM ASATYAM story flashed, MR Athawale got published the news. Mr Yadav is a SPECIALIST to analyse the BUDGET in simplified way for the MASSES. He has built NO LESS than TWELVE BIHARS from BANDRA to NALA SAPARA in Mumbai. He is an EXPERT in reading BALANCE SHEETs of companies. He claims that the all PSU units enlisted for DISINVEST MENT are more PRODUCTIVE, MORE EFFICIENT, MORE TRANSPARENT, more PROFITABLE AND VIABLE than the HYPED PRIVATE Sector. he claims that the STATCS is always FORGED and FUNDAMENTALS of SENSEX listed Companies are INFLATED as well as the SATYAM. He relates the CASH CRUNCH and CREDIT Crunch to the diversion of capital for merger, aquisition and launching!

MR Yadav also participated in the discussion and would insert some comment in Pure MARATHI which made the discussion very Live!

Feroze and his associte are EXPERT on Arab and Israel affairs. It was very difficult to follow the History and cultural genetic, Biblic references. fortunately, we have read some History and the Holy scripts including the OLD TESTAMENT and Judaism and JIHAD, so we could try to understand them. We were just trying to understand the coincidences and corelations as Feroze systematically proved the RSS and ZIONIST link. He proved to be very LITERATE as far as Indian History is concrened. he analysed the CHITPAWAN, KANYKUBJ, Maithili and Kayastha BRAHMIN equations which we hardly did understand before. We analysed the Prophesies, Ram mandir, Solomon temple, palestine and promised land along with terror attacks and RIOTs in south Asia. We also discussed nationalities and Identities. We did analyse the Political Economy, Applied politics , Global economy and the CHANGE heralded by Brrack obama and the dream of martin luther King.

Feroze told, ` Bill Clinton was described as the FIRST BLACK President of America , so OBAMA may be described as the first Zionist president in America.'

We also discussed the DALIT Movement in india , Marxism, Maoism and Trade Unions as well as the Disinvestment, PSUs and economic Reforms and LPG Mafia along with the Economic Issue MARATHA Manush!
MILA 18 was a SACRED book during Bangladesh Liberation War. every MUKTI Joddha was supposed to read it as he used to sing AMAAR SONAR BANGLA AAMI TOMAY BHALOBASI or O AAMAR DESHER MATEE. But the people all over this SUBCONTINENT hate JUDAISM and the Jews to lodge protest against the Zionist Global Order and specilly the WAR against Terrorism!

Kahane has won: the Israeli elections and the face of Zionism
This Tuesday Israelis will go to the polls to elect a new government. While the primary focus in the US is the horse race between Livni, Netanyahu and Barak to be the next Prime Minister, the real story of the elections that has emerged is the success of Avigdor Lieberman and his party Yisrael Beitenu (Israel is Our Home).

Lieberman has run on an avowedly racist platform of forcing Palestinian Israeli citizens of Israel to take a loyalty oath to the state. Lieberman and his party (which includes former Israeli Ambassador to the US Danny Ayalon) have long advocated for removing Palestinian citizens of Israel (over 20% of the state) from the country into the West Bank. This call for ethnic cleaning has found a new and growing constituency in the wake of the war in Gaza. At this point Yisrael Beitenu is polling ahead of the Labor Party and is expected to be the third largest party in the new government.

Anti-Zionist activists blockade the entrance to the Marriott Marquis Hotel at 47th and Broadway in Manhattan. They were protesting a $1,500-per-plate fundraising dinner for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the nation’s most powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization. Ten people were arrested during the action.

Judy Rebick has received death threats, been screamed at, and been labeled a “self-hating Jew” for her outspokenness on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But that hasn’t stopped her participation in any of the many Jewish-led and supported actions during Israel’s latest incursion into the impoverished Gaza Strip in Palestine.

“For people who embrace a progressive Jewish vision, Israel is against everything we believe in,” Rebick said. “They’re violating the Jewish tradition of progressive struggle, and their claim of being a victim is wrong.”

Rebick, who holds the Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy at Ryerson University and who founded rabble.ca, a progressive Canadian news website, was arrested along with seven other Jewish women after they occupied the Israeli consulate in Toronto Jan. 8 in an action against the Israeli bombing and invasion of the Gaza Strip, which killed more than 1,300 Palestinians and wounded at least 5,000.

Jewish peace activists in Montreal, San Francisco and Los Angeles have staged similar demonstrations at Israeli Consulates, highlighting the many Jewish voices around the world that are speaking out against continued occupation and war in Palestine in what is often a bitter and polarizing debate.

In New York City, Jews Against the Occupation-NYC (JATO) dropped antiwar banners near the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and near the U.S.S. Intrepid, and another group of New York City Jews hastily organized a demonstration outside the Israeli consulate in New York Jan. 12 that drew around 1,000 people. On Jan. 29, 10 anti-Zionist activists, two of them Jewish and most of them college students, were arrested while trying to blockade the entrance to a Midtown hotel that was the site of a $1,500-per-plate benefit for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the nation’s leading pro-Israel lobbying group.

“[Israel] is the state that purports to be our homeland, and whether we feel that it is or not … its actions somehow reflect on Jews in general,” said Alisa Solomon, co-editor of Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and a contributing editor to the WBAI radio show “Beyond the Pale: Radical Jewish Culture and Politics.”“It’s a very dubious and dangerous collapse when ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’ are conflated,” Solomon said. “Anti-Semites do it a lot, and unfortunately, powers of the Israeli state do it as well.”

And while being a Jew who forcefully speaks out against Israel’s actions continues to be a minority position within the larger Jewish community, there is something of a generational shift among younger Jews away from attachment to Israel. According to a 2007 National Survey of American Jews, 54 percent of Jews younger than 35 are “comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state,” compared to 81 percent of Jews older than 65, who grew up with the memory of the Holocaust fresh in their minds.

“The shift is going to happen slowly in the Jewish community, very slowly,” said Ethan Heitner, 25, an activist with JATO and Adalah-NY: The Coalition for Justice in the Middle East. “There are starting to be cracks in the Zionist hegemonic viewpoint on things … [Activism] has to continue, it has to keep growing, even when things get quiet.”

Michael Letwin of New York City Labor Against the War supports terminating U.S. aid to Israel as well as a nascent divestment and sanctions movement against Israel modeled on the one that confronted apartheid South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s. He says he lost the presidency of his union, the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys UAW Local 2325, in the year after 9/11 due to his anti-Zionist views. Still he insists it is crucial for progressive Jews to speak out despite the possible consequences. “It’s very hard to be an anti-Zionist in this country … but there is space,” he said. “And to the extent that we can open that space, and keep pushing the envelope, I think there’s more opportunity sometimes than we think there is.”

Letwin also stresses the importance of Jewish activists doing Palestine solidarity work engaging in open and constructive dialogue with Jews who believe in Zionism and support the state of Israel.

“There’s no point in just speaking to people who are already convinced. We have to show our support for people who are already convinced … but that’s only the beginning, not the end,” said Letwin. “We’ve got to talk to people that aren’t already convinced, who don’t know anything about it, or if they’re Jewish and have a totally distorted view.”

Partnerships between Jews and Palestinians who protest Israel’s occupation are also essential “to break this myth that there’s no relationships available between these groups of people,” said Flo Razowsky, the U.S. coordinator for the International Anti-Zionist Jewish Network, an organization that was a key player in the Israeli Consulate actions in California. Razowsky, 34, was once the president of a Zionist youth group. She says she had a “strong relationship to Israel.”

“The simplest way to put it is to make an analogy between white-skinned people doing anti-racist work [with] Jews doing anti-Zionist work. … [Zionism] is a deadly form of racism based on a very specific identity,” Razowsky said.

Senate set to pass US recovery package!

President Barack Obama appeared sure of winning a test vote in the Senate for an $827 billion package to revive the staggering U.S. economy on Monday with his fellow Democrats having to cut back on spending to win enough Republican support to prevail.

With the world watching to see how the new Democratic president and Congress respond to the worst U.S. recession in 70 years, a compromise Senate bill hammered out by Democrats and a handful of Republicans was expected to clear a procedural hurdle in a vote set 5:30 p.m. (2230 GMT).

The two chief authors of the bill conceded it was not perfect, but said the mix of tax cuts and new spending would create up to 4 million jobs.

"It's a good package and one that our country really needs," Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said.

"We're facing a crisis and it makes no sense to have a partisan divide on the most important issue facing our country," Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska added in a joint appearance with Collins on NBC's "Today Show."

A stimulus plan of $820 billion would be about 5.7 percent of GDP or more than a quarter of the size of the federal budget. It has aroused strong opposition from Republicans who want to revive their appeal as a party of small government.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill on Tuesday, setting the stage for fierce wrangling as negotiators try to reconcile it with an $819 billion version passed earlier by the House of Representatives without any Republican support.

Obama, who holds a town hall in Indiana then a news conference at 8 p.m. EST (0100 GMT) to rally public support, wants a final bill by this weekend to sign into law.

MEETING OBAMA'S DEADLINE

The House bill has more spending and less tax cuts than the scaled back Senate version. A Republican leadership aide predicted tough times in trying to agree on a final bill in the next several days. A Democratic aide said, "I think we'll do it, but it'll be a heavy lift."

Aside from the stimulus bill, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is expected to unveil steps on Tuesday to help U.S. banks battered by the financial crisis with government insurance of bad assets, a plan to shift toxic securities off bank balance sheets and money to modify homeowner mortgages.

Obama, who took power three weeks ago, promised to work for a more cooperative atmosphere in Washington but ran up against solid Republican opposition on his first big challenge.


Before we continue the discussion and analyse the INFORMATIONs available and I disclose the Issues discussed amongst us, let us have a look into the most important BOOK written by ALAN HART!

Israeli election battle seen too close to call
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel's national election is likely to be a cliff-hanger, pollsters said on Monday, on the eve of a vote right-winger Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party had been forecast to win.

"The trend we've seen the last few days indicates a very close battle," said pollster Rafi Smith of the Smith Research Center. "No one has jumped ahead and it's tough to call."

Likud has been the front-runner since November, after Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of the ruling, centrist Kadima party forced a new election by failing to form a new government following Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's resignation in a corruption scandal.

Smith said the gap between Likud and its closest rival, Kadima, has narrowed, with Avigdor Lieberman of the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party drawing support from traditional Likud backers.

"At least 10 percent of voters are still undecided, and they will determine the outcome," Smith said.

Pollster Dori Shadmon of the TNS Israel institute said with about a dozen parties in serious contention for seats in the 120-member parliament, predicting a result was difficult.

"It's a close fight and it's still open," Shadmon said.

The election race has focused on security issues in the wake of Israel's 22-day Gaza offensive.

"There hasn't been much excitement about this election. They haven't really been talking about the issues people care about," said Alex Mayorenko, 22, a Jerusalem resident.

"There are only small distinctions between the candidates, not enough to really make a difference."

In the occupied West Bank, Palestinians said they harbored few hopes the Israeli election heralded a change for the better.

"We have tried the Likud, Kadima and Labor parties, and each one of them obstructs the peace process in its own way," said Imad Saify, 38, from Ramallah.

STRATEGY CHANGE

Leading candidates have stepped up efforts to try to woo those still on the fence, mostly by attacking rivals.

Netanyahu's camp, which has watched its numbers steadily drop, reversed its strategy of laying low by describing the popular Lieberman and his fiery rhetoric as a passing phenomenon and a wasted vote.

Israeli fire kills Gaza militant

GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli fire killed a Palestinian militant who was on a mission on Monday to attack an Israeli patrol along the border with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, the Islamic Jihad group said.

Israel's military, revising an earlier statement, said its forces killed a gunman who tried to infiltrate through its Gaza border fence.

Islamic Jihad identified him as a member of its armed wing and said he was killed near the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun while trying to attack Israeli troops along the frontier.

Earlier, Israel launched air strikes against what the military described as Hamas outposts in Gaza, saying this was a response to a Palestinian rocket salvo on Sunday.

Palestinians said at least one Israeli missile hit a building used by Hamas police. There were no casualties.

A fragile ceasefire has been in place since Israel ended a 22-day military offensive in Gaza on January 18 that was designed to punish the Islamist Hamas group for cross-border rocket and mortar bomb attacks.

Egypt is trying to secure a lasting ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, which holds a parliamentary election on Tuesday. Diplomats said the Egyptian proposal includes a prisoner exchange and the initial opening of at least two of the enclave's border crossings.

With his opinion poll lead narrowing ahead of the election, right-winger Benjamin Netanyahu has pledged to end Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip and proposed focusing peace talks with the Palestinians on economic issues.

His main opponent, the centrist Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, said she would continue U.S.-sponsored land-for-peace talks, an outcome favored by the new Obama administration in Washington.

UN to resume aid supplies to Gaza

The UN has said it will resume aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip after Hamas returned confiscated food aid.

The UN's Relief and Works Agency (Unrwa) halted aid on Thursday, saying Hamas had taken hundreds of tonnes of aid from shipments of flour and rice.

An Unrwa spokesman said deliveries were not expected to resume until after Tuesday's Israeli elections.

The Gaza Strip is facing a humanitarian crisis following Israel's recent three-week offensive.

About half of Gaza's population is dependent on UN food aid.

Israel intensified a blockade on the Gaza Strip 19 months ago when Hamas took over the territory.

The lifting of the blockade is among Hamas' demands for agreeing a long-term truce with Israel.

Though Unrwa said it could resume aid deliveries, it said its efforts to give aid to 900,000 refugees continued to be hampered by Israel's refusal to let in supplies used for making the plastic bags in which aid is packaged.

The agency said it had also been denied permission to bring in 12 lorry-loads of paper to print human rights textbooks, and another five lorries carrying exercise books for 200,000 children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7879624.stm



What are some passages in the Hebrew Bible that talk about the Messiah?
The following listing contains only some of the many prophecies of the Messiah to be found in the Hebrew Bible.

Deuteronomy 18
A Prophet Like Unto Moses by Moishe Rosen
Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden? by Zhava Glaser
Isaiah 7:14
Almah: Virgin or Young Maiden? by Zhava Glaser
The Promised Child by Efraim Goldstein
Response to "The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah," Part II, The Isaiah 7:14 Passage
Isaiah 52:13-53:12
The Rabbis' Dilemma by Rachmiel Frydland
Jewish Messianic Interpretations of Isaiah 53 (chart)
What the Prophet Said, What the Rabbis Said (chart)
Micah 5:2
The Bethlehem Issue
The Bethelehem Prediction in Micah 5
Zechariah 9:9
The Talmud on Interpreting Dreams
Zechariah 12:10
Jewish Messianic Interpretations of Zechariah 12:10
Psalm 2
The Son of God by Tuvya Zaretsky
Is Psalm 2 Considered Messianic by the Rabbis and Jewish Sages?
In Psalm 2:12, Is "Kiss the Son" a Mistranslation by the Christians?
Psalm 22
In Psalm 22:16, Is "they pierced" a Christian Mistranslation?
The Sufferer of Psalm 22
Daniel 9
The Messianic Timetable According to Daniel the Prophet by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
When the Messiah Comes... by Barry Rubin
Did the Jews Understand the 'Weeks' of Daniel to Refer to 'Years'?


George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh - nuclear soulmates?

Brahma Chellaney is Professor of Strategic Studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. The views expressed in this column are his own.)

By Brahma Chellaney

They were certainly not made for each other. Yet the trigger-happy George W. Bush found a soulmate in diffident Manmohan Singh.

When the Indian prime minister publicly told the little-loved Bush that the "people of India deeply love you," he was expressing his own deep-seated admiration of a U.S. president whose just-ended term in office constituted a nadir from which it will take America years to recoup its losses.

Singh's fulsome praise for Bush stood out at that September 25, 2008 White House news conference. The Indian leader had actually timed that visit to Washington so that it coincided with the expected congressional ratification of the controversial U.S.-India nuclear deal.

But the Senate clearance of the deal got delayed because of the new congressional and executive focus on a bailout package to rescue sinking U.S. financial institutions.

Almost every paragraph in the prepared statement Singh read out at that press conference ended with a sappy tribute to Bush:

•"And the last four-and-a-half years that I have been prime minister, I have been the recipient of your generosity, your affection, your friendship. It means a lot to me and to the people of India."

•"And Mr. President, you have played a most-important role in making all this happen."
http://in.reuters.com/article/specialEvents1/idINIndia-37547520090120

Gaza slowly begins rebuilding

By Tim Franks
BBC News, Gaza City

Parts of Gaza are unscathed. Parts are rubble. For those parts, much of the emphasis this week has been about how to get aid into the territory.

Where, for example, do you raise the hundreds of millions, probably billions of dollars needed to rebuild it after the war? Who handles it? Where do you channel it?

But in the meantime, how are the people of Gaza going about rebuilding their homes and their businesses?

The muezzin at the Salaam mosque, east of Jabalya, was not waiting. You normally hear the call to prayer, when it has been tinnily amplified through a loudspeaker.

But for these midday prayers, the muezzin was only audible to those close by. He had a beautiful voice, the notes held long, the quarter-tones gently wavering.


He stood, eyes closed, on the roof of his mosque, which was now just a couple of metres above the ground, on a pile of rubble. Prayers are now held on that large, jagged slab of concrete.

Deep privations

Across the street, are the remains of the Qadr family house. It is now just an ugly heap of dust-strewn grey masonry, the only splash of colour a torn sheet and a cracked bathroom tile.

Now, up a steep path to the top of the rubble, there is a corrugated iron shack. It is a few metres square, with sheets for walls.

"My family - my children, my grandchildren and my brothers' family - we number 80," the head of the family, Qadr Mohammed Qadr told me. He is a tall, 70-year-old man, sitting next to the small iron shack. "Now, 20 of us sleep here, each night."

His home was, he said, destroyed on 14 January. He returned as soon as the Israeli troops withdrew.


The muezzin's call to prayer does not travel far

The privations are deep, he said, his citrus orchards have been destroyed, but he needed to return, because "this is my land." He had to be where four members of his family had died.

Mr Qadr received a daily supply of water. And the UN provides a one-off payment of about $150 for a family which has been made homeless. But complete rebuilding - that will take years.

The UN relief agency said that it is years behind schedule on previous reconstruction projects, because of Israeli border closures. And it is not just houses that need to be rebuilt.

Fights for gas

A further short walk across the churned land, is a filling station for propane gas canisters. It used to be enclosed. Now it has one-and-a-half walls. The pipeline was destroyed. A pump has been punched with heavy machine gun fire.

It is a place that thousands of families rely on for their cooking gas.

As we arrived, fights were breaking out. After an early morning bomb explosion, in which an Israeli soldier had died, the Israeli authorities had closed the border crossing points. The gas supply had run out.

Customers vent their fury at the owner - a man so tired and fed up that he did not want to give us his name, and who at one point told the assembled disgruntled customers that it would have been better if the Israelis had completed the job and laid waste to the entire area.


Prayers are held near the ruins of the mosque

The owner and his workers had only just finished repairing the station so that it was operational. One of the workers, 29-year-old Mohammed Jarada, watched the melees from what little shade the station forecourt now provided.

Mr Jarada said he was the only breadwinner for his own family of 12, and despite being an employee at the gas station, his family were cooking on firewood.

The Israeli authorities said that they had closed the crossing points because of the attack on their soldiers. Who did he blame?

Mohammed's eyes fixed on the middle distance: "In this state of chaos, in this state of anarchy," he said, "I can't blame anybody. Everyone is blaming everybody else in the Gaza Strip."

The customers drifted off, without their canisters. Around them, the sound of reconstruction continued, the jarring pound of metal posts being hammered into the ground, the rhythmic scrape of mortar being smeared over breeze blocks.

One of the two men building the wall shone a rueful smile in our direction. "Until the next time," he said. There is a resilience and a resignation about people in Gaza.

Yes, the rebuilding has begun. Until, that is, the next cataclysm hits.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7857221.stm

ZIONISM
THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS

A Book for Peace

Written by ALAN HART

The book that mainstream publishers were too frightened to publish out of fear of offending Zionism is now published.

The true story ZIONISM: THE REAL ENEMY OF THE JEWS tells is thrilling, chilling and ultimately inspirational; but this epic, two-volume work is much more than a good read - a "page-turner" according to Jewish, Gentile and Arab/Moslem test readers. It is written in plain, everyday language to assist concerned and caring citizens everywhere, of all faiths and none, to understand how, really, the Palestine problem was created and became the cancer at the heart of international affairs; why a political solution has remained beyond the reach of diplomacy; and why, as a consequence, unending conflict in the Middle East is producing more and more deadly global fallout - 9/11 in America, terrorist bombs in Madrid and London and so on.

FROM THE PUBLISHER
"Balanced, objective and beautifully crafted, there has never been a work which sheds such light, so comprehensively, on the difference between Judaism and Zionism and thus why it is perfectly possibly to be passionately anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic or anti-Israel inside its 1967 borders; on how Zionism grew and the Zionist state of Israel functions with complete contempt for international law and the moral principles of Judaism; and on why Zionism must now be challenged and called to account - if the Palestinians are to have an acceptable minimum justice, if the twin monsters of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are to be stopped from going on the rampage and if a catastrophe for us all is to be averted."

HELP BRING THE TRUTH TO LIGHT





Says author Alan Hart: "There are awesomely powerful vested interests on both sides of the conflict, including governments, which would prefer the citizens of nations not to be aware of the documented truth contained in this book. And in their time-honoured tradition, supporters of Zionism right or wrong will use their influence to seek to minimise sales of this book and suppress the informed and honest debate it was written to make possible. But this Zionist veto on truth-telling and free thought and speech can easily be overridden - by concerned and caring citizens everywhere demanding the book."

THE GREAT DEBATE
This book was written to provide the information needed for a Great Debate which must happen if the very last chance for peace is to be grasped, and, important of all, to empower citizens everywhere to participate in it. The author himself is committed to speaking on public platforms of all kinds around the world and to playing his part in the debate.
http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com/

Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews (2006) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9I2RkZdE20...

Manchester, England. 2nd November 2006. Alan Hart speaks at a public meeting of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). He speaks about his two volume book "Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews". ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9I2RkZdE20


If Americans Knew What Israel Is Doing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VL2Jmfzq2Q


Dancing Israelis on 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU


A highly interesting and informative lecture giving some cold, hard facts as well as a glimmer of hope.

Alan Hart, a young 63, has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications - the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews - for nearly 40 years: * As a correspondent for ITN's News At Ten and the BBC's Panorama programme (covering wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world). * As a researcher and author. (His first book Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker? was published by Sidgwick & Jackson in 1984 and subsequently in several updated editions over a decade). * As a participant at leadership level, working to a Security Council background briefing, in the covert diplomacy of the search for peace.

Alan Hart thus brings to the pages of his latest book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, and to the debating chamber, a deep understanding of why, really, the Countdown to Armageddon is on and how it can be stopped.

He's been to war with the Israelis and the Arabs but the learning experience he values most, and which he believes gave him rare insight, came from his one-to-one private conversations over the years with many leaders on both sides of the conflict. With, for example, Golda Meir, Mother Israel, and Yasser Arafat, Father Palestine. The significance of these private conversations was that they enabled Alan to be aware of the truth of what leaders really believed and feared as opposed to what they said in public for propaganda and myth-sustaining purposes.

Zionist Jews celebrate the killing of children in Gaza!!!!! In nyc


And, yes I do seek to run for the US SENATE against the most powerful Jew in the United States Congress! The Muslim against the Jew! What a battle that will be!
The most powerful Jew in the United States of America, Arlen Specter Senator of Pennsylvania will meet his match finally! I will bring peace to the Middle East! My Muslim Brothers and Sisters, my Jewish friends-hear me! Peace is coming real soon!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8292653957278011041&hl=en

Israel's ZIONIST shows NO mercy for our MUSLIM children! WE Muslims don't exist in the eyes of the United States of America! Today, my county just voted (The US Congress) to back Israel on - 09 Jan 09. The vote was 390 in favor, 5 oppose!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=713V6bRPMjU
I'm Israel's greatest enemy; there words, NOT mine!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GngunUAfVEM
"Children are dying"...Both sides have forgotten what life is!

Norman LeBoon Sr.

??????
A loving Muslim Brother,
"We need peace"...
Tags: gaza, hamas, israel, sound_off, situation_room, lesbian, gay, lou_dobbs, iran, iraq
In response to assignment: Crisis in the Middle East
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-184548

Those Who Reject Zionism
By God Almighty, do I believe that:
"Mankind is but one family." And Jews, even as we hate to admit it, are a part of this family.

The Zionist oppression of Palestine must come to an end.

Just like so many of the great oppressions of history, it must be fought against---- from the outisde---- and the inside...........

I have an article here written by a community of Jews that agree with the Palestinian people and fight not only against human right abuses in 'Israel' but against the very concept of Israel.

Zionism is getting weaker.

WE, on the other, are not.

Why do you violate God's Order? It will not succeed
Advertisement by Neturei Karta (1) in New York Times, May 18, 1993

There is much discussion in the media about peace and peace conferences. The Torah cannot be ignored because God deals with us in the ways of the Torah which was given to us by Him on Mount Sinai.

What does the Torah say?
According to the Torah, before the Almighty gave us the Holy land 3264 years ago, He made these conditions. If we will abide by the Torah, it is ours, if not, we will be expelled. Alas, we sinned and were expelled, even though at that time we were very strong and as the prophet Jeremiah said 'All the kings and people of the world did not believe that any invader would be able to come through the gates of Jerusalem' (Lamentations 4:12)...Because of our sins we were expelled from our land. Only through complete repentance will the Almighty alone without any human effort or intervention, redeem us from exile. At that time there will be universal peace. This will be after the coming of the prophet Eliyahu and the true Moschiach 'not by might and not by power, only by My spirit (Zecharie Chapter 4). The Zionists rejected the Jewish belief and claimed that the cure for the Jewish problem is to have a strong state with a strong army. This exchange of the sacred belief for nationalism is destroying the holy essence of the Jewish people and has brought constant war and bloodshed. The result is their state is the most dangerous place. Betrayal of the Jews

The Zionists have sacrificed Jewish lives in their ongoing conflicts. To achieve their goal of statehood the Zionists have always deliberately provoked anti-Semitism. During the Second World War the Zionists were against giving money to rescue Jews. The Zionist leader Yitzhak Greenbaum said in a speech in Tel Aviv on Feb. 18, 1943 that 'One should resist this wave to push Zionist activities to secondary importance'. He also said 'One cow in Palestine is more important than all the European Jews'. Their interest was not to save Jews, on the contrary, more spilling of Jewish blood would strengthen their demand of the nations for the creation of
their state. Their motto was Rak B'Dam (only by blood will we get the land).

Rabbis warned of danger
All of the greatest rabbinical sages warned of the dangers Zionism would bring. The euphoria over Zionism and all its paraphernalia, i.e. army, embassies, flag, etc. is, according to the Torah, 'the work of Satan' to test the faith. But the true faith of Jews has not changed and 'peace talks', past or present, cannot change it. The belief is that not only can there be no real peace as long as the Zionist state exists but worse than this, the Zionist state is the biggest catastrophe for the Jewish people!

'No peace, God said, for the evil doers' (Jesaiah 48 and 57)

The Three Oaths
We have been adjured by the Almighty 'not to use human force to bring about the establishment of a state, not to rebel against the nations, to remain loyal citizens, not to leave exile ahead of time. Even if the land would be given to us by all nations, we are not allowed to accept it. To violate the oaths would result in your flesh be made prey as the deer and the antelope in the forest (Talmud Tractate Ksubos III). Jews lived in Palestine in peace and harmony with the Palestinians until the Zionists came. The true Jews are not just against the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza with the daily oppression and killing, but are also opposed to the occupation of the entire land of Palestine. According to the Torah, all Palestine should be returned to the Palestinians and other occupied territories should also be returned to their rightful owners.

* According to the Torah, Jews are not allowed to shed blood, harm, humiliate or dominate another people

* Let the world know that being a Jew means being devoted to the Torah and rejection of the Zionist heresy. In the Zionist state Jews suffer religious persecution and intolerance and even ancestral graves are destroyed and
desecrated in line with the Zionist plan to destroy the Jewish religion. Even if the Zionists advocate religious observance it would still be an atheist state.

* Zionist politicians and their fellow travellers do not speak for the Jewish people, the name Israel has been stolen by them. Indeed, the Zionist conspiracy against Jewish tradition and law makes Zionism and all its activities and entities the greatest enemy of the Jewish people.

Signed:
American Neturei Karta - Friends of Jerusalem
Rabbi E. Schwartz - P.O. Box 1030, New York, NY10009



[Neturei Karta is a community of Orthodox Jews who reject Zionism and refuse to recognize the Zionist state. Members of this community are found mainly in Jerusalem, Antwerp, London and New York.]

God told us in the Quran that many of the Jews were "perverted trangressors" in the time of the prophet, and verily is that true today. For it would seem that so many of the Jews today are Zionists, and there those Zionists that don't even know what they are doing is wrong.

But there are those that do.

And there are those who persist in their transgressions.

And there are those that don't.

Such as those who wrote the above piece.

Hisham Zoubeir

30 December 1997.

-----------------------------
[Currently, he is at the University of Sheffield undertaking a multi-disciplinary degree in law. He has lived in Abu Dhabi, Cairo and London. His main interests delves into peace, equality, righteousness and spirituality.]
http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Harbinger/harbinger13.htm

Matthew Fisher: The greatest enemy for Israel is still Iran
Posted: January 04, 2009, 3:15 PM by Shereen Dindar
Full Comment, Israel, Palestinians
By Matthew Fisher, National Post

It is not clear to anyone what Israel wants to achieve in Gaza but the scope and scale of the unfolding operation suggest that it may be trying to once-and-for-all eliminate rocket fire from Gaza.

While the Palestinian territory, with its dramatic images of bombing and rocketry, has attracted enormous international attention, several prominent Israeli commentators have warned recently that the conflict there is only a sideshow against a militarily insignificant enemy. Hezbollah in Lebanon, with far better rockets than Hamas, remains a bigger threat to the Jewish state. And the greatest enemy by far for Israel is still Iran, with its nuclear ambitions and incendiary rhetoric.


But those are battles for another day. The Israeli public overwhelmingly supports what its air force, navy and army have been doing in Gaza although they have strong doubts that the rockets can ever be stopped. Unless Israeli troops remain there — which the politicians and generals say will not happen — totally stopping the rockets seems like a longshot.


Another potential goal is regime change in the Palestinian enclave, as some Israeli leaders loudly suggested in the weeks before the air offensive began on Dec. 27. Given how deeply entrenched Hamas is, and how, undoubtedly and inevitably, it has gained popular support as a result of the current Israeli military campaign, this also seems like a longshot.


A military correspondent for The Jerusalem Post has floated the idea of a less ambitious but perhaps more realistic goal. That would be to restore a relative calm in Gaza like the one that has existed on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon for the past 30 months, where Hezbollah has apparently been busily rearming but has not been firing rockets.


The political and military ambitions of Israel are not necessarily one and the same. The politicians are involved in an election campaign that has been unofficially suspended, but which must figure in their every move. The generals and their infantry and tank commanders confront a different reality. They do not have to court the public, but must keep casualties low, while winning a ground war in a densely populated urban jungle where every Palestinian is a potential enemy and where consolidating any victory is impossible unless ground troops remain.


Some of the differences over what the Israel Defense Forces are calling Operation Cast Lead have been plain enough. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is Israel’s most decorated soldier, flirted with a French peace proposal last week. Most unusually, his top general, Gabi Ashekenazi, went public in strongly condemning any talk of a ceasefire.


There is also the uneasy relationship between the main protagonists in Israel’s war Cabinet, which has provided great fodder for the country’s always feisty media. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, besmirched by serious corruption allegations and humiliated by what Israelis regard as his failed war against Hezbollah in 2006, is seeking to write a different place for himself in history before he leaves office.


Mr. Barak, the Labour leader and former prime minister, whose political fortunes have plummeted in recent years, has done well so far with the public out of the current military campaign. Mr. Olmert’s successor as Kadima leader, Tzipi Livni, who must demonstrate the moxie and the acumen to lead Israel’s security apparatus, has also benefited.


Benjamin Netanyahu, the urbane, hawkish Likud Party leader, and odds-on favourite to once again become Israel’s prime minister, has been sitting not so quietly outside the official chain of command. Bibi has to hope that the electorate will not forget that what the IDF is doing in Gaza is something that he clamoured for long before any of his political rivals did.


While the latest chapter in the long, bleak saga of Gaza and Israel plays out, trying to snuff out Iran’s nuclear ambitions will require a much more formidable military, political and diplomatic operation.


Whenever and however the Gaza mission ends, Israel’s main focus remains Tehran’s nuclear program. The Iranian regime represents what Israelis universally regard as an existential threat. Unlike Gaza, which has barely strained Israel’s military resources, anything involving Iran will seriously test the IDF’s capabilities. Unlike Gaza, tackling Iran will also will have far-reaching geo-political implications.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/04/matthew-fisher-the-greatest-enemy-for-israel-is-still-iran.aspx

Zionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Zionist)
Zionism is the international Jewish political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine, after two millenia of exile. The area is the Jewish Biblical homeland, called the Land of Israel (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el). Since the creation of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.[1]

Zionism is largely based on strong historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era (i.e. up to 70 CE).[2][3] The modern movement was mainly founded by secular Jews, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.[4] It is a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism.[5] Initially one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to assimilation and the position of Jews in Europe, Zionism grew rapidly following knowledge of the Holocaust and became the dominant power among Jewish political movements.

The political movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century following the publication of "Der Judenstaat".[6] The movement seeks to encourage Jewish migration to the Promised Land and was eventually successful in establishing Israel in 1948, as the homeland for the Jewish people. Its proponents regard its aim as self-determination for the Jewish people.[7] The percentage of world Jewry living in Israel has steadily grown since the movement came into existence. Today more Jews live in Israel than in any other country. About 40% of the world's Jews live in Israel and a similar number live in the United States.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist



The word "Zionism" has several different meanings:

1. An ideology - Zionist ideology holds that the Jews are a people or nation like any other, and should gather together in a single homeland. Zionism was self-consciously the Jewish analogue of Italian and German national liberation movements of the nineteenth century. The term "Zionism" was apparently coined in 1891 by the Austrian publicist Nathan Birnbaum, to describe the new ideology, but it was used retroactively to describe earlier efforts and ideas to return the Jews to their homeland for whatever reasons, and it is applied to Evangelical Christians who want people of the Jewish religion to return to Israel in order to hasten the second coming. "Christian Zionism" is also used to describe any Christian support for Israel.

2. A descriptive term - The term "Zionism" was apparently coined in 1891 by the Austrian publicist Nathan Birnbaum, to describe the new ideology. It is also used to describe anyone who believes Jews should return to their ancient homeland.

3. A political movement - The Zionist movement was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897, incorporating the ideas of early thinkers as well as the organization built by Hovevei Tziyon ("lovers of Zion").

(more Definitions of Zionism )

"Zionism" derives its name from "Zion," (pronounced "Tzyion" in Hebrew) a hill in Jerusalem. The word means "marker" or commemoration. "Shivath Tzion" is one of the traditional terms for the return of Jewish exiles. "Zionism" is not a monolithic ideological movement. It includes, for example, socialist Zionists such as Ber Borochov, religious Zionists such as rabbi Kook, revisionist nationalists such as Jabotinsky and cultural Zionists exemplified by Asher Ginsberg (Achad Haam). Zionist ideas evolved over time and were influenced by circumstances as well as by social and cultural movements popular in Europe at different times, including socialism, nationalism and colonialism, and assumed different "flavors" depending on the country of origin of the thinkers and prevalent contemporary intellectual currents. Accordingly, no single person, publication, quote or pronouncement should be taken as embodying "official" Zionist ideology.

Background history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism *

Zionism did not spring full blown from a void with the creation of the Zionist movement in 1897. Jews had maintained a connection with Palestine, both actual and spiritual, even after the Bar Kochba revolt in 135, when large numbers of Jews were exiled from Roman Palestine, the remains of their ancient national home. The Jewish community in Palestine revived and, under Muslim rule, is estimated to have numbered as many as 300,000 about 1000 AD, prior to the Crusades. The Crusaders killed most of the Jewish population of Palestine or forced them into exile, so that only about 1,000 families remained after the reconquest of Palestine by Saladin. The Jewish community in Palestine waxed and waned with the vicissitudes of conquest and economic hardship, and invitations by different Turkish rulers to displaced European Jews to settle in Tiberias and Hebron. At different times there were sizeable Jewish communities in Tiberias, Safed, Hebron and Jerusalem, and numbers of Jews living in Nablus and Gaza. A few original Jews remained in the town of Peki'in, families that had lived there continuously since ancient times.

In the Diaspora, religion became the medium for preserving Jewish culture and Jewish ties to their ancient land. Jews prayed several times a day for the rebuilding of the temple, celebrated agricultural feasts and called for rain according to the seasons of ancient Israel, even in the farthest reaches of Russia. The ritual plants of Sukkoth were imported from the Holy Land at great expense.

From time to time, small numbers of Jews came to settle in Palestine in answer to rabbinical or messianic calls, or fleeing persecution in Europe. Beginning about 1700, groups of followers led by rabbis reached Palestine from Europe and the Ottoman Empire with various programs. For example, Rabbi Yehuda Hehasid and his followers settled in Jerusalem about 1700, but the rabbi died suddenly, and eventually, an Arab mob, angered over unpaid debts, destroyed the synagogue the group had built and banned all European (Ashkenazy) Jews from Jerusalem. Rabbis Luzatto and Ben-Attar led a relatively large immigration about 1740. Other groups and individuals came from Lithuania and Turkey and different countries in Eastern Europe.

At no time between the Roman exile and the rise of Zionism was there a movement to settle the holy land that engaged the main body of European or Eastern Jews. The condition of Jews both in Europe and Eastern countries made such a movement unimaginable. Many, however, were attracted to various false Messiahs such as Shabetai Tzvi, who promised to restore Jews to their land. For most Jews, the connection with the ancient homeland and with Jerusalem remained largely cultural and spiritual, and return to the homeland was a hypothetical event that would occur with the coming of the Messiah at an unknown date in the far future. European Jews lived, for the most part in ghettos. They did not get a general education, and did not generally engage in practical trades that might prepare them for living in Palestine. Most of the communities founded by these early settlers met with economic disaster, or were disbanded following earthquakes, anti-Jewish riots or outbreaks of disease. The Jewish communities of Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem and Hebron were typically destroyed by natural and man-made disasters and repopulated several times, never supporting more than a few thousand persons each at their height. The Jews of Palestine, numbering about 17,000 by the mid-19th century, lived primarily on charity - Halukka donations, with only a very few engaging in crafts trade or productive work.
http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm



The Obama Administration, Iraq, and the Question of Leverage E-mail this
Print this
Reidar Visser, Historiae, Nov 7, 2008

With Barack Obama’s victory in the American presidential elections there are expectations of changes in US policy in Iraq, involving a substantial reduction of force levels. In the so-called Obama–Biden plan for Iraq, this is expressed as follows:
“The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months… Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism…
Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that the U.S. must apply pressure on the Iraqi government to work toward real political accommodation. There is no military solution to Iraq’s political differences, but the Bush Administration’s blank check approach has failed to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future or to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction… As our forces redeploy, Obama and Biden will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society—in and out of government—to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.”

So, the US forces will withdraw in large numbers, but beyond that, and of interest to those who care for Iraq itself, can Obama realistically hope to achieve anything other than a unilateral withdrawal, such as the ambitious reconciliation aims outlined above? Much of the answer to this question has to do with the issue of leverage. In this regard, the Obama–Biden plan embodies several basic assumptions about the motives of the Iraqi leadership that were set forward more comprehensively in a report by the Center for a New American Security in June this year, authored by Colin Kahl, Michèle Flournoy and Shawn Brimley, and titled Shaping the Iraq Inheritance. Put briefly, the Democratic view is that Nuri al-Maliki has a strong desire to keep US forces a little longer in Iraq so that they can help him strengthen his position (by “rebuilding” the Iraqi army); accordingly the US should be in a position to offer an extended stay (or a “residual force”/more training and advisers) as some kind of bonus to Maliki. This theory is described in the report by Kahl et al. as “conditional engagement”.

What appears to be missing in these assumptions is an appreciation of some of what happened in Iraq in 2007. This is not to suggest that “the surge” was such a wonderful success. So far, no significant political institutional reform has materialized as a result of the decline in violence; without this kind of political reform “the surge” in itself is worthless because it is based on temporary stop-gap measures like an infusion of US troops and the bribing of armed militants. However, Nuri al-Maliki the person has been enormously strengthened by the surge. A year and a half ago, any suggestion that Maliki would be the next strongman of Iraq would be met by ridicule. Today, his emergence as a powerful figure with an increasingly independent position vis-à-vis his political coalition partners is an undeniable fact. The Iraqi army is stronger than at any point since 2003 and is becoming a potential tool of repression that many other authoritarian rulers in the region are envious of. And Maliki has rediscovered an ideological superstructure that is making him increasingly immune against criticism at home: using the language of centralism, Iraqi nationalism and at times anti-federalism, he has become independent enough to challenge even some of his longstanding coalition partners such as the Kurds and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).

When it comes to the leverage of the next US administration in Iraq the question is not so much about the “objective” strength of the Iraqi army but rather about what Nuri al-Maliki perceives to be his room for maneuver. In that regard, he seems increasingly tied to a nationalist discourse of Iraqi sovereignty that takes a critical line with regard to foreign interference. Hence, it seems more and more likely that if faced with an Obama offer of “conditional engagement” Maliki's most likely response would be essentially that Iraq is an independent country which is not willing to be bullied into constitutional reforms at the behest of foreigners. He would be thankful to the Americans for their support their support so far in making him a strong ruler, but he would feel strong enough to decline the offer of extended support if this comes with too many strings attached: a SOFA, maybe, but no more than that. He might hope to see his electoral base boosted in local and parliamentary elections, or he could turn to the army and other security forces where he has an increasing number of friends. Failing that, he could always turn to Iran – it may be symptomatic in this regard that the pro-Iranian Daawa/Tanzim al-Iraq is part of Maliki’s new coalition for the local elections even if ISCI apparently plans to run separately.



What are the alternatives to “conditional engagement” in the Democratic camp? What if Maliki feels stronger than US politicians think he is? The Biden scheme of a grand compromise on federalism has few supporters in Iraq south of Kurdistan, although Iran might be interested in the regional aspect of a “Dayton-style” settlement where it might exploit the desire of Obama to mark a contrast to the Bush administration’s tough line. If Obama goes to the opposite extreme in terms of offering Iran a regional role, Iran would emerge stronger than ever and could use its influence with the Maliki government to effectively control oil reserves similar in scale to those of Saudi Arabia. However, other pro-Obama groups have worked out policy suggestions that are far better grounded in Iraqi realities than the schemes of Biden, for example the report Iraq’s Political Transition After the Surge by Brian Katulis, Marc Lynch and Peter Juul. But they, too, stake their entire argument on an assumption about the Maliki government’s perception that may turn out to be incorrect. Their thesis is quite the opposite of that of Kahl et al.: only the prospect of an early US withdrawal can focus minds on the Iraqi side and will force them to make compromises – not out of any altruistic motives, but because those in power supposedly will feel they need such compromises in order to survive in their current positions. Again, it seems likely that Maliki, who as early as in 2007 spoke of national reconciliation as something that had already been accomplished, may not see the need for any wide-ranging reform.

There are two other Iraq alternatives that have received only limited attention by Democratic policy-makers. The first one is exceedingly straightforward and would consist of singling out the 2009 parliamentary elections as the key to reform and Iraq’s last chance to repair itself (the new parliament would then appoint a more representative constitutional revision committee than the current one). The United States could focus all its energies on making those elections as inclusive and free and fair as possible, and in doing so would be quite immune against accusations of meddling in Iraqi affairs. The second alternative is more radical, and builds on the idea of an externally induced shock as well as exploiting US leverage where it still exists: Kurdistan. Political scientist Liam Anderson has earlier proposed an internationally guaranteed “autonomy plus” status for Kurdistan along the lines of the Åland Islands in Finland; by building on this idea one might also create a corollary involving Kurdish withdrawal from the constitutional process in the rest of Iraq, where much of the problem has been artificial alliances between the two biggest Kurdish parties and pro-federal Shiite politicians that enjoy only limited backing in the constituencies they purport to represent, and where what is needed is radical recalibration and constitutional reform directed by Iraqis who are more representative and who can offer resistance to the attempt by the Kurds to impose a pro-federal agenda on all of Iraq. Both these approaches come with the advantage that they are much more difficult for Nuri al-Maliki to simply reject and therefore also involve a greater degree of real US leverage.

Originally published at historiae.org

Reidar Visser is a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.




Recent articles on Electronic Iraq:


News & Analysis: Violence against Iraqi women continues unabated (Dec 1, 2008)

News & Analysis: An Initiative to Create the Federal Region of Basra Is Launched (Nov 12, 2008)

The Media: Iraqi journalist sent to jail for critical reporting in Iraqi Kurdistan (Nov 10, 2008)

News & Analysis: Iraqi politicians ponder Obama strategy on Iraq (Nov 10, 2008)

News & Analysis: Is the U.S. Pushing Arab capitals on ambassadors? (Nov 10, 2008)

Opinion/Editorial: The Obama Administration, Iraq, and the Question of Leverage (Nov 7, 2008)
http://electroniciraq.net/news/opeds/The_Obama_Administration_Iraq_and_the_Question_of_Leverage-3442.shtml

The resistance option
Robin Yassin-Kassab, The Electronic Intifada, 8 February 2009


In both Lebanon and Gaza, the resistance is still standing. (Wesam Saleh/ MaanImages)

Hamas isn't Hizballah and Gaza isn't Lebanon. The resistance in Gaza -- which includes leftist and nationalist as well as Islamist forces -- doesn't have mountains to fight in. It has no strategic depth. It doesn't have Syria behind it to keep supply lines open; instead it has Israel's wall and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's goons. Lebanese civilians can flee north and east, while Gaza's repeat-refugees have no escape. The Lebanese have their farms, and supplies from outside; Gaza has been under total siege for years. Hizballah has remarkable discipline and is surely the best-trained, most disciplined force in the region. Although it has made great strides, Hamas is still undisciplined. Crucially, Hizballah has air-tight intelligence control in Lebanon, while Gaza contains collaborators like maggots in a corpse.

But Hamas is still standing. On the rare occasions when Israel actually fought -- rather than just called in air strikes -- its soldiers reported "ferocious" resistance. Hamas withstood 22 days of the most barbaric bombing Zionism has yet stooped to, and did not surrender. Rocket fire continued from Gaza after Israel declared its unilateral ceasefire.

Let's put this in context. In 1947-48 Zionist militias drove out more than 700,000 Palestinians without too much trouble. In 1967 it took Israel six days to destroy the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies, and to capture the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula. Zionism's last "victory" was the expulsion of the Palestine Liberation Organization from Beirut in 1982 -- if it was a victory.

The long and bloody occupation of Lebanon gave birth to new forms of resistance. Where Arab states and armies had failed, popular resistance removed American and French forces from Beirut, and then steadily rolled back the Israelis. The first suicide bomber of the conflict was a Marxist woman of Christian background. The human bomb was a tactic to which Israeli troops had no answer. Hizballah formed, and developed into the power that would drive Israel from almost all of Lebanon by 2000. In 2006 Israel returned, in an effort to finish the resistance once and for all. What happened was a historic turnaround: for five weeks Israeli troops bled in the border villages, and failed to move beyond them. For the first time, the hi-tech, first-world savagery of the Zionist army, supposedly the fourth strongest army in the world, was kept at bay. Israel of course killed far more civilians than Hizballah did, and performed its usual rampage against civilian infrastructure, but in terms of the soldiers in battle, casualties were roughly equal.

There has been a lot of talk, particularly by Arab collaborators, about Hizballah being an Iranian proxy. While Iran does assist the resistance with weapons and funds, the Lebanese resistance is Lebanese, the creation of the villagers of the south and the Bekaa, and the families of the southern suburbs of Beirut. It was the people themselves who turned Zionism back. Even more improbably, the same collaborators now accuse Hamas, a democratically-elected Palestinian Sunni movement, of taking orders from Tehran.

One reason given for this latest massacre in Gaza was Israel's desire to restore its deterrence after the 2006 debacle. Certainly the Arabs now know (as if they didn't know before) that any whisper of resistance will be met by the most fanatical violence. Certainly Hamas and others will have to factor this into their tactical decisions. But in strategic terms the Israeli deterrent looks even shoddier than it did a month ago. The Arab peoples are no longer scared of Israel, whatever Israel throws at them. A psychological tipping point has been passed, and this, in the long term, counts for more than nuclear bombs.

Even as Western and Zionist officials grin and hug, the siege of Gaza continues and the people are now facing starvation. However, their suffering seems to have strengthened the resistance. The communities of south Lebanon and south Beirut, those which suffered most in 2006, have redoubled their loyalty to Hizballah.

In spite of Israel's onslaught in Gaza, in Palestine and throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hamas and the resistance option it represents is immeasurably stronger. The ridiculous no-longer-president-of-anything Mahmoud Abbas, and the gangs loyal to Fatah warlord Muhammad Dahlan, are much weaker. It wasn't Abbas but Hamas political chief in exile, Khaled Meshal who represented Palestine at the Doha emergency summit last month. While the Abbas-Dahlan traitors arrested Hamas activists, and tried (and largely failed) to suppress solidarity demonstrations on the West Bank, the resistance was standing firm against Zionist terror.

In solidarity with the resistance, Palestinians in Israel organized the biggest demonstrations in their history. There is no doubt to which nation these Palestinians belong, especially in the eyes of the main Israeli political parties, which sought to ban Arab parties from standing in the approaching elections on the grounds of "disloyalty" to the apartheid state.

What now? Enough nonsensical talk of peace processes. Peace might be nice, but it isn't, and never has been, on the agenda. It is time to build a new Palestine Liberation Organization, as elected as possible, to represent all Palestinians, both Islamist and secular, those living in the lands stolen in 1948, the lands stolen in 1967, and those in exile. The Palestinian Authority should be abolished, and the Oslo/Road Map farce officially abandoned. Then Palestinians have to decide what their aims and strategies will be. The two-state solution is no solution. There is a huge amount of work to do. All Palestinians should agitate for the new organization.

Robin Yassin-Kassab has been a journalist in Pakistan and an English teacher around the Arab world. His first novel, The Road from Damascus, is published by Hamish Hamilton and Penguin. He blogs on politics, culture, religion and books at www.qunfuz.blogspot.com.



Latest articles on EI:
Palestine : Activism News: English actor urged to cancel appearance at Israeli festival (9 February 2009)
Palestine : Activism News: Israeli women expose companies complicit in occupation (8 February 2009)
Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: The resistance option (8 February 2009)
Palestine : Human Rights: Report: Palestinian groups executed, abused opponents (6 February 2009)
Palestine : Activism News: Gaza shakes American Arab and Muslim youth (6 February 2009)
Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: Fair trade, not aid, is the way forward (6 February 2009)
Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: A real Arab peace initiative (5 February 2009)
Palestine : Diaries: Live from Palestine: Buried alive (5 February 2009)
Palestine : Activism News: Maltese civil society: Suspend EU-Israel agreement (5 February 2009)
Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: BBC's "impartiality" anything but (4 February 2009)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10281.shtml



Jews against ZIONISM

For immediate Release:
Contact person: Rabbi Weiss
Representative Telephone: 914-262-8342
Website: TrueTorahJews.org

Government of Israel's Reckless Behavior Directly Jeopardizes World Jewry

New York, NY - “The aggression by the Israeli Government will only increase anti-Semitism and worsen the current situation said Rabbi Weiss, spokesman for True Torah Jews.

Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel told the crowd at a Rome hotel. "We are witness to a great wave of anti-Semitism, and apart from the usual anti-Semitism against Jews, there is today the added hate of the collective Jew, which is Israel.”… “The best solution to anti-Semitism is immigration to Israel. It is the only place on Earth where Jews can live as Jews," he said. (BBC website of Monday, 17 November, 2003 (http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3275979.stm)

Mr. Sharon has moved from the planning stages as stated in November, 2003, to the execution of the plan which has been in development since the days of Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, who stated in his diary “It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”. (From his Diary, Part I, pp. 16) http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com

In executing this plan they have successfully escalated anti-Semitism throughout the world.

There is great pain that the press and politicians are calling the actions of the Zionist movement “Jewish actions.” With these words they are helping the Zionists to fulfill their dreams.

“We call upon the world again to understand that the state of “Israel” does not represent the Jewish faith and traditions and that Zionists are the greatest enemies to the Jewish people,” said
Rabbi Weiss.

We appeal to people of good will in the media itself to open their minds and hearts to what we are proclaiming about the truth of Judaism, which has been distorted by the Zionists.

True Torah Jews is a non-profit organization dedicated to spreading the word to the people of the world that not all Jews support the Zionist State and that the declarations of the World "Jewish" Congress are not representative of true Jewish beliefs. It is our hope that through this knowledge and understanding peace may be achieved. For more information go to www.truetorahjews.com
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/news/newsletters/pressrelease032604.htm

Why Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews
Avi Shlaim, The Electronic Intifada, 4 February 2005


Avi Shlaim


Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and the state of Israel is its political expression. Israel used to be a symbol of freedom and a source of pride for the Jews of the Diaspora. Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians, however, has turned it into a liability and a moral burden for the liberal segment of the Jewish community. Some Jews, especially on the left, would go even further by linking Israel's behavior to the upsurge of the new anti-Semitism throughout the world.

Israel's illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories since 1967 is the underlying problem. Occupation transformed the Zionist movement from a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jews into a colonial power and an oppressor of the Palestinians.

By Zionism today I mean the ideological, ultra-nationalist settlers and their supporters in the Likud-led government. These settlers are a tiny minority but they maintain a stranglehold over the Israeli political system. They represent the unacceptable face of Zionism. Zionism does not equal racism, but many of these hard-line settlers and their leaders are blatant racists. Their extremism and their excesses have led some people to start questioning not just the Zionist colonial project beyond the 1967 borders but also the legitimacy of the state of Israel within those borders. And it is these settlers who also endanger the safety and well-being of Jews everywhere.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon personifies this xenophobic, exclusive, aggressive and expansionist brand of Zionism. One of the greatest accolades in Judaism is to be a rodef shalom, a seeker of peace. Sharon is not that by any stretch of the imagination. He is a man of war and the champion of violent solutions.

Sharon's purpose is politicide: to deny the Palestinians any independent political existence in Palestine. His plan for withdrawal from Gaza is called "the unilateral disengagement plan." It is not a peace plan but a prelude to the annexation of large chunks of the West Bank to Israel. Sharon, the unilateralist par excellence, is a Jewish Rambo - the antithesis of the traditional Jewish values of truth, justice and tolerance.

Sharon's government is waging a savage war against the Palestinian people. Its policies include the confiscation of land; the demolition of houses; the uprooting of trees; curfews, roadblocks and 736 checkpoints that inflict horrendous hardships; the systematic abuse of Palestinian human rights; and the building of the illegal wall on West Bank, a wall that is as much about land-grabbing as it is about security.

It is this brand of cruel Zionism that is the real enemy of what remains of liberal Israel and of the Jews outside Israel. It is the enemy because it fuels the flames of virulent and sometimes violent anti-Semitism. Israel's policies are the cause; hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism are the consequences.

There has been much talk in recent years about "the new anti-Semitism." The argument, in a nutshell, is that the resurgence of anti-Semitism has little or nothing to do with Israel's behavior. Anti-Zionism is merely a surrogate, so the argument runs, for bad, old-fashioned anti-Semitism.

These arguments need to be addressed. First: What is anti-Semitism? Isaiah Berlin defined an anti-Semite as "someone who hates Jews more than is strictly necessary!" This mischievous definition has the merit of applying to all anti-Semitism, old as well as new.

But we need to look beyond the labels. Is there a lot of classic anti-Semitism about? Yes. Is anti-Semitism spreading in Europe? Yes, at an alarming rate. Do some people use anti-Zionism as a respectable cover for their despicable Judeophobia? Alas, yes again. What is the relative weight of hatred of Israel on the one hand and Judeophobia on the other in the making of the new anti-Semitism? I don't know.

What I do know is that a lot of decent people, without any anti-Semitic baggage, are furious with Israel because of its oppression of the Palestinians. There is simply no getting away from the fact that attitudes toward Israel are changing as a result of its own shift towards the Zionism of the extreme right and of the radical rabbis. During the years of the Oslo peace process, Israel was in fact the favorite of the West because it was willing to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Israel's image today is negative not because it is a Jewish state but because it habitually transgresses the norms of acceptable international behavior. Indeed, Israel is increasingly perceived as a rogue state, as an international pariah, and as a threat to world peace.

This perception of Israel is a major factor in the recent resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe and in the rest of the world. In this sense, Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews. It is a tragedy that a state that was built as a haven for the Jewish people after the Holocaust is now one of the least safe places on earth for Jews to live in. Israel ought to withdraw from the occupied territories not as a favor to the Palestinians but as a favor to itself and to world Jewry for, as Karl Marx noted, a people that oppresses another cannot itself remain free.

Related Links

BY TOPIC: The New Anti-Semitism


Avi Shlaim is a British Academy Research Professor at St. Antony's College, Oxford, and author of "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World." This article was based on remarks delivered in a debate in London on Jan. 25 organized by Intelligence Squared. The motion was: "Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews." The other speakers were Jacqueline Rose and Amira Hass, for the motion, and Shlomo Ben-Ami, Melanie Phillips and Raphael Israeli, against. After the debate, the audience voted 355 to 320 in favor of the motion, with 40 abstentions. The article was first published in the International Herald Tribune on 4 February 2005, and is reprinted here with the author's permission.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3599.shtml



Hardly a day passes in Israel without another lengthy feature in the press documenting the rapid reemergence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The blurring of one, legitimate criticism of Israeli actions, with the other, illegitimate retaliation against Jews, serves a useful purpose for Israel. It makes it difficult, at times impossible, to give voice to the daily suffering of millions of Palestinians under occupation without invoking the label "anti-Semite" from a muscular Zionist lobby in Europe and the United States.

Overviews

How Israel's 'new anti-Semitism' is encouraging nuclear Holocaust, Jonathan Cook (23 September 2006)

"This House believes that Zionism is a danger to the Jewish people", Ben White (20 February 2006)

Disengaging from Zionism, Issa Mikel (13 September 2005)

Why Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews, Avi Shlaim, (4 February 2005)

Israel's increasing reliance on the "anti-Semitism" defense, Nigel Parry (26 January 2005)

Deconstructing the WJC campaign for a UN resolution on anti-Semitism, Laura Reanda (25 January 2005)

Anti-Semitism at the World Social Forum?, Cecilie Surasky (19 February 2004)

The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism, Brian Klug, The Nation (2 February 2004)

Abusing 'Anti-Semitism', Ran HaCohen, Letter from Israel (29 September 2003)

Israel's anti-Semitism, Ibrahim Nafie, Al-Ahram Weekly (November 2003)

The new anti-Semitism?, Jonathan Cook (3 June 2003)

Panel: Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitism?, Professor Peter Novick, Ali Abunimah, Rabbi Emeritus Arnold Wolf, and Emily L. Hauser (16 December 2002)


Europe

Arabs, Muslims are not behind European anti-Semitism, Ali Abunimah (16 April 2004)

Israel’s cry of anti-Semitism blocks a critical dialogue, Jeff Handmaker and Adri Nieuwhof (27 February 2004)

Why the BBC Ducks the Palestinian Story, Tim Llewellyn (6 February 2004)

Blaming the ‘Other’: Judeophobia and Islamophobia in France, Willy Beauvallet and Corinne Grassi, News from Within (December 2003)

How to shut up your critics with a single word, Robert Fisk, The Independent (21 October 2002)

BBC accused of anti-Semitism, Jessica Hodgson, The Guardian (23 May 2002)


United States

It's worse than you thought: pro-Israel influence on US policy, Ali Abunimah (15 March 2004)

Israel's apologists and the Martin Luther King Jr. hoax, Fadi Kiblawi & Will Youmans (19 January 2004)

More than just stories: The portrayal of Palestinians in American children's literature, Elsa Marston (11 March 2004)

Curriculum reform should start in the U.S. and Israel, Joseph Massad (18 August 2003)


Apartheid and Racial Discrimination

Racism thrives at Israel's Herzliya conference, Arjan El Fassed (18 December 2003)

Palestinians in Israel (regularly updated)

One democratic state might be the solution, Rifat Odeh Kassis (8 December 2003)

New apartheid orders: 11,400 Palestinians need permits to live in their homes, B'Tselem (21 November 2003)


Settler graffiti near Tel Rumeida. (CPT)


Palestine/Israel: One state for all its citizens Ali Abunimah (16 October 2003)

Remember Durban, Arjan El Fassed (22 September 2003)

Did You Say Failure? The Success of the Durban NGO Forum, Marwan Bishara, CPAP (7 September 2001)

The Movement against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine, Uri Davis, CPAP (4 June 2002)

Closure and Apartheid: Seven Years of ‘Peace’ through Separation, Allegra Pacheco, CPAP (6 March 2000)

Forbidden Families: Family Unification and Child Registration in East Jerusalem, B'Tselem/HaMoked (27 January 2004)

UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination calls on Israel to revoke Nationality and Entry into Israel law (14 August 2003).

Defining Apartheid: Israel's Record, Uri Strauss (19 September 2002)


Websites

In Search of the New Anti-Semitism, News from Within (December 2003)

Anti-Semitism: A Practical Manual, Gush Shalom (17 January 2004)

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/244.shtml

A Short History of the Israeli - Palestinian Conflict: Past Is Prologue


by Stephen Lendman


Global Research, February 8, 2009



Email this article to a friend
Print this article





Its roots are from the late 19th century when Theodor Herzl founded modern Zionism at the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897.

In his book "Overcoming Zionism," Joel Kovel writes:

Zionism seeks "the restoration of tribalism in the guise of a modern, highly militaralized and aggressive state. (It) cut Jews off from (their) history and led to a fateful identity of interests with antisemitism (becoming) the only thing that united them. (It) fell into the ways of imperialist expansion and militarism, and showed signs of the fascist malignancy."

If you accept "the idea of a Jewish state," you mix its twin notions of "particularism (and) exceptionalism (that are) the actual bane of Judaism (and give) racism an objective, enduring, institutionalized and obdurate character." It turns Israel "into a machine for the manufacture of human rights abuses," and consider three of its former prime ministers. Menachem Begin (1977 - 83), Yitzhak Shamir (1983 - 84 and 1986 - 92), and Ariel Sharon (2001 - 06) were former terrorists who dispelled the illusion of Israeli democracy, morality, and respect for human rights. Kovel's conclusion: "the world would be a far better place without (the corrosive effects of) Zionism."

Inventing a Jewish People - Creating Myths to Justify a Jewish State

Credit Tel Aviv University scholar, Shlomo Zand, for his 2008 book: "When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?" Forget the myths most Jewish children are taught. Biblical nonsense comprising core Zionist beliefs about Jews:

-- expelled by the ancient Romans;

-- the exodus from Egypt;

-- wandering the earth rootless;

-- enslaved, oppressed, and tormented for centuries; and

-- the notion that God bestowed a "Greater Israel" for Jews alone - the idea of "A land without people for a people without land."

Zand's view (shared by others) is that the Romans didn't expel whole nations, just small numbers from their conquered territories. Most Jews remained, converted to Islam when Arabs took over, and became progenitors of today's Palestinians.

According to Israeli journalist Tom Segev:

"There never was a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion, and the exile never happened - hence there was no return." So, if ancient Judaeans weren't expelled en masse, how were Jews scattered globally - the so-called Jewish Diaspora?

Zand believes that some emigrated voluntarily. Many more converted to Judaism. "Contrary to popular belief, Judaism was an evangelical religion that actively sought new adherents during its formative period."

Thus, if Judaism is a "religion," not a "people," how can a "Jewish state" be justified? It's not an ancient idea, according to Zand, but a late 19th century Zionist invention, "an intellectual conspiracy of sorts. It's all fiction and myth....an excuse (to justify) the State of Israel" and vilify Palestinian self-determination as a plot to destroy it.

Segev explained that "Zand did not invent (this) thesis; 30 years before (Israel's) Declaration of Independence, it was espoused by David Ben-Gurion, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (Israel's second president), and others."

Zand wrote his book for a purpose - to debunk accepted myths, Zionists who advance them, and promote the idea that Israel should be a democratic state for all its people, not just for Jews alone. Why not if Jews and Palestinians share common roots!

Early Zionists had other ideas. Its Program was: "Establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Eretz Yisrael." It began a process of:

-- settling Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine;

-- organizing effective action groups in various countries;

-- building Jewish consciousness and a national identity; and

-- beginning a process of gaining worldwide acceptance for a Jewish homeland.

Herzl later wrote: "At Basle, I founded the Jewish state....If not in five years, then certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it." It took 51, but transforming Palestine wasn't simple when Arabs comprised over 90% of the population.

The solution was to transfer or dispossess them, shift them to other Arab countries, deny Palestinians the right to their own land, and create a new Jewish identity, not in the Diaspora but in Palestine - to legitimize Jews as its rightful owner and justify removing indigenous Arabs.

Important also was getting Britain to go along which it did with the November 1917 Balfour Declaration "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...." It also guaranteed one to Arabs as stipulated in the October 1915 McHahon - Hussein Agreement to return Ottoman Turk land to Arab nationals post-WW I in repayment for their help in the war. Britain instead betrayed them and so did America's Woodrow Wilson.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis convinced him and Secretary of State Robert Lansing to support Zionism and British-French interests under the 1916 Sykes - Picot Agreement that carved up the region after the war.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the World Zionist Organization (WZO) presented its plan for a Jewish state. It included:

-- all Palestine;

-- South Lebanon up to Sidon and the Litani River;

-- Syria's Golan Heights, Hauran Plain and Deraa; and

-- control of the Hijaz Railway from Deraa to Amman to Maan, Jordan as well as the Gulf of Aqaba.

Other Zionists wanted more - land from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East comprising Palestine, Lebanon, Western Syria and Southern Turkey.

In 1920, WW I allies met in San Remo, Italy, decided to control Ottoman lands, and agreed to a "mandatory" system. The British Mandate over Palestine began in 1920 under a Jewish High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel. He began its transformation by assuring:

-- a liberal Jewish immigration policy;

-- immediate provisional citizenship for Jews;

-- easy Jewish land acquisition at the expense of indigenous Arabs;

-- contiguous settlements to solidify a Jewish presence;

-- employment for Jewish immigrants;

-- favorable customs policies to develop Jewish commerce; and

-- partiality toward Jews overall at the expense of indigenous Arabs.

The World Zionist Organization (WZO) was very much involved. It:

-- founded the Jewish Colonial Trust in 1899 to buy land in Palestine;

-- the Anglo-Palestine (commercial) Bank and investments institute followed in 1902 within the Jewish Colonial Trust;

-- in 1901, the Jewish National Fund was established to buy and develop land;

-- in 1909, the Israel Land Development Company for the same purpose;

-- the 1907-established Eretz Yisrael Bureau assisted the project; in 1921, the Zionist Executive in Eretz Yisrael replaced it;

-- in 1920, the United Israel Appeal was founded to raise funds to finance welfare, health, education, and continued settlement projects;

-- in 1929, the Jewish Agency for Eretz Yisrael was established to represent the WZO in dealings with the British government in administering Palestine; Chaim Weizmann was its first president;

-- in 1942, the WZO's official aim was for a "Jewish Community" in Palestine; the Biltmore Program stated that "Eretz Yisrael will be based as a Jewish (only) community, to be integrated into a new democratic world."

Zionist Divisions

Divisions characterized Zionists from the start. Herzl, Chaim Weizmann (Israel's first president) and Moshe Sharett (prime minister after Ben-Gurion) favored reconciliation with the Arab world. Revisionists, on the other hand, were hard line with Ze'ev Jabotinsky their leader. In 1923, he published an article called "On the Iron Wall" in which he argued that Arab nationalists opposed a Jewish state in Palestine and wouldn't accept one. Thus peaceful coexistence was unattainable, and Jews must build "an iron wall of (superior) Jewish military force."

The idea was to discourage Arab hopes of destroying Israel followed by a second stage - a negotiated settlement in which Israel had the upper hand and could dictate terms.

Ben-Gurion sided with Jabotinsky, chose a military option, and winning the War of Independence was his vindication. Ever since, Israel stayed hard line politically and militarily. It fights and negotiates from strength, not weakness. Confrontation, not diplomacy is its strategy. It believes Arabs only understand violence, so military threats and intimidation are its options. Generals become future leaders. The cycle is mostly repeated. Washington, the West, and most Arab states go along, and military aggression is called self-defense - hence the Israel Defense Forces much like America's Department of Defense.

In a recent article, Middle East expert Joseph Massad put it this way:

"The logic goes as follows: Israel has the right to occupy Palestinian land, lay siege to (its) populations in Bantustans surrounded by an apartheid wall, starve the population, cut them off from fuel and electricity (and all else), uproot their trees and crops, and launch periodic raids and targeted assassinations against them and their elected leadership, and if (resistance is encountered, Israel is entitled to slaughter) them en masse (because it's just) 'defending' itself as it must and should."

Naked aggression is called self-defense. Civilians are legitimate targets. Heroic freedom fighters are "terrorists," and if Arabs don't understand, the process is repeated until they do. Further, international humanitarian and other laws don't apply. Victims aren't entitled to the same rights as Jews because Arabs are inferior and don't warrant them. In addition:

"Israel has the right to oppress the Palestinians and does so to defend itself (its right to exist), but were the Palestinians to defend themselves against Israel's oppression, (to which it has no right, then) Israel will have the right to defend itself against their legitimate defense" without restraint or regard for the laws of war or humanitarian considerations.

Negotiating with Israel is futile because Tel Aviv demands and doesn't yield. It takes and doesn't give. Peace process hypocrisy offers nothing, and all Palestinians have to show for it is continued occupation, death, destruction, oppression, immiseration, and loss of their land and freedom.

Zionists did it in stages:

-- early arrivals saw themselves as "returning natives" and began a process of displacement;

-- from 1918 - 1947, it advanced as the Jewish population increased;

-- from 1936 - 1939, Arab resistance grew against increasing Jewish encroachment; it was clear that unlimited Jewish immigration, combined with Zionist political and military development, meant the eventual transformation of Palestine to a Jewish state; in 1936, Arabs resisted, called a strike, and reacted violently;

-- Zionists countered with a "compulsory transfer" policy; Jewish sovereignty over all Palestine became a priority; accommodating Arabs was rejected; the Biltmore Program affirmed it;

-- Ben-Gurion had a plan, but WW II intervened;

-- post-war, violence again erupted; Zionists wanted unrestricted immigration; Palestinians saw their country being lost; the war bankrupted Britain; it ended its Mandate over Palestine on May 14, 1948 when the State of Israel was established.

America became the first country to extend recognition when Harry Truman signed the following statement:

"This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional government thereof.

The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel."

It established an enduring alliance, more firmly in place now than ever - in a strategic part of the world for the mutual benefit of both nations.

Understanding Zionism is fundamental:

-- its reliance on oppression, violence, and dispossession;

-- its belief in exclusivity, privilege, and Jewish exceptionalism;

-- racism at the core of its politics;

-- democracy only for Jews;

-- an ethnically pure state in which half its inhabitants aren't Jewish, are afforded few rights, and none on what matters most.

Zionism justifies a Jewish ethnocracy with built-in structural inequalities. Israeli Arabs may vote, sit in the Knesset, but government rulings aren't "legitimate" without a "Jewish majority." The Law of Return is for Jews alone. All laws are for Jews. On issues of land, housing, education and most everything, Jewish favoritism discriminates against Arabs.

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law prohibits Israeli Arab spouses from the West Bank, Gaza or any Arab country from entering Israel and getting residency rights or citizenship. It's to counter a "demographic problem" or the threat that a faster-growing Palestinian population will soon outnumber Jews and change the character of a "Jewish state."

Ideology becomes policy and Arabs suffer with convenient myths for justification:

-- poor Israel; it's a victim fighting to survive against hordes of hostile Arabs;

-- they reject peace, prefer violence, plan Israel's destruction, so conflict is inevitable;

-- the core problem is Palestinian "terrorism;" Israel acts only in self-defense;

-- Gaza and the West Bank are "disputed," not "occupied" Territories;

-- political solutions aren't possible so Israel must maintain total control under "Fortress Israel;"

-- Palestinians are to be relegated to isolated powerless cantons under Israel's control before a "final solution" dispossesses or annihilates them; Israel is for Jews alone; after the 1967 war, the Allon Plan affirmed it - named after deputy prime minister Yigal Allon; his goal:

(1) "maximum land with minimum Arabs;"

(2) annex around 40% of the West Bank and Gaza, taking the choicest parts; and

(3) dispossess Palestinians from land Israel wants for Jews.

In his 2001 book, "The Iron Wall," Avi Shlaim wrote:

After Israel's victory in 1967, Allon (on July 26) "submitted to the cabinet a plan that was to bear his name (The Allon Plan). It called for incorporating in Israel the following areas: a strip of land ten to fifteen kilometers wide along the Jordan River; most of the Judean desert along the Dead Sea; and a substantial area around Greater Jerusalem, including the Latrun salient. Designed to include as few Arabs as possible in the area claimed for Israel, the plan envisaged building permanent settlements and army bases in these areas. Finally, it called for opening negotiations with local leaders on turning the remaining parts of the West Bank into an autonomous region that would be economically linked to Israel. The cabinet discussed Allon's plan but neither adopted nor rejected it."

He also called for defensible borders, creating a Jordanian - Palestinian state, letting Israel maintain a West Bank military presence up to the Jordan River, and be fully in control of a united Jerusalem, perhaps with a Jordanian status in the Old City's Muslim quarter.

The Allon Plan was in Labor Party platforms in 1974, 1977, 1981, 1984, and 1987, and to large degree shaped Israel's settlement policies from 1967 - 1977. Prime minister Begin then offered Palestinian self-administration (the right to be Israel's enforcer) to Egypt's Sadat in 1977. It became part of the 1978 Camp David agreement and 1993 Oslo Accords.

From 1948 to the present:

-- peace, reconciliation, liberation, and a fair and equitable solution to the region's longest and most intractable problem is unconsidered and unwanted; conflict is the chosen option; seizing all of historic Palestine the goal; and eliminating the Palestinian problem and establishing Israeli regional dominance the final aim.

Post-WW II, Palestinians were nearly 70% of the population, Jews around 30% and owned 6% of the land. Yet the November 1947 General Assembly Partition Plan (Resolution 181) gave Jews 56%. Palestinians got 42% with 2% kept under internationalized trusteeship, including Jerusalem. Jews got the best parts, including choice agricultural areas. Palestinians had no air access or harbor and port facilities, except for isolated Jaffa. Nonetheless, David Ben-Gurion wanted 80%. Israel's 1948 War of Independence got 78%. The problem was keeping it for Jews alone.

Israel agreed to UN Resolution 194 (in December 1948) providing for free access to Jerusalem and other holy places as well as granting Palestinian refugees the right of return. In May 1949, UN Resolution 273 gave Israel UN membership conditional on it accepting Resolutions 181 and 194 and "unreservedly (agreeing to honor) the obligations of the United Nations Charter." However, earlier in June 1948, the Israeli cabinet (with no formal vote) barred Palestinian refugees from returning and directed the IDF to stop those trying with live fire. The same policy remains today to assure a Jewish majority and much more.

"Israelification" and "De-Arabization" are policies to preserve a "Jewish character." Pre-1948, Palestinians owned 93% of Palestine. It dropped to 25% after the war, 7.3% by 1962, and is now around 4%. Palestinians are gradually being dispossessed of their land, country, freedom, and futures. This is the Zionist goal, internal oppression and conflict the methodology.

Treat them like "dogs," said Moshe Dayan, so they'll leave. Use "terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation," and more was David Ben-Gurion's formula. Today it's unilateral separation, "de-Arabization," isolation, confinement, and destroying the will to resist with intermittent conflict and mass slaughter for reinforcement.

Israel's aim:

-- total control of Palestine;

-- Palestinians are "encouraged" to leave;

-- confining those who don't to isolated, powerless cantons;

-- advancing land seizures;

-- co-opting a quisling Palestinian leadership;

-- using it as enforcers;

-- terrorizing the population relentlessly;

-- denying Palestinians any rights; and

-- purifying Israel as a Jewish state (like the Nazis tried in Germany) by removing its Arab population. This is Israel today, the reason many Jews aren't staying, and why growing numbers won't move there. Nominally it's a democracy, but only for Jews. Arabs are disenfranchised, without rights, and unwanted.

Gaza and the West Bank remain occupied. Pre-Oslo, Middle East expert Sara Roy called Gaza a "Case of Economic De-Development," a condition as true of the West Bank and, in today's environment much harsher than she discovered. Her definition was a "process which undermines or weakens the ability of an economy to grow and expand by preventing it from accessing and utilizing critical inputs needed to promote internal growth beyond a specific structural level." Gaza was to be transformed "into an auxiliary of the state of Israel." So was the West Bank.

It's way beyond that now under Israel's policy of oppression, impoverishment, depopulation, destruction, displacement, and genocide to crush the Palestinian spirit, slaughter its people, and end any hope for a viable Palestinian state.

Gaza is under siege and was ravaged by war. The West Bank is checkmated by isolation, land seizures, walls, checkpoints, home demolitions, a nightmarish bureaucracy, closures, agricultural and free movement restrictions, crop destruction, curfews, permits, economic strangulation, random killings, arrests, imprisonment, torture, and overall security force terror against a civilian population.

Israel has total control, aided by the complicit Fatah under Abbas, but this pattern has persisted for decades. For over a half century, Tel Aviv ignored or abused hundreds of UN resolutions condemning or censuring it for its actions against Palestinians and other Arabs, deploring it for committing them, or demanding, calling on, or urging Israel to end them. UN Resolution 242 alone (November 1967) calls for: "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits:

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory...." Neither shall "The Occupying Power...deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Israeli settlements have "no legal validity" under Security Council Resolutions 446 (March 1979), 452 (July 1979), 465 (March 1980), 471 (June 1980), and 476 (June 1980). In addition, Resolutions 267 (July 1969) and 497 (December 1981) say the annexations of East Jerusalem (267) and Syria's Golan Heights (497) are illegal and call for them to be rescinded. Yet Israel continues settlement expansions and maintains a Kafkaesque "matrix of control" over Palestine in gross violation of international law.

In 1967, Theodor Meron, Israeli foreign ministry's legal council, told prime minister Levi Eshkol that: "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

In April 1978, US State Department Legal Advisor, Herbert Hansell, told Congress that:

"while Israel may undertake, in the occupied territories, actions necessary to meet its military needs and to provide for orderly government during the occupation, (the) establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law."

Palestinians are isolated and on their own. Few nations anywhere support them. None in the West or the Middle East, except Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Courage alone sustains them, now powerfully buoyed by a groundswell of world outrage; the global BDS Movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions; calls for criminal prosecutions for Israeli war criminals and expulsion of Israel from the UN System until it fully complies with international law.

In November 2004, law professor Michael Mandel wrote: "Israel's West Bank and Gaza settlements are war crimes in Canada. Under the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act 2000, c. 24, Israel's settlements in territories taken in the June 1967 war constitute war crimes punishable in Canada."

Mandel cites Section 8, paragraph 2 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) adopted by 120 states in July 1998. Item viii prohibits: "The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory."

After initially voting against the Rome Statute, the Clinton administration signed it in December 2000. Then in May 2001, the Bush administration revoked the signature and began a worldwide campaign against the Court.

Israel as well isn't a party to the Rome Statute, but that's irrelevant under Canadian law. Grave breaches of Geneva constitute war crimes. Israel (like America) is criminally liable. Mandel states that although "Israel denies it, there is no question that Israel is an Occupying Power for the purposes of the Geneva Convention, the Rome Statute, and the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act." Holding it accountable is essential. It's high time world jurists demanded it.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre of Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday through Friday US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12195


Gaza: Out of the Ruins
The BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen covered Israel's 22-day military offensive in Gaza and now reports for Panorama on the aftermath of a sustained bombardment of the narrow and densely populated territory.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the war the Israeli army killed around 1,300 Palestinians - armed men, civilians and hundreds of children. They destroyed acres of homes and businesses.


Dr Izzeldeen Abuelaish's daughters and niece were killed by tank shells

If the damage had no justifiable and proportionate military purpose then it is classified as wanton destruction, which is a breach of the laws of war. What it also does is ratchet up the level of hatred for Israel because each pile of rubble was somebody's home or somebody's business.

Israel says that the war was a justified and legitimate defensive action. Its army has not answered detailed questions we submitted about their actions - saying it is investigating at its own pace, not the media's.

But Israel has released a report about the attack on the home of Dr Izzeldeen Abuelaish, the Palestinian doctor whose three daughters and niece were killed by Israeli tank fire.

I started with the doctor's case when I met Israel's interior minister, Meir Shetrit, who is in his country's security cabinet.



Meir Shetrit blames Hamas for the Palestinian deaths

I visited Dr Izzeldeen Abuelaish's home in Jabalya in Gaza.

The Israeli army says that two tank shells were fired after soldiers thought they saw Hamas spotters in the building. It says there was fighting in the area.

The doctor says it was quiet when the attack happened.

His daughters and his niece felt safe enough to sit in a corner room in the apartment doing their homework.

At the time I was there, the room in which the girls had been killed had not been touched since the attack.



Inside the bedroom where the girls died

In wars between small groups like Hamas and big national armies like Israel's victory is in the eye of the beholder. It is all a question of how you define it.

For Hamas the fact that they can say that they control the Gaza Strip and still say that they are resisting Israel adds up to victory.

All the Palestinians I have met believe Israel's attacks were murderous - including opponents of Hamas who also say its rocket fire provoked Israel recklessly.

Getting to talk to Hamas fighters is not easy. The senior leaders of Hamas are in hiding because believe they are targets.

But we made contact with a member of the armed wing, the Izzadine al-Qassam Brigades. He calls himself Abu Hamza, which is not his real name, and he wore a mask during the interview.



Abu Hamza says militants were told to fire from empty areas

Panorama - Gaza: Out of the Ruins, Monday 9 February at 8.30pm on BBC One



Kingdom of God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The discussion page may contain suggestions.

"Kingdom of Heaven" redirects here. For other uses, see Kingdom of Heaven (disambiguation).
The Kingdom of God or Reign of God (Greek: Βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ - Basileia tou Theou[1] translates to the "reign of the God")[2] is a foundational concept in the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

According to Jesus, the Kingdom of God is within (or among) people,[3] is approached through understanding,[4] and entered through acceptance like a child,[5] spiritual rebirth,[6] and doing the will of God.[7] It is a kingdom peopled by the righteous[8] and is not the only kingdom[9]. The phrase occurs in the New Testament more than 100 times, not at all in the Hebrew Bible and only once in the deuterocanonical/apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon (10:10)[10] and is defined almost entirely by parable.

Contents
[hide]
1 English translation
2 Abrahamic faiths
2.1 Judaism
2.2 Christianity
2.2.1 Historical Jesus scholars
2.2.2 Evangelical scholars
2.2.2.1 Further reading
2.2.3 Catholic interpretations
2.2.4 Eastern Orthodoxy
2.2.5 Pre-millennial approaches
2.2.6 Other viewpoints
2.3 Islam
3 See also
4 References and notes
5 External links



[edit] English translation
In the synoptic Gospels (which most scholars believe were all written in Greek), Mark and Luke use the Greek term "Basileia tou Theou", commonly translated in English as "Kingdom of God," while Matthew prefers the Greek term "Basileia tōn Ouranōn" (Βασιλεία τῶν Ουρανῶν), which has been translated as "Kingdom of Heaven." Biblical scholars speculate that the Matthean text adopted the Greek word for "heaven" instead of the Greek word for "God" because, unlike Mark and Luke, it was written by a Jew for a Jewish audience so, in keeping with their custom, avoided using God's name as an act of piety. In Matthew, "heaven" stands for "God."[11] The basis for these terms being equivalent is found in the apocalyptic literature of Daniel 2:44 where "the 'God of heaven' will set up a 'kingdom' which will never be destroyed."

The word “kingdom” is a translation of the Greek word basileia which in turn is a translation of the words malkuth (Hebrew) and malkutha (Aramaic). These words do not define kingdom by territory but by dominion. According to C. H. Dodd, the common translation of malkuth with basileia in Greek and hence kingdom in English is therefore problematic; a translation with “kingship,” "kingly rule," “reign” or “sovereignty” should be preferred.[12] The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states that the word basileia can be translated as "kingship," "kingdom" or "reign" (CCC 2816).

From a purely etymological viewpoint, the word "basileia" is believed to have derived from the Greek word for base or foundation.[1] Some writers prefer this root definition because it eliminates the confusion with monarchy.

Scholars during the current third quest for the historical Jesus have translated the phrase as "God's imperial rule", or sometimes "God's domain", to better grasp its sense in today's language.

The Jesus Seminar has chosen to translate basileia as "empire". John B. Cobb points out that this has the disadvantage of implying a hierarchical nature to the realm of God, a concept clearly lacking from Jesus thought, in Cobb’s view.[13] Fr. Richard Chilson, C.S.P., suggests the term "Love's Domain," "Love's Dominion," or "Love's Rule" because the Kingdom of God is where the God who is Love rules.[14] Even with the debate over the translation of the term, modern scholars see the concept of the kingdom of God as the main message of Jesus.


[edit] Abrahamic faiths
See also: Abrahamic religion#The coming

[edit] Judaism
The Kingdom of God is referred to frequently in the Tanakh (see 1 Chronicles 1 Chronicles 29:10-12 and Daniel 4:3 for example). It is tied to Jewish understanding that God will restore the nation of Israel to the land. The Kingdom of God was expressly promised to the patriarch and prophet, King David, because he was a man "after God's own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14).


[edit] Christianity
Eusebius identified basileia with monarchy while Augustine foresaw a merger of the church and basileia.[citation needed] Aquinas ignores the concept and it was relatively little discussed by Christian theologians until Johannes Cocceius (1660) and Hermann Samuel Reimarus in the 18th century, during what has become known as the "first quest" for the historical Jesus.[15][16]

Jesus assumes his audience understands the Kingdom foundation that was laid in the Hebrew Scriptures. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God he speaks of the time of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. A time of a restored earth where the faithful will worship and serve their God forever under the rulership of a righteous leader of the Davidic line. This was the Messianic hope of the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures and was carried over and echoed in the words of John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul and others in the Greek Scriptures.

Jesus would attach the theme of the gospel message itself with this Kingdom idea. Luke 4:43 tells the reader that Jesus' very purpose for being sent was to "preach the gospel about the Kingdom." He then would send out his disciples to speak this message even before they understood anything about his death and resurrection. Compare Luke 9:1-6, Matthew 9:35, Matthew 10:7, etc. The initial seed that must be sown in the hearts of men was also identified as the word of the Kingdom by Jesus in Matthew 13:19. Shorthand for the word of the kingdom was given in Mark and Luke's version of the parable of the sower as "the word" (Mark 4:14) and "the word of God" (Luke 8:11).

Jesus often spoke of the Kingdom of God as the theme of his gospel as well as the destination for the righteous in the end of days [17]. Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount shows that those who follow the "beatitudes" are rewarded with the Kingdom of God/inheriting the earth/comfort etc. Matthew 19 gives an account of Jesus equating popular terms such as "eternal life" and "saved" as the same thing as entering the Kingdom of God when it is established upon the earth. Jesus even taught his disciples to pray: "Let Your kingdom come, let Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Some believe this defines the Kingdom as the time when God's will is done on the earth as it is done in heaven. Others contend that the two petitions are separate in the prayer, leaving the Kingdom of God to be more than simply a perfect execution of God's will on earth.

The Kingdom of God as spoken of by Jesus carried with it more than a picture of the wolf and the lamb dwelling together and the end of war (see Isaiah 11:1-9). In fact Jesus used the Kingdom as the reason why men should repent (see Mark 1:14-15). There was a good side as well as a judgment side of this Kingdom that was communicated in many of the parables (ex: tares and wheat of Matthew 13 and the sheep and goats of Matthew 25, etc). Paul and others would continue this theme in their preaching of the same gospel (Acts 17:30-31 - Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to the world that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all people by raising Him from the dead). When they spoke of Jesus coming to judge the living and the dead they were saying the same thing as the Kingdom coming because he was in fact appointed to be the King of the Kingdom.

The coming of God's Kingdom, described as Judgement, is also described in the New Testament, particularly in the book of Revelation, as a military conquest over the opponents of the Kingdom. (See Rev. 20:7-10) Revelations 21 speaks of the Kingdom of God in the new heaven after the establishment of His eternal reign. [18]


[edit] Historical Jesus scholars
Main article: Historical Jesus
The method of historical Jesus scholars essentially aims at investigating the social, religious, political and cultural climate of the early first century in order to place the human figure of Jesus within and around these structures. One of the major areas of conflict among Jesus scholars is the proximity of Jesus’ "Kingdom". Some believe it is wholly manifested in the presence of Jesus’ words and deeds, others believe that it is completely in the future, and some acknowledge the arguments of both these camps and place Jesus’ "Kingdom" somewhere in between being manifested in the present and also more completely manifested in the future.

C. H. Dodd and John Dominic Crossan argued that the “Kingdom” was fully manifest in the present teaching and actions of Jesus. Through his words and deeds the "Kingdom" was brought into the present reality of Palestine. Dodd coined the term "realized eschatology" [19] and largely based his argument on Luke 11:20, and Luke 17:21 claiming that "the kingdom of God has come to you" and “the kingdom of God is within you”. Crossan imagined Jesus as a cynic-like peasant who focused on the sapiential aspects of the "Kingdom" and not on any apocalyptic conceptions [20].

Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann, Norman Perrin and Johannes Weiss argued that Jesus’ "Kingdom" was intended to be a wholly futuristic kingdom. These scholars looked to the apocalyptic traditions of various Jewish groups existing at the time of Jesus as the basis of their study. [21] [22] [23] [24] In this view, Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who would bring about the end times and when he did not see the end of the cosmic order coming Jesus embraced death as a tool in which to provoke God into action.

The most common view of the "Kingdom" in recent scholarship is to embrace the truths of both these parties – present reality and future manifestation. Some scholars who take this view are N.T. Wright and G.R. Beasley-Murray. In their views, the “Kingdom” that Jesus spoke of will be fully realized in the future but it is also in a process of “in-breaking” into the present. This means that Jesus’ deeds and words have an immediate effect on the “Kingdom” even though it was not fully manifested during his life. Even greater attention has been paid to the concept of the “Kingdom of God” by scholars during the current third quest for the historical Jesus (of which N.T. Wright is associated). Another important recent observation on the meaning of the “Kingdom” was made by Rudolph Otto who took a feminist approach to the study of Jesus. He claimed that “it is not Jesus who brings the kingdom; on the contrary; the kingdom brings him with it…”[25]. This approach attempts to take Jesus out of the Jesus movement that followed after his death and resurrection; by doing this the communal aspects of the “Kingdom” become emphasized and not just the focus on Jesus as a man.


[edit] Evangelical scholars
The Gospels describe Jesus as proclaiming the Kingdom as something that was both "at hand" and a future reality (see Mark 1:15). The phrase "inaugurated eschatology" has achieved near consensus among evangelical interpreters as expressing the essence of the present/future tension inherent in the teaching of Jesus regarding the kingdom of God. "Inaugurated eschatology" posits that Jesus Christ, through His incarnation, death, resurrection, and exaltation, has ushered in the messianic age so that the kingdom of God may be understood to be present in an incipient fashion, while at the same time awaiting consummation in the future age following the second coming

The present aspect of the Kingdom refers to the changed state of heart or mind (metanoia) within Christians (see Luke 17:20-21), emphasizing the spiritual nature of His Kingdom by saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within (or among) you." The reported activity of Jesus in healing diseases, driving out demons, teaching a new ethic for living, and offering a new hope in God to the poor, is understood to be a demonstration of that Kingdom in action.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church accepts the doctrine of the Kingdom of God dividing it into two phases. These are, the Kingdom of Grace which was established immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, and the Kingdom of Glory which will be fully established when Christ returns to earth for the second time.


[edit] Further reading
John Bright, "The Kingdom of God" (ISBN 0687209080)
George Eldon Ladd, "The Gospel of the Kingdom" (ISBN 9780802812803)
Arthur Glasser, "Announcing the Kingdom" (ISBN 0801026261)
H.R. Ridderbos "Coming of the Kingdom" (ISBN 0875524087)
Bruce Thomas "The Kingdom of God: How it began and How it will end" (ISBN 1419661698)
Charles Van Engen "The Good News of the Kingdom" (ISBN 1579102786)
Christopher Wright "The Mission of God" (ISBN 9780830825714)

[edit] Catholic interpretations
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches that the coming Reign of God will be a kingdom of love, peace, and justice (CCC 2046). Justice is defined as a virtue whereby one respects the rights of all persons, living in harmony and equity with all (CCC 1807). The Kingdom of God began with Christ's death and Resurrection and must be further extended by Christians until it has been brought into perfection by Christ at the end of time (CCC 782, 2816). The Christian does this by living the way Christ lived, by thinking the way Christ thought (CCC 2046) and by promoting peace and justice (CCC 2820). This can be accomplished by discerning how the Holy Spirit (God) is calling one to act in the concrete circumstances of one's life (CCC 2820). Christians must also pray, asking God for what is necessary to cooperate with the coming of His Kingdom (CCC 2632). Jesus gathered disciples to be the seed and the beginning of God's Reign on earth, and Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide them (CCC 541, 764). Jesus continues to call all people to come together around him (CCC 542) and to spread His Kingdom across the entire world (CCC 863). However, the ultimate triumph of Christ's Kingdom will not come about until Christ's return to earth at the end of time (CCC 671). During Christ's second coming, he will judge the living and the dead. Only those who are judged to be righteous and just will reign with Christ forever (CCC 1042, 1060). Christ's second coming will also mark the absolute defeat of all evil powers, including Satan (CCC 550, 671). Until then, the coming of the Kingdom will continue to be attacked by evil powers as Christians wait with hope for the second coming of their Savior (CCC 671, 680). This is why Christians pray to hasten Christ's return by saying to him "Marana tha!" which means "Come, Lord Jesus!" (CCC 671, 2817).

According to Fr. William Barry, S.J., we can understand the Kingdom of God as God's intention for the universe. God has revealed that His intention for our world is that all humans live as brothers and sisters, as sons and daughters of God (Is 2:2-5, Is 11:6-9, Is 40:4-5, Eph 1:3, 9-10). Our thoughts and actions can either be in tune with God's intention or not. Only by being in tune with God's intention will we ever know true fulfillment or happiness in this life. Prayer, discernment and knowledge of God's revealed Word are needed to discover how one can be in tune with God's intention.[26]

According to Fr. Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., the Kingdom of God primarily refers to the era when Christ comes again to bring the final establishment of God’s rule over all creation, which will include a final judgment where the righteous are rewarded and the wicked are punished. The concept of the Kingdom of God offers the goal for Christian life: those who follow the example and teachings of Jesus will be vindicated when the Kingdom of God comes and will reign with Christ forever.[27]

In Biblical scholar John P. Meier's Mentor, Message, and Miracles (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, v. 2, 1994, pp. 235-506), the 'Message' is the kingdom of God. The book examines that the subject as found in:

the Old Testament and Pseudepigrapha and at Qumran
Jesus' proclamation of a future kingdom
the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus' words and deeds as already present in his ministry (pp. 451-53).
Pope Benedict XVI in his book Jesus of Nazareth, says there are "three dimensions" to the Church Fathers' interpretation of term Kingdom of God. The first, which comes from Origen, is that Jesus is himself the Kingdom in person[28]. The second "sees man's interioriry as the essential location of the Kingdom"[28]. This second dimension also comes from Origen. "The third dimension of the interpretation of the Kingdom of God we could call the ecclesiastical: the Kingdom of God and the Church are related in different ways and brought into more or less close proximity"[28]. That is to say that the Church is the Kingdom of God.


[edit] Eastern Orthodoxy
See also: Theosis, Theoria, and Theophilos
Within the theological tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church the Kingdom of God is the future of all mankind and the created world, in that God will be in direct communion with the cosmos. This communion is that all mankind will experience their existence in the presence of God. God as being the Kingdom of God. God as paradise and punishment.


[edit] Pre-millennial approaches
A number of groups take a political/eschatological approach to the Kingdom of God emphasizing a physical reign of Jesus Christ on earth after the parousia. These groups often place special emphasis on the role of a restored kingdom of Israel.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints considers the church itself as the Kingdom of God on the earth. However, this is limited to a spiritual or ecclesiastical kingdom until the Millennium when Christ will also establish a political Kingdom of God. This will have worldwide political jurisdiction when the Lord has made "a full end of all nations" (Doctrine & Covenants 87: 6). However, Latter-day Saints believe that this theocratic "kingdom" will in fact be quasi-republican in organization, and will be freely chosen by the survivors of the millennial judgments rather than being imposed upon an unwilling populace. See Council of Fifty; Theodemocracy.

Jehovah's Witnesses extend the idea of the Kingdom of God to more than just a state of mind or heart. The belief is that the Kingdom is a government headed by Jesus Christ as King, ruling in heaven since 1914. Jehovah's Witnesses come to the year 1914 by two lines of reasoning: Bible chronology dealing with the end of the Times of the Gentiles[29] and observed world conditions[30]. The miracles and preaching of the Kingdom that Jesus carried out while on earth is a work that gave hope, illustrated the benefits the Kingdom would bring, and urged efforts to gain God's favor. Jehovah's Witnesses try to imitate that preaching work in their door-to-door work by highlighting the Kingdom of God[31]. In fact, the full name of the Watchtower is "The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom." In short, the Kingdom is the means through which God sanctifies His name and vindicates His sovereignty [32] and accomplishes His will through Christ, and restores conditions on earth to those similar in the Garden of Eden. Additional information on the Kingdom in relation to the Last Days and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Christadelphians believe in an end time political kingdom. This viewpoint says that in the last days Christ will return to rescue Israel (the nation), judge all who are responsible to God's judgment, and make an immortal administration for the Kingdom of God re-established on earth. It will be based in Jerusalem, and will provide the faithful of all generations with the land promised to them because they are heirs of the land of the middle East, with Abraham. The Kingdom will grow to rule over all other nations, with Jesus as the King and with his administration (immortal saints) ruling over the nations with him. Those ruled over will firstly be the Jews who are alive then (although mortal) and the survivors of all other nations (also mortal). During that time, lifespans of mortals will be greatly increased, and justice will be carefully maintained. Thus the world will be filled with peace and the knowledge of God.


[edit] Other viewpoints
Leo Tolstoy, a fervent Christian anarchist and pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Gandhi[33] and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Leading feminist theologians, especially Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza emphasize the feminine gender of the word basileia and the feminist nature of the early teachings of Jesus and the important and counter-cultural role and contributions of women in the Jesus sect.[34]

Jesus' use of the phrase "Kingdom of God" is believed by the liberation theologists to have been a deliberate but indirect criticism of the Roman system of domination.

Some scholars (most notably P.D. Ouspensky, in his book A New Model of the Universe, chapter 4) propose that "The Kingdom of Heaven" could actually be an esoteric group, that one should 'seek' within our own society.

Some universalists believe that God will use the Kingdom to bring about the salvation of all mankind. [4]


[edit] Islam
For Muslims, belief in the Kingdom of God may refer to the belief in God's's absolute dominion over all things. Thus, in Islam every place, all creation, may be considered God's Kingdom if those that live there "hold onto good qualities and good actions". [35]

The notion of God's kingdom on Earth, however, constitutes the establishment of and adherence to Allah's laws within human society, in order to maintain a lasting peace and unity within the lives of the devout, at all levels. These include personal, criminal, state and international levels. As such, some Muslim groups hold the view that the Kingdom of God constitutes a caliphate/Imamate, a geographical region unified under the faith of Islam, and Matthew 13:31-33 has been suggested by Islamic scholars to be in fact referring to a caliphate which will be spread across three continents.[citation needed] According to mainstream Islamic beliefs, the Second Coming of Jesus and the arrival of the Mahdi will usher in this ideal caliphate/Imamate, which will put an end to the "tyranny of the Antichrist", and this reign will ensure tranquility and peace for the world.

A third perspective among Muslims is that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual concept entirely, rather than a material one. After the Day of Judgment, when Allah judges all mankind based on their deeds, one either goes to hell or to heaven; the latter being the Eternal Kingdom.[citation needed]


[edit] See also
Apocalypse
Christian eschatology
Christ King
Eschatology
Heaven
The Kingdom of God Is Within You
Queen of Heaven
Sermon on the Mount
Tikkun olam

[edit] References and notes
^ a b Strong’s Greek Dictionary, webpage, retrieved June 24, 2006
^ Another example is the phrase "kingdom of God" which makes it a creation of God instead of the uncreated ruling power of God. What is amazing is that the term "kingdom of God" appears not once in the original Greek of the New Testament. Not knowing that the "rule" or "reign of God" is the correct translation of the Greek "Basileia tou Theou," Vaticanians, Protestants and even many Orthodox today, do not see that the promise of Christ to his apostles in Mt.16:28, Lk. 9:27 and Mk. 9:1, i.e. that they will see God's ruling power, was fulfilled during the Transfiguration which immediately follows in the above three gospels. Here Peter, James and John see Christ as the Lord of Glory i.e. as the source of God's uncreated "glory" and "basileia" i.e. uncreated ruling power, denoted by the uncreated cloud or glory which appeared and covered the three of them during the Lord of Glory's Transfiguration. It was by means of His power of Glory that Christ, as the pre-incarnate Lord (Yahweh) of Glory, had delivered Israel from Its Egyptian slavery and lead It to freedom and the land of promise. The Greek text does not speak about the "Basileion (kingdom) of God," but about the "Basileia (rule or reign) of God," by means of His uncreated glory and power.[1]
^ Kingdom is within: "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within [or among] you." Luke 17:20-21
^ Kingdom approached through understanding: "When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him "You are not far from the kingdom of God." Mark 12:34
^ Kingdom accepted like a child: "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." Mark 10:15
^ Kingdom entered through spiritual rebirth: "no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" John 3:5
^ Kingdom entered through doing the will of God: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
^ Kingdom peopled by the righteous: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?" 1 Corinthians 6:9
^ Other kingdoms: "If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?"Luke 11:18
^ John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, v. 2, 1994, p. 248).
^ John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible, Simon & Schuster, 1995, p 480
^ Dodd, C.H., "The Parables of the Kingdom," (Fontana 1961), p.29. (public domain)
^ Cobb, John and David Tracy, Talking About God: Doing Theology in the Context of Modern Pluralism, Seabury Press, 1983, webpage, retrieved June 24, 2006
^ Chilson, Richard (2001). Yeshua of Nazareth: Spiritual Master. Notre Dame, IN: Sorin Books
^ Kevin Hart, The Experience of the Kingdom of God, webpage, retrieved June 24, 2006
^ "Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Junger." Noch ein Fragment des Wolfenbuttelschen Ungenannten. Herausgegeben von Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Braunschweig, 1778, 276 pp. (The Aims of Jesus and His Disciples A further Instalment of the anonymous Woltenbiittel Fragments. Published by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. Brunswick, 1778.)
^ For references of the Kingdom as gospel, see Mark 1:14, 15; Luke 4:43, 9:2, 6, & 11; 16:16, etc. For evidence of the destination for the righteous see Matthew 7:21, 25:31-34; Luke 13:28-29. Also compare Jesus equating "eternal life," "entering into life," the "kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of God," "being saved," and "eternal life" in Matthew 19:16-30.
^ "What Does the Bible Tell Us about Heaven? , Dr. Ed Young". http://www.christianity.com/11558134/. Retrieved on 2007-11-19.
^ Dodd, C.H., "The Parables of the Kingdom," (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961) (public domain)
^ Crossan, John Dominic, "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant," (Harper, 1991) (public domain)
^ Schweitzer, Albert, "The Quest for the Historical Jesus," (Black, 1910) (public domain)
^ Bultmann, Rudolph, "History and Eschatology: the presence of eternity," (Harper & Row, 1962) (public domain)
^ Perrin, Norman, "The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus," (SCM, 1963) (public domain)
^ Weiss, Johannes, "Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God," (Scholars, 1985) (public domain)
^ Beavis, Mary Ann, "Jesus & Utopia: Looking for the Kingdom of God in the Roman World,” (Fortress Press, 2006) (public domain)
^ Barry, William (1990). Paying Attention to God. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press
^ Harrington, Daniel J., "The Now and Future Kingdom," American Catholic (May 2006), online at http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/JHP/aq0506.asp, accessed August 26, 2006.
^ a b c Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI, chapter 3 pp 49-50 (Bloomsbury 2007). ISBN 978-0-7475-9278-5
^ "What Does the Bible Really Teach" pp. 215-218 '1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy'
^ "Do You Recognize the Sign of Jesus' Presence?" [2]
^ "The Good News They Want You to Hear" [3]
^ ‘The Great Crowd to Live in Heaven? Or on Earth?' "Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom 1984, p. 167.
^ Martin E. Hellman, Resist Not Evil in World Without Violence (Arun Gandhi ed.), M.K. Gandhi Institute, 1994, retrieved on 14 December 2006]
^ [Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, Crossroads, New York, 1992
^ “As long as we hold onto good qualities and good actions, this world will be the hereafter, and our life here will be a life in heaven, a life of grace”. M. R. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, Islam & World Peace: Explanations of a Sufi, The Fellowship Press, 2004, p 34

[edit] External links
Catholic Encyclopedia: Kingdom of God
Jewish Encyclopedia: Kingdom of God
Strong’s Greek Dictionary
Kingdom of Heaven (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The term "Kingdom of Heaven" may refer to: the Kingdom of God
Kingdom of Heaven

Directed by Ridley Scott
Produced by Ridley Scott
Written by William Monahan
Starring Orlando Bloom
Eva Green
Jeremy Irons
David Thewlis
Edward Norton
Marton Csokas
Liam Neeson
Ghassan Massoud
Music by Harry Gregson-Williams
Cinematography John Mathieson
Editing by Dody Dorn
Chisako Yokoyama (director's cut)
Distributed by 20th Century Fox
Scott Free
Release date(s) May 6, 2005
Running time 144 min.
194 min (director's cut).
189 min (Blu-Ray release, omits Overture, Intermission & Entr'acte)
Country UK / Spain / USA / Germany
Language English / Arabic
Budget $130 million
Gross revenue $211,652,051
Official website • IMDb • Allmovie

Kingdom of Heaven is a 2005 epic film, directed by Ridley Scott and written by William Monahan. It stars Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Jeremy Irons, David Thewlis, Marton Csokas, Brendan Gleeson, Alexander Siddig, Ghassan Massoud, Edward Norton, Jon Finch, Michael Sheen and Liam Neeson.

The story is set during the Crusades of the 12th century. A French village blacksmith goes to aid the city of Jerusalem in its defense against the Muslim leader Saladin, who is battling to reclaim the city from the Christians. The film script is a heavily fictionalized portrayal of Balian of Ibelin.

Hamid Dabashi, a professor who specializes in a number of fields including Iranian and Islamic Studies as well as Comparative Literature [1] at Columbia University, was the film's chief academic consultant regarding the Crusades.

Most filming took place in Ouarzazate in Morocco, where Scott had filmed Gladiator and Black Hawk Down. A replica of the ancient city of Jerusalem was constructed in the desert. Filming also took place in Spain, at the Loarre Castle, Segovia, Ávila, Palma del Río and Casa de Pilatos in Sevilla.[2]

Contents
[hide]
1 Plot
2 Production
2.1 Cinematography
3 Cast and characters
3.1 Music
4 Critical response
5 Awards
5.1 Nominations
5.2 Historical accuracy
6 Extended director's cut
7 Notes
8 References
9 External links



[edit] Plot
In a remote village in France, Balian, a blacksmith, is haunted by his wife's recent suicide, following the stillbirth of their child. A group of Crusaders arrive at the small village and one of them approaches Balian, introducing himself as his out-of-wedlock father, Baron Godfrey of Ibelin. Godfrey, having learned of Balian's recent losses, attempts to persuade Balian to join him as they travel to Jerusalem, in the hope he will eventually take his place as Godfrey's heir. Balian quickly refuses, and, after resupplying and resting, the Crusaders ride on. Shortly afterwards, the corrupt town priest (Balian's half-brother) reveals that his wife's body was beheaded before burial (a customary practice in those times for people who committed suicide, to ensure the soul cannot enter heaven) and he has taken the crucifix she wore. Enraged at these insults, Balian slays the priest with the sword he is working on and takes the crucifix necklace his dead wife once wore. Balian quickly decides to follow his father after all, in the hope of gaining redemption and forgiveness for both his wife and himself. Shortly after he catches up to his father, soldiers from the village arrive to arrest Balian. Godfrey refuses to hand him over and, though they win the ensuing fight, most of Godfrey's band are killed. Godfrey himself is wounded by an arrow and, though he is not killed outright, it becomes clear as their journey continues that he will soon die.

In Messina, Godfrey, on the brink of death, knights Balian and orders him to serve the King of Jerusalem and protect the helpless. He ultimately shares with him his vision of "a kingdom of conscience, morality, and righteousness in the Holy Land", where Muslims and Christians can peacefully coexist, before finally succumbing to his injuries. On Balian's subsequent journey to Jerusalem, his ship is hit by a storm, leaving Balian as the sole survivor of the wreck, though a horse also survives but runs away as Balian tries to mount it. Tracking the horse into the desert, Balian soon finds himself confronting a Muslim cavalier, and his servant, over possession of the horse. Balian slays the horseman in single combat, but spares the servant, asking him to guide him to Jerusalem. Upon their arrival in Jerusalem, Balian releases his prisoner who then tells him the name of his slain master, and Balian says that he will pray for his soul. As his prisoner departs, he says that, "Your qualities will be known among your enemies before ever you meet them". Balian goes to Golgotha,where Christ was crucified and buries his wife's necklace. After being accepted as the new Lord of Ibelin, Balian soon becomes acquainted with the main players in Jerusalem's political arena: King Baldwin IV, stricken by leprosy yet nevertheless a wise and most sensible ruler, Tiberias, the noble but cynical commander of the Hospitalliers, Princess Sibylla, King Baldwin IV's sister, and Guy de Lusignan, Sibylla's scheming, bloodthirsty, and intolerant husband. Despite the respect Baldwin engenders from the combined Christian and Muslim population of Jerusalem, Guy, who is determined to rule after Baldwin's inevitable early death, seeks to precipitate a war that will allow him to dispose of the Muslims and claim the Kingdom for Christians alone. He is also threatened by Balian, who he sees as a rival and who, unbeknowst to Guy, has an affair with Sybilla.

Guy and his co-conspirator Raynald of Châtillon massacre a Muslim trade caravan. Saladin, leader of the Muslim forces seeking to retake Jerusalem, attacks Kerak, Raynald's castle, to bring him to account for his crime. Balian decides to defend Kerak castle from Saladin's cavalry, in order to protect the innocent villagers surrounding the castle. Though outnumbered, Balian and his knights charge Saladin's cavalry, allowing the villagers time to flee to the castle; Balian's cavalry is soon routed resulting in the capture of he and his men. In captivity, Balian encounters the 'servant' he freed, Imad ad-Din, learning he is actually one of Saladin's Generals, who then returns the favor, freeing Balian to Kerak. King Baldwin IV then arrives with his main army, successfully negotiates a Muslim retreat with Saladin and averts a potential bloodbath. At Saladin's camp, several of his Generals are angry that he made a truce, but Saladin dismisses these complaints as a foolhardy rush to war; he will only launch an attack against Jerusalem after ample preparation, when he feels he is strategically strong enough. Baldwin beats Raynald and orders his arrest, but the stress of the events causes him to collapse, and his physicians discover he will die shortly.



Balian (Orlando Bloom) at the Battle of Kerak
Baldwin attempts to pair Balian to Sibylla, knowing that the pair have affection for each other, but Balian does not accept as he refuses to be associated with the necessary murder of Guy; such political intrigue being counter to Balian's morality. After Baldwin finally dies, Sibylla succeeds her brother and therefore names Guy as her King Consort of Jerusalem. Guy, now free to do as he pleases, releases Raynald, unsuccessfully tries to have Balian killed by several of the Knights Templar and has Raynald provoke Saladin to war by murdering Saladin's sister. When Saladin sends an emissary to demand the return of his sister's body, the heads of those responsible, and the surrender of Jerusalem. Guy answers by cutting the emissary's throat, nearly causing a fight between Tiberias' knights the Knights Hospitaler against the Knights Templar. As the emissary's body is towed away, Guy whispers arrogantly "I am Jerusalem." Subsequently, in their arrogance, they march to the desert without adequate food and water to fight Saladin, leaving Jerusalem unguarded except for Balian, his personal knights and the townspeople. Saladin's army ambushes Guy and Raynald (the Battle of Hattin) and the Crusader army is annihilated. Guy and Raynald themselves are captured; Saladin has Raynald executed, and then marches on Jerusalem. Balian prepares the defences, challenging the Patriarch's advice to flee, and then makes a symbolic gesture by knighting a number of men-at-arms to raise morale. Balian insists that their goal is to defend Jerusalem's population, not the city itself. Knowing full well they cannot defeat the Saracens, the defenders' only hope is to delay their enemies long enough for them to negotiate.



Saladin's forces besiege the walls of Jerusalem
Saladin's siege of Jerusalem is three days of battle wherein Balian demonstrates tactical skill in knocking down siege towers, before inspiring the defenders to hold the line when a section of city wall is opened. Having proven their resolve, Saladin offers terms: Balian surrenders Jerusalem to Saladin when Saladin offers the inhabitants' safe passage to Christian lands. Balian points out that when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem a hundred years previously, they massacred the Muslim inhabitants, but Saladin assures him that he is a man of honor, and, keeping his word, allows Balian and his people to leave. In the marching column of citizens, he finds Sibylla, and convinces her to come with him.

Later, Balian is back in his French village. A column of crusader knights rides through, led by King Richard I of England, who tells Balian that they are commencing a new Crusade to retake Jerusalem from Saladin. King Richard seeks Balian, the defender of Jerusalem, to join him, but Balian answers that he is only a blacksmith.

After visiting the grave of Balian's first wife, he and Sibylla ride into the sunset. An explanation is given that King Richard failed in his Crusade, negotiated a shaky truce with Saladin after three years of war, and that "nearly a thousand years later, peace in the Kingdom of Heaven remains elusive."


[edit] Production

[edit] Cinematography


A sweeping, surreal landscape in Kingdom of Heaven characteristic of Ridley Scott's cinematographic style
The visual style of Kingdom of Heaven emphasizes set design and impressive cinematography in almost every scene. It is notable for its "visually stunning cinematography and haunting music".[3]

Cinematographer John Mathieson created many large, sweeping landscapes,[4] where the cinematography, supporting performances, and battle sequences are meticulously mounted.[5] The cinematography and scenes of set-pieces have been described as "ballets of light and color" (as in films by Akira Kurosawa).[6] Director Ridley Scott's visual acumen was described as the main draw of Kingdom of Heaven with the stellar, stunning cinematography and "jaw-dropping combat sequences" based on the production design of Arthur Max.[7][8]


[edit] Cast and characters
Many of the characters in the movie are fictionalized versions of historical figures:

Orlando Bloom as Balian of Ibelin
Eva Green as Princess Sibylla
Jeremy Irons as (Raymond, Count of) Tiberias
Marton Csokas as Guy of Lusignan
Brendan Gleeson as Raynald of Chatillon
Edward Norton as King Baldwin of Jerusalem
David Thewlis as Hospitaller
Liam Neeson as Godfrey of Ibelin, Balian's father (the actual father of Balian of Ibelin was not named Godfrey but Barisan)
Ghassan Massoud as Saladin
Alexander Siddig as Imad ad-Din
Jon Finch as the Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem (Heraclius, though unnamed in the film)
Iain Glen as King Richard of England
Jouko Ahola as Odo

[edit] Music
Main article: Kingdom of Heaven (soundtrack)
The music to the movie is quite different in style and content to the soundtrack of Ridley Scott's earlier 2000 film Gladiator and many other subsequent films depicting historical events. A composition of classical listings, rousing chorales, juxtaposing Muslim sacred chants, and subtle implementation of contemporary rock/pop influences, the soundtrack is largely the result of British film-score composer Harry Gregson-Williams. Gregson-Williams chose to move away from the "battle waltz" and the "wailing woman" that had been introduced by Hans Zimmer in Gladiator and would then find excessive use in more and more other movies, such as Alexander, The Passion of the Christ, 300, The Last Samurai, Lord of the Rings and Troy. During the climactic final battle scene, a piece of Jerry Goldsmith's "Valhalla" theme from The 13th Warrior is used.


[edit] Critical response


Edward Norton received acclaim for his portrayal of King Baldwin IV
Upon its release, the film was met with mixed opinions. Critics such as Roger Ebert, however, found the film's message to be deeper than Scott's previous Gladiator.[9]

Several actors/actresses were praised for their performances. The unanimously praised performance was that of actor Edward Norton, who played the leper king of Jerusalem, Baldwin IV. Critics have described his acting as near "phenomenal", "eerie", and "so far removed from anything that he has ever done that we see the true complexities of his talent".[10] The Syrian actor Ghassan Massoud was also praised for his portrayal of Saladin, described by The New York Times as "cool as a tall glass of water".[11] Also commended were Eva Green, who plays Princess Sibylla, "with a measure of cool that defies her surroundings",[4] and Jeremy Irons.[12]

However, lead actor Orlando Bloom's performance generally elicited a lukewarm reception from American critics, with the Boston Globe stating Bloom was "not actively bad as Balian of Ibelin", but nevertheless "seems like a man holding the fort for a genuine star who never arrives".[13] Although the medieval character of Balian of Ibelin is not well known to U.S. culture, many critics had strong notions of how Balian should be acted, as an "epic hero" with a strong presence. One critic conceded that Balian was more of a "brave and principled thinker-warrior"[4] rather than a large, strong commander, and Balian used brains-over-brawn to gain advantage in battle.

Bloom had gained 20 pounds for the part,[4] and the Extended Director's Cut (detailed below) of Kingdom of Heaven reveals even more complex facets of Bloom's role, involving connections with unknown relatives. Despite the criticism, Bloom won two awards for his performance.

Online, general criticism has been also divided, but leaning towards the positive. As of early 2006, the Yahoo! Movies rating for Kingdom of Heaven was a "B" from the critics (based on 15 Reviews). This rating equates to "good" according to Yahoo! Movie's rating system. On Rotten Tomatoes, only 39 percent of critics gave the film a positive review; however, the aggregate review site Metacritic scored the movie as a 63, which means the film received "generally favorable reviews" according to the website's weighted average system.

Academic criticism has focused on the supposed peaceful relationship between Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem and other cities depicted. Crusader historians such as Jonathan Riley-Smith, quoted by The Daily Telegraph, called the film "dangerous to Arab relations", claiming the movie was Osama bin Laden's version of the Crusades and would "fuel the Islamic fundamentalists". Riley-Smith further commented against the historical accuracy stating "nonsense like this will only reinforce existing myths," arguing that the film "relied on the romanticized view of the Crusades propagated by Sir Walter Scott in his book The Talisman, published in 1825 and now discredited by academics."[14][15][16] Fellow Crusade historian Jonathan Phillips also spoke against the film. Paul Halsall defended Scott, claiming that "historians can't criticize filmmakers for having to make the decisions they have to make... [Scott is] not writing a history textbook".[17]

Thomas F. Madden, Director of Saint Louis University's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, commented against the film's presentation of the Crusades:

Given events in the modern world it is lamentable that there is so large a gulf between what professional historians know about the Crusades and what the general population believes. This movie only widens that gulf. The shame of it is that dozens of distinguished historians across the globe would have been only too happy to help Scott and Monahan get it right."[18]

Scott himself defended this depiction of the Muslim-Christian relationship in footage on the DVD version of the movie's extra features. Scott sees this portrayal as being a contemporary look at the history. He argued that peace and brutality are concepts relative to one's own experience, and since our society today is so far removed from the brutal times in which the movie takes place, he told the story in a way that he felt was true to the source material yet was more accessible to a modern audience. In other words, the "peace" that existed was exaggerated to fit our ideas of what such a peace would be. At the time, it was merely a lull in Muslim-Christian violence compared to the standards of the period. The recurring use of "Assalamu Alaikum", the traditional Arabic greeting meaning "Peace be with you", is spoken both in Arabic and English several times.

The "Director's Cut" of the film is a four-disc set, two of which are dedicated to a feature-length documentary called "The Path to Redemption." This feature contains an additional featurette on historical accuracy called "Creative Accuracy: The Scholars Speak", where a number of academics support the film's contemporary relevance and historical accuracy. Among these historians is Dr. Nancy Caciola, who said that despite the various inaccuracies and fictionalized/dramatized details considered the film a "responsible depiction of the period."[citation needed]

Screenwriter William Monahan, who is a long-term enthusiast of the period, has said "If it isn't in, it doesn't mean we didn't know it... What you use, in drama, is what plays. Shakespeare did the same."[19]

Caciola agreed with the fictionalization of characters on the grounds that "crafting a character who is someone the audience can identify with" is necessary in a film. She said that "I, as a professional, have spent much time with medieval people, so to speak, in the texts that I read; and quite honestly there are very few of them that if I met in the flesh I feel that I would be very fond of." This appears to echo the sentiments of Scott himself. However, the DVD does not feature historians expressing more negative reactions.

The historical content and the religious and political messages present have received praise and condemnation, sentiments and perceptions. John Harlow of the Times Online wrote that Christianity is portrayed in an unfavorable light and the value of Christian belief is diminished, especially in the portrayal of Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem.[20] In several screenings in Beirut, Robert Fisk reported that Muslim audiences rose to their feet and applauded wildly during a scene in the film in which Saladin respectfully places a fallen cross back on top of a table after it had fallen during the three-day siege of the city.[21]

The movie was a box office flop in the U.S. and Canada, earning $47 million against a budget of around $130 million, but was successful in Europe and the rest of the world, with the worldwide box office earnings totaling at $211,643,158.[22] It was also a big success in Arabic-speaking countries, especially Egypt, mainly because of the Egyptian actor Khaled El Nabawy. Scott insinuated that the U.S. disaster of the film was the result of bad advertising, which presented the film as an adventure with a love story rather than as an examination of religious conflict.[23] It's also been noted that the film was altered from its original version to be shorter and follow a simpler plot line. This "less sophisticated" version is what hit theaters, although Scott and some of his crew felt it was watered down, explaining that by editing, "You've gone in there and taken little bits from everything".[24]

As a final note, like some other Scott films, Kingdom of Heaven found success on DVD in the U.S., and the release of the Director's Cut has reinvigorated interest in the film. Nearly all reviews of the 2006 Director's Cut have been positive[citation needed], including a four-star review in Britain's Total Film magazine (five star being the publication's highest rating).


[edit] Awards
European Film Awards:

Audience Award - Best Actor (Orlando Bloom)
Satellite Awards:

Outstanding Original Score (Harry Gregson-Williams)
VES Awards:

Outstanding Supporting Visual Effects in a Motion Picture (Wes Sewell, Victoria Alonso, Tom Wood, Gary Brozenich)

[edit] Nominations
Satellite Awards:

Outstanding Actor in a Supporting Role, Drama (Edward Norton)
Outstanding Art Direction & Production Design (Arthur Max)
Outstanding Costume Design (Janty Yates)
Outstanding Visual Effects (Tom Wood)
Teen Choice Awards:

Choice Movie: Action/Adventure
Choice Movie Actor: Action/Adventure/Thriller (Orlando Bloom)
Choice Movie Liplock (Eva Green and Orlando Bloom)
Choice Movie Love Scene (Eva Green and Orlando Bloom - Balian and Sibylla kiss)

[edit] Historical accuracy
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008)

King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, who reigned from 1174 to 1185, was a leper, and his sister Sibylla did marry Guy of Lusignan. Also, Baldwin IV had a falling out with Guy before his death, and so Guy did not succeed Baldwin IV immediately. Baldwin crowned Sibylla's son from her previous marriage to William of Montferrat, five-year-old Baldwin V co-king in his own lifetime, in 1183.[25] The little boy reigned as sole king for one year, dying in 1186 at nine years of age. After her son's death, Sibylla and Guy (to whom she was devoted) garrisoned the city, and she claimed the throne. The coronation scene in the movie was, in real life, more of a shock: Sibylla had been forced to promise to divorce Guy before becoming queen, with the assurance that she would be permitted to pick her own consort. After being crowned by Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem (who is unnamed in the movie), she chose to crown Guy as her consort. Raymond III of Tripoli, the film's Tiberias, was not present, but was in Nablus attempting a coup, with Balian of Ibelin, to raise her half-sister (Balian's stepdaughter), princess Isabella of Jerusalem, to the throne; however, Isabella's husband, Humphrey IV of Toron, betrayed them by swearing allegiance to Guy.

Raymond of Tripoli was a cousin of Amalric I of Jerusalem, and one of the Kingdom's most powerful nobles, as well as sometime regent. He had a claim to the throne himself, but, being childless, instead tried to advance his allies the Ibelin family. He was often in conflict with Guy and Raynald, who had risen to their positions by marrying wealthy heiresses and through the king's favor. Guy and Raynald did harass Saladin's caravans, and the claim that Raynald captured Saladin's sister is based on the account given in the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre. This claim is not supported by any other accounts, and is generally believed to be false. In actuality, after Raynald's attack on one caravan, Saladin made sure that the next one, in which his sister was traveling, was properly guarded: the lady came to no harm.[26]

The discord between the rival factions in the kingdom gave Saladin the opportunity to pursue his long-term goal of conquering it. The kingdom's army was defeated at the Battle of Hattin, partly due to the conflict between Guy and Raymond. As already stated, the battle itself is not shown in the movie, but its aftermath is depicted. The Muslims captured Guy and Raynald, and according to al-Safadi in al-Wafi bi'l-wafayat, executed Raynald after he drank from the goblet offered to Guy, as the sultan had once made a promise never to give anything to Raynald. Guy was imprisoned, but later freed. He attempted to retain the kingship even after the deaths of Sibylla and their daughters during his siege of Acre in 1190, but lost in an election to Conrad of Montferrat in 1192. Richard I of England, his only supporter, sold him the lordship of Cyprus, where he died c. 1194.

There was a Haute Cour, a "high court", a sort of medieval parliament, in which Jeremy Irons' character Tiberias is seen arguing with Guy for or against war, in front of Baldwin IV as the final judge.

The movie alludes to the Battle of Montgisard in 1177, in which 16-year-old Baldwin IV defeated Saladin, with Saladin narrowly escaping.

The Knights Hospitaller and Knights Templar were the most enthusiastic about fighting Saladin and the Muslims. They were monastic military orders, committed to celibacy. Neither Guy nor Raynald was a Templar, as the movie implies by costuming them both in Templar surcoats: they were secular nobles with wives and families, simply supported by the Templars.

During one scene in the movie, shortly before Hattin, three soldiers referred to as "Templars" attack Balian; however, they clearly wear the white surcoats with black crosses of Teutonic Knights, rather than the white and red of the Knights Templar.

The historical origin of Orlando Bloom's character, Balian of Ibelin, was a close ally of Raymond; however, he was a mature gentleman, just a year or two younger than Raymond, and one of the most important nobles in the kingdom, not a French blacksmith. His father Barisan (which was originally his own name, modified into French as 'Balian') founded the Ibelin family in the east, and probably came from Italy. Balian and Sibylla were indeed united in the defense of Jerusalem; however, no romantic relationship existed between the two. Balian married Sibylla's stepmother Maria Comnena, Dowager Queen of Jerusalem and Lady of Nablus. The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre (the so-called Chronicle of Ernoul) claimed that Sibylla had been infatuated with Balian's older brother Baldwin of Ibelin, a widower over twice her age, but this is doubtful; instead, it seems that Raymond of Tripoli attempted a coup to marry her off to him to strengthen the position of his faction; however, this legend seems to have been behind the film's creation of a love-relationship between Sibylla and a member of the Ibelin family.[26]



William of Tyre discovers Baldwin IV's leprosy; his accounts form the historical basis for much of the film
The events of the siege of Jerusalem are based on the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre, a favorable account partly written by Ernoul, one of Balian's officers, and other contemporary documents. Saladin did besiege Jerusalem for almost a month, and was able to knock down a portion of the wall. In the film Balian knighted everyone who could carry a sword, but historical accounts say he only knighted some burgesses. The exact number varies in different accounts, but it is probably less than one hundred in a city which had tens of thousands of male inhabitants and refugees. Balian personally negotiated the surrender of the city with Saladin, after threatening to destroy every building and kill the 3000-5000 Muslim inhabitants of the city. Saladin allowed Balian and his family to leave in peace, along with everyone else who could arrange to pay a ransom. The rest were sold into slavery. Furthermore the members of military orders, such as the Templars, were all executed in brutal manner. Saladin had them all killed by Muslim Sufi mystics that had little experience in killing and therefore made the process more slow and painful.

The "uneasy truce" referred to in the closing scene actually refers to the Treaty of Ramla, negotiated, with Balian's help, at the end of the Third Crusade. The Third Crusade is alluded to at the end of the movie, when Richard I of England visits Balian in France. Balian, of course, was not from France and did not return there with Sibylla; she and her two daughters died of fever in camp during the siege of Acre. Conrad of Montferrat had denied her and Guy entry to the remaining stronghold of Tyre, and thus Guy was attempting to take another city for himself.

Balian's relations with Richard were far from amicable, because he supported Conrad against Richard's vassal Guy. He and his wife Maria arranged her daughter Isabella's forcible divorce from Humphrey of Toron so she could marry Conrad. Ambroise, who wrote a poetic account of the crusade, called Balian "more false than a goblin" and said he "should be hunted with dogs". The anonymous author of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi wrote that Balian was a member of a "council of consummate iniquity", and described him as cruel, fickle, and faithless, and accused him of taking bribes from Conrad.

The young Balian of the movie thus did not exist in reality. The historical Balian had descendants by Maria Comnena. Thanks to their close relationship to Sibylla's half-sister and successor, Maria's daughter Queen Isabella (not shown in the movie), the Ibelins became the most powerful noble family in the rump Kingdom of Jerusalem as well as in Cyprus in the thirteenth century. Most notably, Maria and Balian's son John, the Lord of Beirut, was a dominant force in the politics of Outremer for the first third of the thirteenth century.

An episode of The History Channel's series History vs. Hollywood analyzed the historical accuracy of the film. This program and a Movie Real (a series by A&E Network) episode about Kingdom of Heaven were both included on the DVD version of the movie.

Near the end of the film and after Saladin has entered the city; he is seen watching as a crescent ornament is being raised on top of a building presumably a mosque. This is historically incorrect as at that time mosques did not bear any kind of symbols on the minarets. The crescent was introduced many centuries later when the Turkish Ottoman empire invaded eastern Europe and adopted the crescent as an Islamic symbol from traditional Greek symbols which was widely used in the city of Byzantium.


[edit] Extended director's cut


Sibylla of Jerusalem (Eva Green) has a much more significant role in the director's cut.
An extended director's cut of the movie was released on December 23, 2005, at the Laemmle Fairfax Theatre in Los Angeles, unsupported by advertising from 20th Century Fox. This version is what Ridley Scott originally wanted released to theaters, and is approximately 45 minutes longer than the original theatrical cut. The DVD of the extended Director's Cut was released on May 23, 2006. It is a four-disc box set with a runtime of 194 minutes, and is shown as a road show presentation with an overture, intermission and entr'acte. (The Blu Ray version omits the roadshow elements and runs for 189 minutes). Ridley Scott gave an interview[27] to STV on the occasion of the Director's Cut's UK release, when he discussed the motives and thinking behind the new version.

After the pitching of this film, studio marketing executives took it to be an action-adventure hybrid rather than what Ridley Scott and William Monahan intended it to be: a historical epic examining religious conflict. 20th Century Fox promoted the film as an action movie with heavy elements of romance, and in their advertising campaign, they made much of the "From the Director of Gladiator" slogan. When Scott presented the 194 minute version of the film to the studio, they balked at the length. Studio head Tom Rothman ordered the film to be trimmed down to only two hours, as he did not believe that a modern audience would go to see a three hour and fifteen minute movie. Ultimately, Rothman's decision backfired as the film gained mixed reviews (with many commenting that the film seemed "incomplete") and severely under-performed at the US box office.

The Director's Cut (DC) has received a distinctly more positive reception from film critics than the theatrical release, with many reviews suggesting that it offers a much greater insight into the motivations of individual characters. Scott and his crew have all stated that they consider the Director's Cut to be the true version of the film and the theatrical cut more of an action movie trailer for the real film. Reviewers have described it as the most substantial Director's Cut of all time[28] and a title to equal any of Scott's other works[29]

It should be noted that Alexander Siddig in particular agitated for the release of a new cut to show more of the original plot.

The new director's cut provides information that may change how some interpret several characters and the story arc:

The village priest who taunts Balian and is killed by him is revealed to be his half-brother (his mother's son by her lawful husband). The animosity between them is shown as originating from the priest's coveting of the firstborn Balian's meager inheritance.
Godfrey is not only the father of Balian but the younger brother of the village lord who believes that Godfrey is looking for his own son to be Godfrey's heir in Ibelin. It is this lord's son and heir who organizes the attack on Godfrey's party in the forest and is subsequently killed.
Both subplots above hinge on the firstborn son's right to exclusive inheritance: this is what apparently drove Godfrey to the Holy Land and the priest to his scheming against Balian.
Baldwin IV is shown refusing the last sacrament from Patriarch Heraclius.
Another major change is the re-insertion of the character of Baldwin V (who was shown in some of the trailers), the son of Sibylla by her first husband (William of Montferrat, not named in the film). The boy is crowned King after Baldwin IV's death, but is then discovered to have leprosy, like his uncle. His death is depicted as an act of euthanasia by his mother, dropping poison in his ear. Only then is Sibylla crowned queen and has Guy crowned, as in the theatrical version.
Balian fights a climactic duel with Guy near the end of the film, after Jerusalem is surrendered and Guy has been released by Saladin (an act intended to humiliate Guy in the eyes of his former subjects). Guy is humiliated furthermore by challenging Balian to a duel, being defeated, and then spared by Balian.
More violence, blood and gore are re-inserted.
A scene with Balian discussing his situation with the Hospitaller in the desert, which included the line "I go to pray" (featured in most trailers) is re-inserted.
It is made clear that Guy de Lusignan knows that Sibylla is having an affair with Balian. However, he is interested in her only for political reasons.
It is revealed that Balian has fought in several battles in the past, is skilled at strategic fighting and is well known for building siege engines.
Saladin decapitates Raynald de Chatillon instead of only cutting his throat; this is generally believed to be more historically accurate.
Sibylla is portrayed much more as a corrupt princess and unpredictable as she herself stated.

[edit] Notes
^ Hamid Dabashi - Teaching
^ Cinemareview.com "Kingdom of Heaven- Production Notes" web: http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=2960
^ Richard J. Radcliff, "Movie Review: Kingdom of Heaven" May 29, 2005, BlogCritics.org, web: BlogCritics-KoH: noted "visually and sonically beautiful; visually stunning cinematography and haunting music."
^ a b c d Stephanie Zacharek, "Kingdom of Heaven - Salon" (review), May 6, 2005, Salon.com, web: Salon-KoH: noted "Cinematographer John Mathieson gives us lots of great, sweeping landscapes."
^ Carrie Rickey, "Epic 'Kingdom' has a weak link" (review), Philadelphia Inquirer, May 6, 2005, web: Philly-KoH: noted "cinematography, supporting performances and battle sequences are so meticulously mounted."
^ Uncut, Review of Kingdom of Heaven, Uncut, 2005-07-01, page 129, web: BuyCom-Uncut: noted "Where Scott scores is in the cinematography and set-pieces, with vast armies surging across sun-baked sand in almost Kurosawa-like ballets of light and color."
^ Nix, "Kingdom of Heaven (2005)" (review), BeyondHollywood.com, web: BeyondHwood-KoH: noted "Scott's visual acumen is the main draw of Kingdom of Heaven" and "stunning cinematography and jaw-dropping combat sequences" or "stellar cinematography."
^ Roger Ebert, "Kingdom of Heaven" (review), Chicago Sun Times, SunTimes.com, May 5, 2005, webpage: Ebert-KoH: Ebert noted "What's more interesting is Ridley Scott's visual style, assisted by John Mathieson's cinematography and the production design of Arthur Max. A vast set of ancient Jerusalem was constructed to provide realistic foregrounds and locations, which were then enhanced by CGI backgrounds, additional horses and troops, and so on."
^ Roger Ebert, "Kingdom of Heaven" reviews for the Chicago Sun Times
^ Jack Moore, Kingdom of Heaven: Director's Cut DVD Review
^ Manolha Dargis, New York Times review of Kingdom of Heaven
^ James Berardinelli, http://www.reelviews.net/movies/k/kingdom_heaven.html
^ Ty Burr, "Kingdom of Heaven Movie Review: Historically and heroically challenged 'Kingdom' fails to conquer"
^ Charlotte Edwardes, " Ridley Scott's new Crusades film 'panders to Osama bin Laden'" The Daily Telegraph January 17, 2004
^ Truth is the First Victim- Jonathan Riley-Smith
^ Kingdom of Heaven info page
^ CNN "Kingdom of Heaven" Transcript web: CNN.com
^ Thomas F. Madden on Kingdom of Heaven on National Review Online
^ Bob Thompson (2005-05-01). "Hollywood on Crusade: With His Historical Epic, Ridley Scott Hurtles Into Vexing, Volatile Territory". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042900744.html. Retrieved on 2007-01-08.
^ John Harlow, "Christian right goes to war with Ridley’s crusaders" web:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article384742.ece
^ Robert Fisk, "Kingdom of Heaven:Why Ridley Scott's Story Of The Crusades Struck Such A Chord In A Lebanese Cinema" web: Zmag.org
^ "Kingdom of Heaven- Box Office Data, Movie News, Cast Information" web: The-Numbers.com
^ Hicelebs.com: "Kingdom of Heaven Trivia" web:http://www.hicelebs.com/movies/kingdom_of_heaven/trivia.html
^ Garth Franklin, "Interview: Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven" web: DarkHorizons.com
^ Depicted in the director's cut.
^ a b "Making the Crusades Relevant in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN" by Cathy Schultz
^ Ridley Scott interview
^ Kingdom of Heaven: 4-Disc Director's Cut DVD Review
^ Berardinelli, James. "Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut Review". http://reelviews.net/movies/k/kingdom_heaven_directors.html.

[edit] References
Scott, Ridley (2005). Kingdom of Heaven: The Making of the Ridley Scott Epic. New York: Newmarket Press. ISBN 1-55704-661-1.
Hamilton, Bernard (2005). The Leper King and his Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-01747-5. http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521017475. Retrieved on 2006-07-08.
Runciman, Steven (1987). A History of the Crusades (Vol 2) The Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 403–469. ISBN 0-521-34771-8. http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521347718. Retrieved on 2006-07-08.

[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Kingdom of Heaven

Official site
Director's Cut Official Site
Kingdom of Heaven at the Internet Movie Database
Kingdom of Heaven at Rotten Tomatoes
Kingdom of Heaven at Box Office Mojo
Kingdom of Heaven (2005) at Yahoo! Movies
Kingdom of Heaven at Crusades-Enyclopedia
Interview with Historians at Christianity Today
Daily Telegraph article (reprinted by the Washington Times), with criticism from Riley-Smith and others



Preceded by
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Box office number-one films of 2005 (USA)
May 8, 2005 Succeeded by
Monster-in-Law
Preceded by
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Box office number-one films of 2005 (UK)
May 8, 2005 – May 15, 2005 Succeeded by
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
[hide] v • d • eFilms directed by Ridley Scott

1970s The Duellists (1977) · Alien (1979)

1980s Blade Runner (1982) · Legend (1985) · Someone to Watch Over Me (1987) · Black Rain (1989)

1990s Thelma & Louise (1991) · 1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992) · White Squall (1995) · G.I. Jane (1997)

2000s Gladiator (2000) · Hannibal (2001) · Black Hawk Down (2001) · Matchstick Men (2003) · Kingdom of Heaven (2005) · A Good Year (2006) · American Gangster (2007) · Body of Lies (2008)

See also: 1984 (television commercial) (1984), Boy and Bicycle (1965)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Heaven_(film)"
Categories: 2005 films | Crusades | 2000s drama films | Epic films | War drama films | Films directed by Ridley Scott | Films set in the Middle Ages | Films about religion
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since January 2008 | Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 | Articles needing additional references from February 2008


Stephen Lendman is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Stephen Lendman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.


Your endorsement is greatly appreciated


Subscribe to the Global Research E-Newsletter

Spread the word! Forward to a friend!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2009

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12223
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12223

Is Zionism the New N-word?

by Doug Rogers Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com
I was leaving a comment on an OpEd News article the other day and an odd message came up when I tried to submit it. The message asked me to think twice about my use of the word Zionism. In very friendly terms it informed me that the use of the word Zionism can be hurtful, offensive and hateful and asked me to please consider using another word.

I write this article because I think that this nuanced language policy should have the widest possible review. Among the many evils in the world high on the list should rank the way that words are manipulated and controlled. I don’t want to suggest that I definitively know which words should be used and how, but I certainly have a strong reaction when I am asked to curtail the use of what until now has been a perfectly acceptable word.

Zionism has a simple and straightforward dictionary definition: n. movement establishing and developing Jewish state: a worldwide movement, originating in the 19th century, that sought to establish and develop a Jewish nation in Palestine. Since 1948 its function has been to support the state of Israel.

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


Does this definition leave it open to being used as a smear or epithet? Something like “liberal” became a nasty name to pin on anyone who wasn’t a Republican? I don’t doubt that many people are using it with venom these days. But the list of innocuous words that could conceivably be hurled as insults is endless. Think of “macaca”. Are we really prepared to put little warning labels, like the ones that remind you not to put your hand in the car door when it’s closing, on every possibly offending missive?

The obvious precedent is the one referred to in my title. I don’t like to offend people, so I don’t use the n-word. I could rebel at this absolutism if I wanted. But that word has no other meaning but as a hurtful derogatory phrase.

And what makes it hurtful in our culture? Surely the fact that African-Americans have been an oppressed minority in this country. It’s just not funny or appropriate to sling insults at the beseiged underdog. The word “honkey” never became the h-word precisely because white people are the oppressive majority. Whether or not it’s funny and appropriate to insult them, honkey has certainly never been terribly hurtful.

Jews have also been an oppressed minority in the world community. But as the current mideast situation demonstrates they also have it in their power to be the oppressors. Are the underdog Palestinians protected from possibly hurtful phrases? I couldn’t find one that elicited the automatic message system. Terrorist, Palestinian terrorist, Arab militant, towelhead, camel jockey, macaca, donkey all passed through unexamined.

Perhaps no one is insulting Palestinians on OpEd’s pages. Certainly in the wider media they are. Even “anti-semite” passes the hurtful test and I know that that one has been liberally thrown about.

OpEd has to be applauded for trying to maintain a civil discourse on their pages. That’s really one of the things that set it apart from many other sites. But the word Zionism has a very specific uncontroversial meaning. One that is descriptive and not derogatory. In fact its use facilitates highlighting the difference between opposing the actions of the state of Israel and opposing Jewish people. The first position is well justified and the second is not.

Understanding the meaning of words is important to all discourse. But flagging a correctly used word just because it could possibly be used incorrectly seems unjustified to me. Even though the automated message allows me to ignore it and post my comment as I see fit, the imposition of an editorial stigma reeks of language manipulation and subtle intimidation. The editors must protect the freedom of speech on this site but so must its readers and writers.


For the sake of full disclosure, my comment that elicited the automatic message: “I also put myself in the shoes of European Jews who after centuries of persecution and no safe haven felt their only hope for their people was in Zionism.”

The full article and exchange: http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-left-side-of-the-Middl-by-Barry-Werner-090201-803.html



DARWISH, Mahmoud -- Writer

Described as the Arab world's poet laureate, Mahmoud Darwish passed away in Houston, Texas on 9 August 2008 at the age of 67. His life and words reflect the experience of a generation of Palestinians, and upon his death, observers noted that his words will preserve the spirit of resistance that Israel failed to destroy as it wreaked destruction wherever Darwish and his people went.

Darwish's birthplace, al-Birweh village near Acre, was destroyed by invading Israeli forces during the Nakba -- the period that witnessed the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and the destruction of the Palestinian homeland. Along with hundreds of thousands of other Palestine refugees, Darwish's family fled to Lebanon, but later risked death by returning to what became Israel. There Darwish's family lived under military rule second-class citizens in a self-declared Jewish state.

The author Ahdaf Soueif, writing in The Guardian, recalls: "He was seven when -- in the Nakba of 1948 -- he fled from Birweh, his village in the Galilee. At the age of 12, living in Deir al-Asad, in what had become Israel, with a reputation as a precocious child poet, he was asked to compose a poem for a public reading. The occasion was the celebration of Israel's "Independence Day" and the poem he read described the feelings of a child who returns to his town to find other people sleeping in his bed, tilling his father's lands. He was summoned to the military governor who told him that if he continued to write subversive material his father's work permit would be revoked." Decades later, Israeli officials continued their attempts to muffle Darwish's voice by preventing the Education Minister from including even Darwish's non-political poems in the Isareli education curriculum.


Mahmoud Darwish in Beirut, Lebanon (Haitham Moussawi)
Darwish's poetry and political activism (he was a member of Israel's communist party) would cause him to be jailed by the Jewish state several more times, and in the early 1970s he left to study in the USSR and was stripped of his Israeli citizenship. He was banned from re-entering his homeland after joining the Palestine Liberation Organization in Lebanon in 1973, where he would author one of his celebrated works, the memoir Memory for Forgetfulness.

Of his joining "the experience of the homeless Palestinians wandering across the Arab World," writer Saifedean Ammous notes, "Darwish witnessed the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon -- one of the pivotal points of his life, his poetry and of Palestinian history -- and left with the Palestinian resistance on the boats headed to Tunisia. From then on, he lived the quintessential Palestinian nomadic life; the whole world was home for this stateless nomad. In 1995, he finally returned to Palestine with the Palestine Liberation Organization's signing of the Oslo Accords, and attempted to build his life there. He again witnessed another brutal Israeli siege of Palestinians, this time in Ramallah in 2002, which inspired his powerful poetry collection, 'Haalat 'Hisaar (A State of Siege). Since the 1980s Darwish had serious heart problems, and had a very close encounter with death in 1998 after heart surgery, an experience that inspired his monumental work, Jidaariyyah (Mural)."

Darwish enjoyed a rare level of political influence for a cultural figure. In 1988, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat symbolically declared Palestine's independence and read the Palestine Declaration of Independence penned in large part by Darwish. A member of the Palestinian National Council, Darwish resigned (along with the late Palestinian academic Edward Said) in protest of the secret Oslo Accords which he viewed negotiated away Palestinians' rights. It was under Oslo, however, that he accepted to return to Palestine and live in Ramallah. Darwish's voice was heard in Palestinian politics until his death. With the outbreak of conflict between Hamas and Fatah in Gaza, Darwish took a controversial stand. An editorial in The Daily Star (Lebanon) quotes Darwish at a recital in Haifa -- itself a questionable act since the vast majority of Palestinians are denied the right to travel there: "'We woke up from a coma to see a monocolored flag [of Hamas] do away with the four-color flag [of Palestine] ... We have triumphed. Gaza won its independence from the West Bank. One people now have [two] states, prisons who don't greet each other. ... We have triumphed knowing that it is the occupier who really won.'"

Though his role in the fractured Palestinian society and polity was a complicated one, he will be best remembered for his poetry that galvanized a national identity threatened with annihilation by the state that dispossessed their people, as well as that which celebrated the natural world and romantic love. The last word should be left to Darwish himself:

All the hearts of the people are my identity
So take away my passport!


Remembering Darwish:
Mahmoud Darwish: Palestine's prophet of humanism, Saifedean Ammous (12 August 2008)
Remembering Mahmoud Darwish, The Electronic Intifada (11 August 2008)

Related Links
http://www.mahmouddarwish.com/

The senator, his pastor and the Israel lobby
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 31 March 2008


Senator Barack Obama addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) forum on Foreign Policy in Chicago, March 2007. (Jeff Haynes/AFP/Getty Images)

US senator Barack Obama was widely hailed for his 18 March speech calming the media furor about the sermons of his pastor for twenty years Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright's remarks, Obama said, "expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

It might seem odd for Obama to mention Israel and "radical Islam" in a speech focused on US race relations, especially since Wright's most widely reported comments were about America's historic and ongoing oppression of its black citizens.

But for months, even before most Americans had heard of Wright, prominent pro-Israel activists were hounding Obama over Wright's views on Israel and ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. In January, Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), demanded that Obama denounce Farrakhan as an anti-Semite. The senator duly did so, but that was not enough. "[Obama has] distanced himself from his pastor's decision to honor Farrakhan," Foxman said, but "He has not distanced himself from his pastor. I think that's the next step." Foxman labeled Wright "a black racist," adding in the same breath, "Certainly he has very strong anti-Israel views" (Larry Cohler-Esses, "ADL Chief To Obama: 'Confront Your Pastor' On Minister Farrakhan," The Jewish Week, 16 January 2008). Criticism of Israel, one suspects, is Wright's truly unforgivable crime and Foxman's vitriol has echoed through dozens of pro-Israel blogs.

Since his early political life in Chicago, Barack Obama was well-informed about the Middle East and had expressed nuanced views conveying an understanding that justice and fairness, not blinkered support for Israel, are the keys to peace and the right way to combat extremism. Yet for months he has been fighting the charge that he is less rabidly pro-Israel than other candidates -- which means now adhering to the same simplistic formulas and unconditional support for Israeli policies that have helped to escalate conflict and worsen America's standing in the Middle East. Hence Obama's assertion at his 26 February debate with Senator Hillary Clinton that he is "a stalwart friend of Israel."

But Obama stressed that his appeal to Jewish voters also stems from his desire "to rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African American community and the Jewish community."

Obama has not addressed to a national audience why that relationship might have frayed. He was much more candid when speaking to Jewish leaders in Cleveland just one day before the debate. In a little-noticed comment, reported on 25 February by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Obama tried to contextualize Wright's critical views of Israel. Wright, Obama explained, "was very active in the South Africa divestment movement and you will recall that there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities during that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time. And that cause -- that was a source of tension."

Obama implicitly admitted that Wright's views were rooted in opposition to Israel's deep ties to apartheid South Africa, and thus entirely reasonable even if Obama himself did "not necessarily," as he put it, share them. Israel supplied South Africa with hundreds of millions of dollars of weaponry despite an international embargo. Even the water cannons that South African forces used to attack anti-apartheid demonstrators in the townships were manufactured at Kibbutz Beit Alfa, a "socialist" settlement in northern Israel. Until the late 1980s, South Africa often relied on Israel to lobby Western governments not to impose sanctions.

And the relationship was durable. As The Washington Post reported in 1987, "When it comes to Israel and South Africa, breaking up is hard to do." Israeli officials, the newspaper said, "face conflicting imperatives: their desire to get in line with the West, which has adopted a policy of mild but symbolic sanctions, versus Israel's longstanding friendship with the Pretoria government, a relationship that has been important for strategic, economic and, at times, sentimental reasons" ("An Israeli Dilemma: S. African Ties; Moves to Cut Links Are Slowed by Economic Pressures, Sentiment," The Washington Post, 20 September 1987).

In 1987, Jesse Jackson, then the world's most prominent African American politician, angered some Jewish American leaders for insisting that "Whoever is doing business with South Africa is wrong, but Israel is ... subsidized by America, which includes black Americans' tax money, and then it subsidizes South Africa" ("Jackson Draws New Criticism From Jewish Leaders Over Interview," Associated Press, 16 October 1987). As a presidential candidate, Jackson raised the same concerns in a high profile meeting with the Israeli ambassador, as did a delegation of black civil rights and religious leaders, including the nephew of Martin Luther King Jr, on a visit to Israel. For many African Americans, it was intolerable hypocrisy that so many Jewish leaders who staunchly supported Civil Rights and the anti-apartheid movement would be tolerant of Israel's complicity.

Thus, Reverend Wright, who has sought a broader understanding of the Middle East than one that blames Islam and Arabs for all the region's problems or endorses unconditional support for Israel, stood in the mainstream of African American opinion, not on some extremist fringe.

That is not to say that Jewish concerns about anti-Semitic sentiments among some African Americans should simply be dismissed. Racism in any community should be confronted. But as they have done with other communities, hard-line pro-Israel activists like Foxman have too often tried to tar any African American critic of Israel with the brush of anti-Semitism. Why must every black candidate to a major office go through the ritual of denouncing Farrakhan, a marginal figure in national politics who likely gets most of his notoriety from the ADL? Surely if anti-Semitism were such an endemic problem among African Americans, there would be someone other than Farrakhan for the ADL to have focused its ire on all these decades.

By contrast, neither Senator Joe Lieberman (Al Gore's running mate in 2000 and the first Jewish candidate on a major party presidential ticket), nor Senator John McCain have been required so publicly and so repeatedly to repudiate extremist and racist comments by Israeli leaders or some well-known radical Christian leaders supporting the Republican party. Foxman, whose organization devotes enormous resources to burnishing Israel's image, has rarely spoken out about the escalating anti-Arab racism and incitement to violence by prominent Israeli politicians and rabbis.

That is no surprise. African Americans, Arab Americans and Muslims all share some things in common: individuals are held collectively responsible for the words and actions of others in their community whether they had anything to do with them or not. And the price of admission to the political mainstream is to abandon any foreign policy goals that diverge from those of the pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian lobby.

Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006).

Related Links
The loneliness of the One-Issue Voter, Laurie King-Irani (4 February 2008)
Ali Abunimah discusses US presidential candidates on Democracy Now!, Transcript (25 January 2008)
Questions for Candidate Obama, Bill Fletcher, Jr. (7 May 2007)
How Barack Obama learned to love Israel, Ali Abunimah (4 March 2007)



Latest articles on EI:
Palestine : Activism News: English actor urged to cancel appearance at Israeli festival (9 February 2009)
Palestine : Activism News: Israeli women expose companies complicit in occupation (8 February 2009)
Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: The resistance option (8 February 2009)
Palestine : Human Rights: Report: Palestinian groups executed, abused opponents (6 February 2009)
Palestine : Activism News: Gaza shakes American Arab and Muslim youth (6 February 2009)
Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: Fair trade, not aid, is the way forward (6 February 2009)
Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: A real Arab peace initiative (5 February 2009)
Palestine : Diaries: Live from Palestine: Buried alive (5 February 2009)
Palestine : Activism News: Maltese civil society: Suspend EU-Israel agreement (5 February 2009)
Palestine : Opinion/Editorial: BBC's "impartiality" anything but (4 February 2009)
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9427.shtml

Five Years On: The Pentagon Still Struggling to Make Sense of Iraq E-mail this
Print this
Reidar Visser, Historiae, Oct 1, 2008

The U.S. presidential candidates are not the only ones scrambling to put together a credible interpretation of the situation in Iraq these days. Today, Pentagon released its latest report to the U.S. Congress, entitled "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq."

There are two very basic problems in the report. The first concerns "the fundamental nature of the conflict in Iraq". On p. viii the report bombastically asserts, "while security has improved dramatically, the fundamental character of the conflict in Iraq remains unchanged - a communal struggle for power and resources". That is a about as wrong as one can be in describing the political dynamics of the past year. Just to give one very prominent example, the reason Iraqis are going to have provincial elections soon is that a broad opposition alliance of Shiites and Sunnis, Islamists and secularists, challenged the Maliki government to demand early elections and a firm timeline when the provincial powers law was debated last winter. 30 of the MPs behind this move were Sadrists. But this fact of cross-sectarian opposition cooperation does not seem to fit into the Pentagon narrative of "communal conflict" at all. Instead the passage of the legislation on provincial elections is hailed as an achievement of the "government of Iraq" (p. v) - even though the government resisted the elections all the way and repeatedly tried to scupper the process! And instead of recognizing the role of the opposition in changing the atmosphere of Iraqi politics, the report repeatedly reverts to a focus on "lingering sectarianism" (p. 1 and p. 6) At least some parts of the US military blogosphere has picked up the growing debate about the cross-sectarian currents in today's Iraq and it is remarkable that a Pentagon report like this one should go on so insistently with interpretations that perhaps made sense for a limited period in 2006 and early 2007.

The second main problem in the report has to do with the Pentagon's take on Iranian influences in Iraq. The Department of Defense simply refuses do deal open-mindedly with the possibility of pro-Iranian influences inside the current Iraqi government. Instead the report brusquely asserts, "despite long-standing ties between Iraq and some members of the GoI, Tehran's influence campaign is beginning to strain that relationship due to the rising perception that Iran poses a significant threat to Iraqi sovereignty." Maybe it is the overuse of acronyms that prevents Pentagon analysts from detecting the problem here? Surely, when ISOF are conducting COIN with IP support to defeat the JAM and SGs and other undesirables, it all sounds so well organized that it almost comes across as unthinkable that Iranian interests could conceivably be served by these actions. At any rate, not one word is said about the massive Iranian influence in Najaf where the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq dominates, or about the repeated complaints by Shiite tribal leaders in the south that the government of Iraq is too close to Iran, or the continued praise for Iran by members of the Badr brigade, one of Washington's supposed key allies among the Shiites of Iraq.

Pentagon's "bulwark" against Iranian influences in Iraq: Badr members in Maysan at a joint Iranian-Iraqi function celebrating the Khomeini legacy in Maysan, 12 June 2008

It is assumptions like these that drive the report authors to exaggerate again and again the significance of Nuri al-Maliki and Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim turning against some of their own Shiite enemies. Repeatedly, Maliki's operations against Sadrists in Basra and elsewhere are described as the ultimate sign of a national attitude and something that should prompt Sunnis and the Arab world at large to instantly embrace the Maliki government (pp. vi, 8). Symptomatically, the decision by one relatively minor and office-seeking Sunni group to revert to their role in the government before the summer is spun as "a welcome sign of re-engagement by Sunni Arabs at the national level" on p. 1. But it is the basic assumption that Iranian hands are only controlling and benefitting from the Sadrists and the "special groups" that is problematic. Instead Pentagon analysts should bear in mind what their "ally" Sadr al-Din al-Qabbanji of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq said about these matters in the Tehran-based ISCI newspaper Al-Muballigh al-Risali back in 1999 on 15 February, when he furiously criticized Muhammad al-Sadr for daring to start a revolt in Iraq without reference to Iran's leadership: "We need to treat Khamenei's leadership in the same fashion as Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr treated Khomeini's leadership", i.e. the supremacy of the leader of the Iranian republic should never be challenged. In other words: Historically, the unpredictable Sadrists have always been a problem and not an asset to Iran and ISCI; in 2007 they appeared to finally get better control of the situation as Muqtada was left with no other option than to flee to Iran at the start of the surge. But instead, the Pentagon refers to "recognition of Coalition and ISF tactical superiority" as the main cause of the weakening of the Sadrists.

When these basic questions are not addressed in a nuanced way, it is very hard to ascribe much significance to the predictable succession of graphs and statistics and acronyms that take up the subsequent pages of the Pentagon report. These things all collapse if the underlying assumptions about the "fundamental nature of the conflict in Iraq" and Iran's channels of influence are wrong.

Originally published at historiae.org

Reidar Visser is a research fellow at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.


Report: Palestinian groups executed, abused opponents
Report, PCHR, 6 February 2009


A civilian is injured in a blast at a coffee shop in Gaza City, 5 February 2009. (Wissam Nassar/MaanImages)

Since the launch of the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) military offensive in the Gaza Strip on 27 December 2008, there has been a significant increase in human rights violations perpetrated by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. For the past five weeks, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) has collected testimonies from victims and eyewitnesses regarding dozens of human rights violations perpetrated across the Gaza Strip by armed members of the Palestinian Security Services (PSS) and unidentified gunmen. According to PCHR documentation, at least 32 Palestinians have been killed by members of the PSS and unidentified gunmen during this reporting period. In addition, dozens of other people sustained injuries after being shot or severely beaten by unidentified gunmen who in some cases claimed to be members of the PSS.

The human rights violations perpetrated during the reporting period have included killings of fugitives, prisoners and detainees, injuries caused by severe physical violence, torture and misuse of weapons, the imposition of house arrest, and other restrictions that have been imposed on civil society organizations.

PCHR is gravely concerned about these continuing violations, which are criminal violations and offences. The Centre calls upon the government in Gaza to take all necessary action within the law to put an immediate end to these crimes and violations, to rigorously investigate all allegations, to bring the perpetrators to justice, and to publish all its findings publicly.

Download the full report [PDF]

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10280.shtml

The Israel-Hizballah prisoner deal
Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, Electronic Lebanon, 16 July 2008


A Palestinian woman holds a picture of Samir Kuntar, the Lebanese prisoner jailed in Israel for nearly 30 years, during a weekly protest at the International Red Cross building in Gaza City calling for the release of Palestinian and Arab prisoners, 14 July 2008. (Wissam Nassar/MaanImages)

The Israeli cabinet's decision to strike a prisoner-exchange deal with the Hizballah movement in Lebanon -- on the eve of the anniversary of the war between the two sides of 12 July-14 August 2006 -- will not be remembered as one of Israel's most glorious moments. Even its chief architect, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, has referred to the deal in terms of "sadness" and "humiliation" while it has been staunchly opposed by the heads of Israel's internal-security agency (Shin Bet) and foreign-intelligence agency (Mossad), as well as by a number of Israeli politicians across the political spectrum. Indeed, the exchange of captives itself (or in the case of two Israeli soldiers whose seizure precipitated the 2006 war, their remains), which is planned to occur by 16-17 July 2008 at latest, can be described as a replay of what Israel's own investigative commission into that war regarded as a historic defeat.

True, Israel has made similar deals in the past -- some involving the release of much larger numbers of prisoners than the five Lebanese to be freed this time. But the very nature of the current exchange, as well as its strategic implications, renders it a zero-sum game in which Israel loses and Hizballah again emerges triumphant. In implementing it, Israel will effectively fulfill Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah's "truthful promise" to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners held by Israel (the original aim of the operation Hizballah carried out on 12 July 2006 when it abducted two Israeli soldiers on the Israel-Lebanon border) and reconfirm his oft-repeated slogan: "just as I always used to promise you victory, now I promise you victory once again." The overall impact will be to give these popular catchphrases the appearance of strategic foresights.

The balance of advantage

In substance, the deal is both quantitatively and qualitatively lopsided to Hizballah's advantage. For in addition to the release of four Lebanese fighters captured during the 2006 war, Hizballah has wrung from Israel the emancipation of Lebanon's longest-serving Israeli prisoner, Samir Kuntar, who has been in jail since 1979 for his role in killing an Israeli man, his four-year-old daughter and a policeman. The symbolic value of Kuntar's release for Hizballah -- which has described him as "chief of the Arab and Lebanese prisoners" -- cannot be overstated; his status as cause celebre among many Lebanese was secured in 2004 when Israel described him as a human "bargaining-chip" who could be released in return for information about the fate of Israel's missing airman, Ron Arad.

In the event, the detailed report Hizballah submitted on 13 July 2008 about what happened to Arad is confined to its own investigations into his disappearance -- and reportedly has declared him dead without locating the whereabouts of his remains (see Amos Harel and Yossi Melman, "Israel transfers report on Arad," Haaretz, 13 July 2008). Moreover, the way the Israeli media has been depicting the issue suggests that the quid pro quo for the Arad report is an Israeli report on the fate of the four Iranian diplomats who were kidnapped (and presumably murdered) during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

The real trade-off regarding Samir Kuntar seems now to be with the two Israeli soldiers abducted on 12 July 2006, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev -- thus granting the two a clear precedence over the once iconic Arad. The widespread assumption that the two soldiers are dead would mean that Israel will soon be receiving "dead soldiers" in exchange for "live terrorists" -- a severe blow to Israel's national pride. But whether its soldiers prove to be dead or alive on 16-17 July, the release of Samir Kuntar will mean that Israel will have broken with its longstanding policy of refusing to free prisoners with "Israeli blood on their hands."

This policy reversal has emboldened Hamas, whose former foreign minister Mahmoud al-Zahar calls on the movement to exploit the Kuntar decision in negotiations with Israel over the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier seized by Hamas on 25 June 2006. Shin Bet's decision in June 2008 to approve the release of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit -- provided they are no longer seen as posing a security risk -- reveals Israel's growing vulnerability in the face of movements like Hizballah and Hamas.

Another indication of Israel's decreased bargaining power vis-a-vis the two groups is its reluctant approval to the freeing of an as yet unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners as part of the Hizballah deal. If this will contravene the Kadima party minister Yaakov Edri's vow that "there is no way we will release Palestinians," there is no reason to doubt Nasrallah's description of this aspect of the negotiations as being "the most difficult."

The precise number of Palestinian prisoners to be released may still be in doubt (though if either Goldwasser or Regev is alive, it can safely be assumed that Hizballah will exact an even higher price in this respect); but in any event this concession is especially damaging to Israel. Such a capitulation serves both to consecrate Hizballah's image in the Arab world as the standard-bearer of Palestinian rights, and to raise Hamas's price for Shalit's release from 450 to 1,450 Palestinian prisoners -- especially given that the IDF soldier is certifiably alive.

The ingredients of failure

If the deal's substance is hard enough for Israel, its strategic implications are also a major cause of concern, on four grounds. First, the prisoner-exchange constitutes a tacit admission of Israel's responsibility for the July-August 2006 war, which wreaked mass destruction on Lebanon and resulted in the deaths of more than 1,200 (mainly civilian) Lebanese. Israel had rationalized its war as a response to Hizballah's abductions, while Nasrallah had insisted all along that his movement sought nothing more than a prisoner-exchange with Israel.

Israel's agreement to such a swap now, after resolutely refusing it for so long, has exposed its use of the abductions as a pretext to launch a premeditated war against Hizballah in an attempt to dismantle its military infrastructure.
Second, the exchange deal -- as well as establishing Israel's responsibility for the 2006 war -- confirms the Winograd commission's assessment of Israel's defeat in it. Its formidable military machine failed then both to eliminate Hizballah's military capacity and to win the unconditional release of its two prisoners. Nasrallah had accurately predicted as much on the very day of the abductions, when he famously told a press conference: "These prisoners that we hold will never go home except in one way: indirect negotiations and exchange," not even if "the entire world" attempted to rescue them. At the time, Olmert dismissed Nasrallah's warning and scoffed at his exchange proposal, declaring that Israel "will not be blackmailed and will not negotiate the lives of our soldiers with terrorist organizations."





That same week, Olmert reinforced the point with a similarly forceful and seemingly irrevocable pledge regarding Gilad Shalit: "I don't negotiate with Hamas, I did not negotiate with Hamas and I will not negotiate with Hamas." Nasrallah who prides himself in understanding the Israeli politico-military psyche, anticipated such bombast on 12 July 2006: "At first [the Israelis] say no, but then they accept. This may take place after a week, a month or a year, but finally the will let us negotiate."

Third, in agreeing to the deal Israel cannot seek solace in the fact that it is submitting to the will of the international community or the diktat of international law. The prisoner-exchange will be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations; but it bears recalling that UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (which ended the war on 14 August 2006) -- while appealing for an "urgent settling" of the issue of the Lebanese prisoners -- adopted Israel's idiom by stipulating the "unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers" (rather than calling for a swap). In this manner, Hizballah appears to have succeeded in defying not only Israel, but the will of the international community as well.

Fourth, by recognizing Hizbollah rather than the Lebanese government as its negotiating partner, Israel has inadvertently undermined the latter and thus further exacerbated its own position. Hizballah's own response to criticism within Lebanon of its priority in this respect (such as from the politician Amin Gemayel) has always been that no Lebanese government has ever sought the release of Lebanese prisoners through diplomatic means; a case in point is the current government of Fouad Siniora, which has not used the diplomatic leverage it enjoys with the US and Europe to resolve the prisoner issue. The result is that Hizballah emerges as the force in Lebanon that can deliver, thereby perpetuating an important political dynamic -- of the non-state actor which functions as the de facto state versus the state non-actor which merely enjoys the status of de jure state.

This distinction in part answers the question raised by a leading member of Lebanon's governing March 14 faction, the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt: "How is it that some of us [in Lebanon] have the right to conduct negotiations for the return of prisoners, to conduct negotiations with Israel," while the state -- if it engages in similar negotiations -- is "accused of collaborating with the enemy"? The key point is that the Lebanese de jure state, without a defensive strategy or policy, lacks the power (vis-a-vis its enemies) and the moral authority (over a significant segment of Lebanon's population) to negotiate deals of this kind, least of all with a foe as militarily superior and popularly anathematized as Israel. If the Lebanese state, in its current capacity, were to negotiate directly or indirectly with Israel, it would be the result of US-Israeli pressure to do so; whereas groups like Hizballah and Hamas are engaged in such negotiations because they have forced Israel to submit to them.

The logic of force

Indeed, a wider outcome of the current prisoner exchanges with Hizballah and Hamas is confirmation of the truism that Israel "only understands the logic of force." Hizballah has repeatedly made this argument in attributing the liberation of Lebanese and Palestinian territory to resistance activity, while decrying the futility of diplomacy with Israel in retrieving prisoners or land. A senior official of the Palestinian Authority echoed it recently in reproaching Israel for "showing that force is the only language you understand every time. Hizballah fights you, kidnaps soldiers [sic] and then has all its demands met. Nasrallah brings Israel to its knees every time, and how do you respond? You bring [Palestinian Authority president] Abu Mazen to his knees."

Israel's surrender to this logic is fraught with risk. By establishing anew the links between abductions and prisoner-exchange, between armed struggle and liberation of occupied territory, Israel sets itself up for renewed confrontation with its enemies. Against continued predictions that the closure of Hizballah's "liberation file" (after prisoner releases, and the recovery by Lebanon of the disputed Shebaa farms territory) will strip Hizballah of any pretext to retain its arms, the prisoner-exchange serves rather to vindicate the group's rationale for its armed status.

Hizballah clearly sees itself as continuing to play an indispensable role in what Hassan Nasrallah calls an effective "national defense strategy." The party's former energy minister Mohammad Fneish echoes the point with reference to the group's achievement in securing the current deal: "when assessing future dangers we must agree that the resistance fulfills a necessity in its readiness, the experience of its fighters and commanders."

Hizballah has sought to make the prisoner deal serve as a politically unifying factor by hailing it as a victory for the entire Lebanese nation. Nasrallah reached out to the party's erstwhile political rivals to this effect in a speech on 2 July 2008. At the time of writing, the leading figures of the March 14 pro-government camp have pledged to attend the welcoming ceremony of the Lebanese prisoners; prime minister Fouad Siniora has vowed to make the day a national holiday.

Moreover, Nasrallah's presentation of the deal as making Lebanon "the first Arab country involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute" to resolve issues of prisoners, fighters' remains and the missing-in-action also reverberates in the wider Arab world. This also enables Hizballah to engage in some much needed damage-control after its involvement in the inter-sectarian clashes of May 2008. The fact that Kuntar is not a member of Hizballah but belongs to the Druze community, which is commonly identified with the March 14 camp, will if anything facilitate this process.

The cost of weakness

A significant aspect of the upcoming prisoner-swap is Hizballah's ability to appropriate for itself the moral standard (which Israel has long proclaimed when making asymmetrical prisoner exchanges with Arab resistance groups) of acting in accordance with "human value and dignity." Nasrallah alluded to this in his 2 July speech when he defended the movement's image as "civilized and humanitarian" owing to its "respect for man and for man's value and dignity," and scorned the British government's portrayal of the resistance a "terrorist" organization. As professed by Fneish: "We have returned respect for the value of humanity -- a respect stripped away by the formal Arab order."

The party's memorialization of its dead fighters, the longstanding campaigns it has waged to retrieve its prisoners and the military actions and diplomatic initiatives it has taken to retrieve them, have underscored how valuable its living and dead fighters are to it -- and begun to pay real political dividends. In this too, Hizballah has seized the initiative from Israel, whose last military operation to retrieve its prisoners was as long ago as 1994, when it abducted Mustafa Dirani in exchange for information on Ron Arad. Nasrallah's allegation that Israel did not even raise the issue of the remains of its ten soldiers killed in the 2006 war until Hizbollah offered to hand them over only reinforces this view. In the past, Israel's readiness to engage in lopsided prisoner-exchanges was once perceived as stemming from a religious-moral commitment that both rendered it vulnerable yet earned it the image of cultural and moral superiority vis-a-vis Arabs whose "price" was far lower; today, however, that same willingness is now construed as strategic weakness.

The most likely reason for Israel's decision to sign on to a prisoner-deal with such dire strategic implications is that it is eager to avoid another confrontation with Hizballah and to prevent future abductions of its troops. Israel's defeat in the war of July-August 2006, and its admission that Hizballah has grown even stronger than it was in the past, reflects a diminishing deterrence capability and its reduction of military status (one that casts doubt on its capacity to launch military offensives at this time, including against Iran). The biggest flaw of all is in the area of strategic planning: if Israel had agreed to a prisoner-exchange on or soon after 12 July 2006, it would have avoided further Hizballah provocations and spared itself the humiliation of losing a war, thus exposing its weakness to the world and forcing it to make one painful concession after another.

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb is a Lebanese political scientist, scholar and analyst, and author of book Hizbullah: Politics and Religion. This essay was originally published by Open Democracy and is republished with the author's permission.

Latest articles on Electronic Lebanon:
Lebanon : Diaries: Live from Lebanon: The children of Shatila: no future and no past (8 February 2009)
Lebanon : Human Rights/Development: Funding struggle slowing cluster bomb clearance in south (6 February 2009)
Lebanon : Opinion/Editorial: Refugees to prime minister: End military siege of our camp (27 January 2009)
Lebanon : Opinion/Editorial: Meet the Lebanese Press: Gazing towards Gaza (29 December 2008)
Lebanon : Human Rights/Development: Families of the disappeared seek answers (18 December 2008)
Lebanon : Opinion/Editorial: Meet the Lebanese Press: Strategic defense or strategic shift? (18 November 2008)
Lebanon : Action & Activism: Video: "Nahr al-Bared: Transitions" (13 November 2008)
Lebanon : Human Rights/Development: Life set to get harder for Nahr al-Bared refugees (5 November 2008)
Lebanon : Action & Activism: Video: "Nahr al-Bared, between past and present" (29 October 2008)
Lebanon : Action & Activism: Video: Harvesting oranges in Burj al-Shemali (27 October 2008)

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9697.shtml



n Gaza, a "ranch" turned to rubble
Rami Almeghari writing from the occupied Gaza Strip, Live from Lebanon, 3 February 2009


Tents for those whose homes were destroyed in Israel's 22-day-long military siege of Gaza, 31 January 2009. (Matthew Cassel)

Piles of bricks, metal sheets and pieces of wood, are all that remains of tens of Palestinian homes in the Ezbet Abed Rabu (Abed Rabu Ranch) neighborhood, east of Jabaliya town in the northern Gaza Strip.

"There is nothing left for us to live for -- the house was lost and the furniture destroyed," lamented Suad Muhammad Abed Rabu, a 53-year-old mother sitting in front of a fire stove in a still intact room of her badly damaged home. "We prefer to die in our demolished house rather than live life as outcasts," she said. "Since we were born we have been suffering. Since 1948 we have moved from one refuge to another and from one war to another. All, including Arabs and Europeans, are conspiring against us, they don't want us to live."

Abed Rabu's home used to shelter 14 family members. Although it is almost completely destroyed, the family chose to remain in it rather than live in the tents international aid agencies have recently erected in the battered neighborhood.

Neighborhood children play amidst the rubble of destroyed homes while their parents huddle in the tents or stand in lines to receive blankets and other items in the newly-installed small refugee camp.

"I am here to receive blankets," said Muhammad Saleh Abed Rabu, one of the people in line, who explained that his home was severely damaged and all his furniture destroyed. "Israeli bulldozers attacked the home, where I lived with 27 other people."

In the same neighborhood 13 homes belonging to the Siyam family were leveled to ground by Israeli bulldozers and explosives on the first day of the Israeli ground attack on the Gaza Strip.

"Before they destroyed the homes, there was intensive shelling so we fled the area. Even while we were leaving, some people were hit, some died and others were wounded. Just few days ago we returned to our area to find only rubble," Tayseer Siyam recalled while standing on the rubble of his two-story house. "I wonder why this area was attacked when resistance fighters were based in the open fields not right here among us."

Thousands of homes in various parts of the Gaza Strip were destroyed during the three-week-long Israeli attack on the territory, which began on 27 December under the pretext of stopping rocket fire from Gaza into nearby Israeli towns.

The widespread destruction of residents' homes in Gaza reminds many of the Palestinian people's plight of 1948, when Israel displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from hundreds of towns and villages all over Palestine, turning them into refugees.

According to local estimates, the financial losses in the Gaza Strip are estimated at $2.4 billion while the region needs at least a two-year-long reconstruction process that is yet to begin.

International aid agencies emphasize how much remains to be done to assist people in Gaza to recover from the trauma and devastation caused by the Israeli attack.

Adnan Abu Hasna, a spokesman for the UN agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) in Gaza said, "The situation is more than miserable. We have provided the displaced people with blankets, food items and other things, but this is not enough." He called on the international community to pressure Israel to reopen the borders so badly needed aid could flow and reconstruction could begin.

Donor countries including some member states of the European Union and the United Nations are expected to meet in Egypt in the spring to discuss Gaza reconstruction.

Rami Almeghari is contributor to The Electronic Intifada, IMEMC.org and Free Speech Radio News and is a part-time lecturer on media and political translation at the Islamic University of Gaza. Rami is also a former senior English translator at and editor-in-chief of the international press center of the Gaza-based Palestinian Information Service. He can be contacted at rami_almeghari A T hotmail D O T com.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10269.shtml

Fair trade, not aid, is the way forward
Gen Sander, The Electronic Intifada, 6 February 2009


Palestinians harvest olives in Gaza City, October 2008. (Wissam Nassar/MaanImages)

Some would argue that fair trade never really existed in the Gaza Strip -- at least not in the "certified" way. Needing to meet certain standards for present-day international export is reasonable enough, but fair trade can also exist domestically or internationally, without all the fuss and formalities. If we understand fair trade to be about dignity, empowerment, sustainability, justice and social responsibility, then any form of exchange that meets those criteria should be recognized as just that.

Before the days of Israel's crippling siege of the Gaza Strip, six women's couscous processing cooperatives were in operation in Gaza, built on the foundation of the above criteria. Their products, however, did not bear a fair trade certification mark that made the product instantly and internationally recognized as being fair trade. They were, however, exported by the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC), a member of the International Federation for Alternative Trade (IFAT, recently renamed the World Fair Trade Organization), so there is no question as to whether or not the products were actually fair trade. With the help of the Fair Trade department of PARC, which also provided their founding infrastructure, these co-ops exported more than 100 tons of couscous in 2006 to fair trade organizations all over Europe. That initiative had so much potential and seemed like a viable and promising avenue for economic development -- "had" being the pivotal word.

Following Hamas's victory in the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Israel's immoral and illegal collective punishment of Gaza's 1.5 million people began. It has been two and a half years now since the siege was imposed, and Gaza has since been described as the world's largest prison. Its borders are hermetically sealed, the free movement of people and essential goods and services severely restricted, and its economy and society stunted by a prohibition on partaking in any kind of trade, never mind fair trade.

Last year PARC issued a release outlining its concerns regarding the effects of the blockade on the agricultural sector in general, but more specifically on the six women's couscous processing cooperatives operating in Gaza. It seemed as though the situation could not get any worse; production requirements were not allowed into the Gaza Strip, and all agricultural products were not allowed out. The results were visibly devastating. The ban on exports led the deterioration of the agricultural sector, which led to the closure of many farms and all six couscous co-ops, which had a direct impact on hundreds of people whose lives depended on their continued existence. Additionally, with the incapacity to produce and the inability to purchase or sell came an unprecedented surge of food insecurity in Gaza.

The likelihood of the situation further deteriorating seemed impossible at the time but, obviously, it just got worse -- much worse. Gaza's initial break just became a compound fracture.

Israel's deadly 22-day assault on Gaza killed more than 1,300 persons, mainly civilians, and left nearly 5,000 injured. The damage caused to public and private infrastructure was massive, and the agricultural sector suffered a nearly insurmountable amount of devastation. The day after Israel unilaterally declared a ceasefire on 18 January, the agriculture minister in Gaza declared that 60 percent of the Strip's agricultural land was destroyed, along with 80 percent of all agricultural products for this season, with a total economic loss for the sector alone estimated at $170 million. The fair trade sector, which had already been rendered inept by the siege, has endured an even greater setback. According to PARC's Gaza branch, one of the couscous co-ops in the Sheikh Radwan area was completely destroyed, leaving five co-ops (barely) standing and in a condition so fragile their future has become even more tenuous than it was just one month ago. Clearly, the Israeli war machine has systematically left in its wake a mess so colossal that it has been estimated that the Gaza Strip has just been set back at least 20 years.

Whatever hope Gaza was holding onto for the possibility of fair trade ever catching on again has now been ruthlessly thwarted by Israel. Understandably, the focus is no longer on fair trade, or even on trade for that matter, but on survival and other immediate needs that generally need tending to after an atrocity of this sort. For the moment, Gaza desperately requires immediate humanitarian aid for immediate relief to the civilian population. PARC, however, firmly believes that aid is indisputably unsustainable. Instead, PARC urges the international community to foster an environment and humanity of fair trade, rather than one of aid. Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip needs to be lifted immediately in order to help put an end to the humanitarian catastrophe that is occurring, before it's too late, and before we regret our inaction once again.

Gen Sander currently lives in Ramallah, West Bank. She works in the Fair Trade Department of PARC and teaches a beginner's photography class at Aida refugee camp.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10278.shtml

Christian Zionism
What is it? Is it biblical? Is it dangerous? Does it matter?
by Dr. David R. Reagan

[read in Lamplighter (pdf)]

"Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz Israel [Palestine] secured under public law." — First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, 1897.1
"Zionism is the right of the Jewish state of Israel to exist within defined and defended borders..." — The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.2
"Zionism is a form of racism and social discrimination..." — United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, passed November 10, 1975.3
"Christian Zionism has become the most powerful and destructive force at work in America today... they are not only inciting hatred between Jews and Muslims but are also the greatest roadblock to lasting peace in the Middle East." — Stephen Sizer, Anglican Vicar of Christ Church, Virginia Water, England.4
I was a Christian Zionist before I knew what one was. A simple definition of a Christian Zionist is a Christian who supports the right of the Jewish people to establish and defend a state in their historic homeland of Israel.

There are two types of Christian Zionists. The minority consists of those Christians whose support of Israel is purely political in nature. For example, there is an organization called The Catholic Friends of Israel. On its website, the statement is made that they support Israel because it is "the only democracy in the Middle East."5

The vast majority of Christian Zionists are Evangelicals who believe that God is fulfilling promises today that were made to the Jewish people thousands of years ago in Bible prophecy. The cornerstone of their support is the belief that the title to the land which God granted to the Jews in the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-7 and 13:14-18) is everlasting and irrevocable. These Evangelicals should really be referred to as "Biblical Zionists" to differentiate them from Christian Zionists who are politically motivated. But that distinction is seldom ever made by anyone.

Historical Roots
The origin of Christian Zionism is usually attributed to the development of Dispensational eschatology in the early 19th Century. This important end-time viewpoint keeps Israel and the Church separate, arguing that God has a distinct plan for each. The Church will be taken out of the world at the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), and then God will orchestrate all the nations of the world against Israel (Zechariah 12:2-3), hammering the Jewish people until they come to the end of themselves, at which point the remaining remnant will accept Jesus as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10).

The Dispensational viewpoint is based upon a literal or plain-sense interpretation of Bible prophecy. It denies that the Church has replaced Israel or that God has washed His hands of the Jewish people because of their unbelief (Romans 11:1-2). It points to the preservation of the Jewish people as a supernatural phenomenon clearly prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures (Jeremiah 30:11 and 31:35-37). The worldwide regathering of the Jews that occurred in the 20th Century is also viewed as a fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 11:10-12). And the re-establishment of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948 is considered to be one of the greatest miracles of modern history and a definite fulfillment of Bible prophecy (Isaiah 66:7-8).

There is no doubt that Dispensational theology undergirds modern day Christian Zionism, but it was by no means the origin of the Movement. Tommy Ice, one of the leading Dispensational spokesmen today, has written an in-depth essay in which he clearly shows that one of the delayed consequences of the Reformation was the development of what came to be known as the Christian Restoration Movement, the precursor of Christian Zionism.6
Christian Restorationism
I say "delayed" because the Movement began to emerge among the second generation of Reformers, after they had been given an opportunity to study the Bible in detail in their own languages. Keep in mind that for 1500 years before the Reformation, the Catholic Church kept the Bible out of the hands of the people and refused to allow it to be translated from Latin into the various national languages. Also, during that time, the Church was virulently anti-Semitic and abused Bible prophecy by spiritualizing it. It took some time to digest the Bible once it had been translated and published in common languages, and it took great courage to begin interpreting it to mean what it said.

For example, in 1585 an English scholar named Francis Kett (ca 1547-1589) published a book in which he mentioned that the Bible prophesies the "Jewish national return to Palestine." He was quickly arrested for espousing this heresy and was burned at the stake in 1589.7

Despite the persecution, a number of books were published in the early 1600's advocating the restoration of the Jews to their land. One of the key writers was Henry Finch (1558-1625) who published an in-depth book about the Jews in prophecy in 1621.8 At the time, he was a member of Parliament and was a highly respected legal scholar, but his social and political status did not protect him. King James was offended by Finch's assertion that a day would come when Israel would be the prime nation in the world. The result was that Finch and his publisher were arrested, and Finch was striped of his status and possessions.9

As time went by, the greatest proponents of Restorationism became the Puritans. This was most likely due to the great value they gave to the Hebrew Scriptures. And since the American colonies were settled primarily by Englishmen, including many Puritans, Restorationism took root quickly in the New World.

One of the leading Puritan proponents of Restorationism was Increase Mather (1639-1723) who served as the first president of Harvard. His book, The Mystery of Israel's Salvation, strongly supported the restoration of the Jewish people to their land.10

Tommy Ice presents evidence of widespread support of the Restorationist Movement throughout Europe during the 19th Century.11 One very interesting advocate was a German Lutheran by the name of C. F. Zimpel whose writings proved to be prophetic. The pamphlets he published in the mid-1800's warned that if the Jews were not allowed to return to Palestine, they would be subjected to persecution and slaughter.12

At the same time, the Movement really gained steam in England, and the leading spokesman who emerged was Lord Shaftesbury (1801-1885).13 He was a strong Anglican who interpreted the Bible literally and was known as "the Evangelical of Evangelicals."14 Shaftesbury "never had a shadow of a doubt that the Jews were to return to their own land... It was his daily prayer, his daily hope."15 Shaftesbury's influence was widespread, both within governmental and clerical circles.

Perhaps the most influential Christian Zionist of the 19th Century, from a practical viewpoint, was William Hechler (1845- 1931) who was born in India of German missionary parents. He was raised in the Church of England, became a passionate Restorationist, and in 1882 published a book entitled, The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine According to Prophecy.16

In 1885 Hechler was appointed Chaplain to the British Embassy in Vienna. Theodor Herzl was residing there at the time, working as a journalist. The two met, and they were united in heart. Hechler became one of Herzl's closest friends and advisers. He constantly assured Herzl that what he was doing in founding the Zionist Movement was a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.17

The 20th Century
With the dawn of the 20th Century, two Christian Zionists in England were to have an even greater practical impact than Hechler. They were David Lloyd George (1863-1945) and Arthur James Balfour, later known as Lord Balfour (1848-1930).

Lloyd George became Prime Minister during World War I. He was a strong Christian Zionist who was "determined to gain control of Palestine... He also wanted his country to carry out what he regarded as God's work in Palestine."18 The British Foreign Minister at the end of the war was Lord Balfour. He was also a strong Christian Zionist. Lord Balfour's biographer says that his interest in Zionism was rooted in his boyhood training in the Old Testament under the guidance of his mother.19

These two Christian Zionists, George and Balfour, worked together to issue the most important document of the 20th Century — the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917. In that pronouncement, the British Government declared its intention to provide a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, which was in the process of being liberated from the Ottoman Empire. The document electrified the Evangelical world because its leaders considered the declaration to be the first tangible sign that the world was moving into the end-times.20

Lloyd George tried later to justify the Balfour Declaration on the grounds that it was a reward to the Jewish people in response to the fact that during the war a Jewish scientist, Chaim Weizmann, had invented a synthetic form of acetone, an ingredient necessary for the production of explosives. But one of the leading historians of that period has concluded that Lloyd George and Lord Balfour were both motivated primarily by religious and sentimental feelings which they could not publicly admit.21

The person who would prove to be the most influential in the long run was an Englishman named John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). He was the one who organized the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy into the systematic theology called Dispensationalism. Although Darby never became involved in politics and therefore never became a major player in British Restorationism, his Dispensational theology, when transported to the United States, became the foundation of American Christian Zionism.22

The American Scene
Without a doubt, the most important Christian Zionist in the United States during the late 19th Century and the first half of the 20th Century was William E. Blackstone (1841-1935). He was a businessman who became convinced of the Dispensational viewpoint of end-time prophecy. In 1878 he wrote a book called Jesus is Coming, and it became the first Bible prophecy best seller. In 1887 he founded the Chicago Hebrew Mission for the evangelization of the Jews. In 1891 he presented President Benjamin Harrison with a petition signed by over 400 prominent Americans, advocating the re-settlement of persecuted Russian Jews to Palestine.23

Advocates for a homeland for the Jews abounded in the United States at the beginning of the 20th Century. There was C. I. Scofield who published the first study Bible in 1909. Another was Clarence Larkin who specialized in drawing fascinating charts in the 1920's about Bible prophecy. Moody Bible Institute in Chicago (founded in 1886) and Dallas Theological Seminary (founded in 1924) were both bastions of Christian Zionism, training students in the fundamentals of Dispensationalism.

One of those students, Hal Lindsey, produced a book in 1970 titled The Late Great Planet Earth. It emphasized the fulfillment of God's promises to the Jewish people in their worldwide regathering, the re-establishment of their state, and their re-occupation of Jerusalem in 1967. This book was the number one best seller for ten years! It introduced the general public to Dispensationalism in a popular, easy-to-read way, and it produced a large increase in the number of Christian Zionists.

At the end of the 20th Century, Tim LaHaye's phenomenal Left Behind series of books touched millions more all over the world with the Dispensational viewpoint, including an understanding of the biblical case for the Jewish title to the land of Israel.

Today, at the beginning of the 21st Century, Christian Zionism is at the peak of its influence. The most visible spokesman on the political scene is Pastor John Hagee of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. In 2006 he formed a political action organization called Christians United for Israel (www.cufi.org).

A Serious Problem
Pastor Hagee is a good example of a problem that has plagued Christian Zionism since the mid-20th Century. The problem is that Christian Zionists sometimes become so enamored with the Jewish people and the Hebraic roots of the Christian faith that they decide that since the Jews are God's Chosen People, the Jews must have a way of salvation that is separate and apart from accepting the Christian Gospel. This unbiblical viewpoint is known as Dual Covenant Theology.

Hagee has believed in this theology for many years, although he has consistently denied it.24 But his actions have spoken louder than his words, and on several occasions even his words have betrayed him when he would let it slip in interviews. For example, in an interview with the Houston Chronicle in 1988 he said: "Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha'i, needs to believe in Jesus, but not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced by Christianity."25

Hagee finally decided to come out of the closet with his recent book, In Defense of Israel.26 Incredibly, he proclaims in the book that "The Jews did not reject Jesus as Messiah."27 He explains: "... if Jesus refused by His words or actions to claim to be the Messiah of the Jews, then how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?"28 These incredible words are no slip of the pen. Hagee proceeds to make the statement over and over that Jesus refused to be the Jewish Messiah, "choosing instead to be the Savior of the world."9

This is gross apostasy. Peter confessed Jesus as "the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). Later, Peter declared in his first sermon at Pentecost "that God has made Him both Lord and Christ [Messiah] — this Jesus whom you crucified." Paul proclaimed the same message in the Jewish synagogues, "proving that this Jesus is the Christ [Messiah]" (Acts 9:20-23). John went so far as to declare that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ [Messiah] has the spirit of antichrist (1 John 2:22). Furthermore, Jesus Himself declared point blank that He was the Messiah when the Jews asked Him (John 10:24-33).30

Hagee also claims in his book that the Jews are still under the Old Covenant because the Old Testament was not invalidated by the Cross.31 He is correct about the Old Testament, but he is dead wrong about the Jewish Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant, which constitutes only a small portion of the Old Testament, was replaced at the death of Jesus by a New Covenant that had been promised in the Hebrew Scriptures (Jeremiah 31:31-34). The whole book of Hebrews was written to emphasize this point (see Hebrews 7:22, 8:6-13, and 9:11-16). In fact the book of Hebrews says that the Old Covenant was rendered "obsolete" (Hebrews 8:13).

Those Christian Zionists who have embraced Dual Covenant Theology have embraced a lie. Paul wrote that the Gospel was meant for "the Jew first" and also for the Greeks (Romans 1:16). Loving the Jewish people so much that you refuse to share the Gospel with them is loving them right into Hell. Fortunately, the vast majority of Christian Zionists have rejected the apostasy of Dual Covenant Theology.

The Attack on Christian Zionism
The two foremost critics of Christian Zionism are Reverend Stephen Sizer, an Anglican priest in England, and Hank Hanegraaff here in the United States, known popularly as "The Bible Answer Man." Both men are virulently anti-Semitic. Sizer has "marketed a nightmare version of Christian Zionism that paints all Christian supporters of Israel as reactionary and dangerous fundamental fanatics intent on bringing on Armageddon."32 Hanegraaff bluntly asserts that "Israel is the Harlot of Revelation."33 Some of the arguments presented by these men and other critics include the following:34

"The Jews have been set aside by God because of their unbelief."
This statement is directly contrary to Scripture. See Romans 9-11.


"The Church has replaced Israel."
Says who? Where in God's Word is this stated? The Scriptures always maintain a separate identity for physical Israel and the Church. See, for example, 1 Corinthians 10:32.


"The Jews were dispossessed of their land because of their unbelief."
Not true. There are two covenants pertaining to the land, a title covenant and a usage covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant gave them an eternal title to the land (Genesis 13:14-15). The Land Covenant, given to them through Moses, made their enjoyment of the land conditional on their obedience (Deuteronomy 28-29). Even when they have been evicted from the land because of disobedience, they have retained their title to it. They still have that title today (Psalm 105:8-11).


"The regathering of the Jews to Israel in the 20th Century could not be an act of God because the Jews have not repented and accepted Jesus as their Messiah."
The Bible clearly prophesies that the Jews will be regathered in unbelief in the end-times (Isaiah 11:10-11). Their regathering is not a blessing they have earned; it is a demonstration of God's grace.


"The Jews stole the land of Palestine from the Arabs and exist there illegally."
This is nonsense. First, the land belongs to the Jews as a grant from God (Genesis 13:14-15). Second, when the Jews started returning in the early 20th Century, they bought the land from the Arabs, paying exorbitant prices. Third, the state of Israel was created in response to a declaration of the United Nations, passed in November 1947, authorizing the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.


"The state of Israel is an accident of history."
One would have to be spiritually blind to make such an assertion. The whole world hated and persecuted the Jews for 2,000 years after the Romans evicted them from their homeland. Yet, God preserved them, regathered them, and miraculously orchestrated the vote of the United Nations that authorized the re-establishment of their state.35


"Christian Zionists believe that God has a different way of salvation for the Jews."
Unfortunately this is true of a handful of Christian Zionists. But the vast majority hold no such belief. They would argue that being the Chosen People of God does not guarantee salvation and that the only hope for the Jews is the same as for Gentiles — namely, faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.


"Christian Zionists are trying to manipulate American foreign policy toward Armageddon in order to hasten the Lord's return."
This is drivel. In the first place, Christian Zionists do not have that much political power. In fact, most Christian Zionists are not political activists. They are content to teach the truth about Israel and pray for God's will to be done. The key to hastening the Lord's return is not orchestrating a war in the Middle East. Rather, it is by preaching the Gospel to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible (Matthew 24:14).


"Christian Zionists blindly support every action of the Israeli government."
This is poppycock. Many Christian Zionists believe, like I do, that the greatest enemy of Israel today is its own leaders who have been deceived into believing that they can gain peace through appeasement.


"Christian Zionists have no sympathy for the oppressed Palestinian people."
Wrong again. My heart goes out to them, not because they have been oppressed by Israel, but because they are victims of a long string of wretched leaders like Yasser Arafat who have imprisoned them under a rule of tyranny and have stolen the billions in aide that has been provided by the international community. Their leaders could have established a Palestinian state in 1948 at the same time the state of Israel was established because the United Nations resolution called for the creation of two states. But their leaders decided instead to launch an attack on Israel. They have been afforded several opportunities since 1948 to create a Palestinian state, but each time they have responded with violence because their aim is the annihilation of Israel. As the Israeli diplomat, Abba Eban, once put it: "The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
The Scriptural Basis
Let's conclude by taking a look at the scriptural basis of Christian Zionism.

To begin with, the Bible makes it clear that God Himself is a Zionist. Psalm 132:13 proclaims that "The Lord has chosen Zion" as His everlasting dwelling place. Psalm 87:2 says "the Lord loves the gates of Zion." In the Abrahamic Covenant God promised to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse the Jews, and history is littered with the carcasses of nations who mistreated the Jews. We are commanded by the Lord "to pray for the peace of Jerusalem" (Psalm 122:6).

Through the prophet Zechariah, God warned that those who touch Israel, touch "the apple of His eye" (Zechariah 2:8). A similar warning is contained in Psalm 129:5 — "May all who hate Zion be put to shame and turned back." The passage goes on to say that no blessing of any kind should be given to those who hate Zion.

We are exhorted to comfort the Jewish people and to speak tenderly to them (Isaiah 4:1-2). We are commanded to speak out for Zion's sake and to be watchmen on the walls for Israel until the Lord "makes Jerusalem a praise in the earth" (Isaiah 62:1, 6-7). We are warned not to be arrogant toward the Jews (Romans 11:18). And we are reminded that due to our spiritual debt to them, we should minister to them in material things (Romans 15:27).

With regard to the Jews in the end-times, here is a list of prophecies:36



Regathering in unbelief ( Isaiah 11:10-12 and Ezekiel 36:22-28).


Re-establishment of the state of Israel (Isaiah 66:7-8 and Zechariah 12:3-6).


Reclamation of the land (Isaiah 35:1-7 and Joel 2:21-26).


Revival of the Hebrew language (Zephaniah 3:9).


Re-occupation of Jerusalem (Luke 21:24).


Resurgence of military strength (Zechariah 12:6).


Refocusing of world politics on Israel (Zechariah 12:3 and 14:1-9).
Jeremiah twice says that when God has accomplished all His purposes in history, the Jewish people will look back and consider their regathering in unbelief to be the greatest of God's miracles among them — greater even than their deliverance from Egyptian captivity (Jeremiah 16:14-15 and 23:7-8). What an exciting time we are privileged to live in! Maranatha!

Some Christian Zionist Organizations
Bridges for Peace, Jerusalem — Rebecca Brimmer, director (www.bridgesforpeace.com).
Christian Friends of Israel, Jerusalem — Ray & Sharon Sanders, directors
(www.cfijerusalem.org).
Christians Standing with Israel — Mikael Knighton director
(www.christiansstandingwithisrael.com). Based in Fernandina Beach, Florida.
Christians United for Israel — John Hagee, founder and director (www.cufi.org). Based in San Antonio, Texas.
International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem — Malcolm Hedding, director (www.icej.org).
International Christian Zionist Center, Jerusalem — Jan Willem van der Hoeven, founder and director (www.israelmybeloved.com).
The Jerusalem Connection International — Dr. James M. Hutchens, founder and director (www.tjci.org). Based in Washington, D.C.
Notes
"The First Zionist Congress and the Basel Program," unsigned article in The Jewish Virtual Library, www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/First_Cong_&_Basel_Program.html, p. 1. Accessed on March 8, 2008.


The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000).


United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379: "Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination," www.daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NRO/000/92/img/nr000092.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed on March 8, 2008.


Phil Baty, "Zionism thesis stirs up a storm,"
www.monabaker.com/pMachine/more.php?id?=A2208_0_1_0_M. Accessed March 8, 2008.


"Catholic Friends of Israel," www.cfoiblog.blogspot.com, p. 1. Accessed on March 7, 2008.


Tommy Ice, "Lovers of Zion: A History of Christian Zionism,"
www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=295. Accessed on March 1, 2008.


Douglas J. Culver, Albion and Ariel: British Puritanism and the Birth of Political Zionism (New York: Peter Lang, 1995), pp. 71-73.


Culver, Albion and Ariel, p. 101.


Tommy Ice, "Lovers of Zion," p. 6.


Ibid., p. 7.


Ibid.


Michael J. Pragai, Faith and Fulfillment: Christians and the Return to the Promised Land (London: Valentine, Mitchell, 1985), pp. 49-51.


Ice, "Lovers of Zion," pp. 8-10.


Ibid., p. 8.


Barbara Tuchman, Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour (New York: Ballantine Press, 1956), p. 93.


Paul C. Merkley, The Politics of Christian Zionism: 1891-1948 (London: Frank Cass, 1998), p. 3.


Merkley, The Politics of Christian Zionism, p. 17.


James A. Saddington, "Prophecy and Politics: A History of Christian Zionism in the Anglo-American Experience, 1800-1948," PhD Dissertation at Bowling Green State University, 1996, pp. 176-177.


Tuchman, Bible and Sword, p. 83.


For a detailed discussion of the religious impact of the Balfour Declaration, see "Bible Prophecy Fulfilled" by Dr. David Reagan in the Lamplighter, May-June 2002, pp. 3-6
(www.lamblion.com).


Tuchman, Bible and Sword, p. 83. See also "The Christian Roots of the Balfour Declaration," by Dr. William Varner in the Lamplighter, May-June 2002, pp. 7-8 (www.lamblion.com).


Dr. David Larsen, "John Nelson Darby: Pioneer of Dispensational Premillennialism," www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id+177. Accessed on March 10, 2008.


See Tommy Ice's essay, "William Blackstone and American Christian Zionism," pp. 9-10 in this issue of the Lamplighter (May-June 2008).


G. Richard Fisher, "The Other Gospel of John Hagee: Christian Zionism and Ethnic Salvation," www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm.


Houston Chronicle, "San Antonio fundamentalist battles anti-Semitism," April 30, 1988, section 6, p. 1.


John Hagee, In Defense of Israel: The Bible's Mandate for Supporting the Jewish State (Lake Mary, Florida: Front Line Press, 2007).


Hagee, In Defense of Israel, p. 132.


Ibid., p. 136.


Ibid., p. 143.


For an excellent in-depth analysis of the scriptural errors in Hagee's book, see Richard A. McGough's review at www.bible wheel.com/RR/Hagee_Defense_of_Israel.asp.


Hagee, In Defense of Israel, pp. 158ff.


Ami Isseroff, "Christian Zionism and Christians Who Are Zionists: Asset or Threat?" www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000098.html, p. 1. Accessed March 10, 2008.


Dwayna Litz, "Hank Hanegraaff's Conference on Preterism and Replacement Theology," www.lightingtheway.blogspot.com/2007/06/essay-on-afternoon-with-hank-hanegraaff.html, p. 3. Accessed on March 10, 2008.


For an excellent discussion of the myths about Christian Zionism that have been created by its critics, see "Who Are the Christian Zionists?" by Dr. Gary Hedrick, Messianic Perspectives, November-December 2007, pp. 1-7, 10-13.


For a detailed discussion of the miracles involved in the reestablishment of Israel in 1948, see "Israel's 60th Anniversary" by Dr. David R. Reagan, Lamplighter, March-April 2008, pp. 3-9.


For a detailed discussion of these prophecies, see Dr. David R. Reagan's book, God's Plan for the Ages, (Princeton, TX: Lamb & Lion Ministries, 2005).
http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_jewishlife6.php

Zionism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Zionist)
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about Zionism as a movement, not the History of Israel. For other uses, see Zion (disambiguation).
See also: History of Zionism, Timeline of Zionism, World Zionist Organization, and Jewish political movements
State of Israel

Geography
Land of Israel
Districts · Cities · Transport
Mediterranean · Red Sea
Sea of Galilee
Jerusalem · Tel Aviv · Haifa

History
Jewish history (timeline)
History of Zionism · Aliyah · Herzl
Balfour · British Mandate
1947 UN Plan · Independence
Austerity · History of Israel


Arab-Israeli conflict
History of the Arab-Israeli conflict
1948 War · 1949 Armistice
Jewish exodus
Suez War · Six-Day War
War of Attrition · Yom Kippur War
1982 / 2006 Lebanon War
Peace proposals
Treaties with Egypt / Jordan
International law

Israeli-Palestinian conflict
History · Timeline
1948 Palestinian exodus
Occupation
Peace process · Peace camp
First Intifada · Oslo
Second Intifada · Barrier
Disengagement

Economy
Agriculture · Companies · Diamonds
Science and technology
Tourism · Wine
Israel Weapon Industries
Israel Aerospace Industries

Demographics · Culture
Religion · Israeli Arabs · Kibbutz
Music · Archaeology · Universities
Hebrew · Literature · Sport · Israelis

Laws · Politics
Law of Return · Jerusalem Law
Referendums · Parties · Elections
Prime Minister · President
Knesset · Supreme Court · Courts

Foreign affairs
UN · US · Arab League

Security forces
Israel Defense Forces
Intelligence Community
Security Council
Police · Border Police
Prison Service

Portal · Category
WikiProject

v • d • e
Zionism is the international Jewish political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine, after two millenia of exile. The area is the Jewish Biblical homeland, called the Land of Israel (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el). Since the creation of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.[1]

Zionism is largely based on strong historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, where the concept of Jewish nationhood first evolved somewhere between 1200 BCE and the late Second Temple era (i.e. up to 70 CE).[2][3] The modern movement was mainly founded by secular Jews, beginning largely as a response by European Jewry to antisemitism across Europe.[4] It is a branch of the broader phenomenon of modern nationalism.[5] Initially one of several Jewish political movements offering alternative responses to assimilation and the position of Jews in Europe, Zionism grew rapidly following knowledge of the Holocaust and became the dominant power among Jewish political movements.

The political movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century following the publication of "Der Judenstaat".[6] The movement seeks to encourage Jewish migration to the Promised Land and was eventually successful in establishing Israel in 1948, as the homeland for the Jewish people. Its proponents regard its aim as self-determination for the Jewish people.[7] The percentage of world Jewry living in Israel has steadily grown since the movement came into existence. Today more Jews live in Israel than in any other country. About 40% of the world's Jews live in Israel and a similar number live in the United States.[8]

Contents [hide]
1 Terminology
2 Organization
3 Types
3.1 Labor Zionism
3.2 Liberal Zionism
3.3 Nationalist Zionism
3.4 Religious Zionism
4 Particularities of Zionist beliefs
5 History
6 Opposition, critics and evolution
7 Marcus Garvey and Black Zionism
8 Non-Jewish support for Zionism
8.1 Christian Zionism
8.2 Muslims supporting Zionism
9 See also
9.1 Types of Zionism
9.2 Zionist institutions and organizations
9.3 History of Zionism and Israel
9.4 Other
10 Footnotes
11 References
12 External links



[edit] Terminology



The word "Zionism" itself is derived from the word Zion (Hebrew: ????, Tzi-yon?). This name originally referred to Mount Zion, a mountain near Jerusalem, and to the Fortress of Zion on it. Later, under King David, the term "Zion" became a synecdoche referring to the entire city of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. In many Biblical verses, the Israelites were called the people, sons or daughters of Zion.

"Zionism" was coined as a term for Jewish nationalism by Austrian Jewish publisher Nathan Birnbaum, founder of the first nationalist Jewish students' movement Kadimah, in his journal Selbstemanzipation (Self Emancipation) in 1890. (Birnbaum eventually turned against political Zionism and became the first secretary-general of the Haredi movement Agudat Israel.)[9]

Certain individuals and groups have used the term "Zionism" as a pejorative to justify attacks on Jews. According to historians Walter Laqueur, Howard Sachar, Jack Fischel and others, apologists for antisemitism sometimes also use the label "Zionist" as a euphemism for Jews in general.[10][11][12][13][14] Equally, some supporters of Zionism conflate the terms antisemitism and anti-Zionism in an effort to discredit critics of Israel and Israeli government policies. [15]

Zionism can be distinguished from Territorialism, a Jewish nationalist movement willing to contemplate a Jewish homeland anywhere. During the early history of Zionism, a number of proposals were made for settling Jews outside Europe, but ultimately all of these were rejected or failed. The debate over these proposals helped to define the nature and focus of the Zionist movement.

There was also a movement which advocated autonomism, Jewish autonomy within Eastern Europe.


[edit] Organization
Members and delegates at the 1939 Zionist congress, by country (Zionism was banned in Russia). 70,000 Polish Jews supported the Revisionist Zionist movement, which was not represented.[16] Country Members Delegates
Poland 299,165 109
USA 263,741 114
Palestine 167,562 134
Romania 60,013 28
United Kingdom 23,513 15
South Africa 22,343 14
Canada 15,220 8
The Zionist movement is structured as a representative democracy. Congresses are held every four years (they were held every two years before the Second World War) and delegates to the congress are elected by the membership. Members are required to pay dues known as a shekel. At the congress, delegates elected a 30-man executive council, which in turn elected the movement's leader. The movement was democratic from its inception and women had the right to vote (before they won the right in Great Britain). Until 1917, the WZO pursued a strategy of building a homeland through persistent small-scale immigration and the founding of such bodies as the Jewish National Fund (1901 - a charity which bought land for Jewish settlement) and the Anglo-Palestine Bank (1903 - provided loans for Jewish businesses and farmers).

The 28th Zionist Congress, meeting in Jerusalem 1968, adopted the five points of the "Jerusalem Program" as the aims of Zionism today. They are:[17]

The unity of the Jewish People and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life;
The ingathering of the Jewish People in its historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through Aliyah from all countries;
The strengthening of the State of Israel which is based on the prophetic vision of justice and peace:
The preservation of the identity of the Jewish People through the fostering of Jewish and Hebrew education and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values;
The protection of Jewish rights everywhere.
Since the creation of Israel, the role of the movement itself has become far less important, but the ideology remains a critical part of Israeli and Jewish political thinking.


[edit] Types
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)

Over the years a variety of schools of thought have evolved with different schools dominating at different times. In addition Zionists come from a wide variety of ethnic groups and at different times Jews of Russian, Polish, American or Moroccan backgrounds have exercised strong influence on the movement's agenda.


[edit] Labor Zionism
Main article: Labor Zionism
See also: Kibbutz Movement and Kibbutz
Labor Zionism originated in Russia. Socialist Zionists believed that centuries of being oppressed in anti-Semitic societies had reduced Jews to a meek, vulnerable, despairing existence which invited further anti-Semitism. They argued that Jews could escape their situation by becoming farmers, workers, and soldiers in a country of their own. Most socialist Zionists rejected religion as perpetuating a "Diaspora mentality" among the Jewish people, and established rural communes in Israel called "kibbutzim". Socialist and labor Zionists are usually atheists or oppose religion. Consequently, the movement has often had an antagonistic relationship with Orthodox Judaism.

Labor Zionism became the dominant force in the political and economic life of the Yishuv during the British Mandate of Palestine and was the dominant ideology of the political establishment in Israel until the 1977 election when the Labor Party was defeated. The Labor Party continues the tradition (although it has weakened) and has in recent years taken to advocating creation of a Palestinian State in the West-Bank and Gaza.


[edit] Liberal Zionism
Main article: General Zionists
General Zionism (or Liberal Zionism) was initially the dominant trend within the Zionist movement from the First Zionist Congress in 1897 until after the First World War. General Zionists identified with the liberal European middle class (or bourgeois) to which many Zionist leaders such as Herzl and Chaim Weizmann aspired. Liberal Zionism, although not associated with any single party in modern Israel, remains a strong trend in Israeli politics advocating free market principles, democracy and adherence to human rights.


[edit] Nationalist Zionism
Main article: Revisionist Zionism
Nationalist Zionism originated from the Revisionist Zionists led by Jabotinsky. Before independence, the revisionists advocated the formation of a Jewish Army in Palestine to force the Arab population to accept mass Jewish migration and promote British interests in the region. Revisionist Zionism evolved into the Likud Party in Israel, which has dominated most governments since 1977. It advocates Israel maintaining control of the West-Bank and East Jerusalem and takes a hard-line approach in the Israeli-Arab conflict.


[edit] Religious Zionism
Main article: Religious Zionism
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Zionism an Affirmation of JudaismIn the 1920s and 1930s Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (the first Chief Rabbi of Palestine) and his son Rabbi Zevi Judah Kook saw great religious and traditional value in many of Zionism's ideals, while rejecting its anti-religious undertones. They sought to forge a branch of Orthodox Judaism which would properly embrace Zionism's positive ideals and serve as a bridge between Orthodox and secular Jews.

While other Zionist groups have tended to moderate their nationalism over time, the gains from the Six Day War have led religious Zionism to play a significant role in Israeli political life. Now associated with the National Religious Party and Gush Emunim, religious Zionists have been at the forefront of Jewish settlement in the West Bank and efforts to assert Jewish control over the Old City of Jerusalem.

Religious Zionism is largely Modern Orthodox but increasingly includes (more traditional) Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Although the Sephardi party Shas is not directly associated with the Zionist movement, the party generally pursues an Ultra-Orthodox Zionist agenda.


[edit] Particularities of Zionist beliefs
Main article: The "Negation of the Diaspora" in Zionism
According to Eliezer Schweid the rejection of life in the Diaspora is a central assumption in all currents of Zionism.[18] Underlying this attitude was the feeling that the Diaspora restricted the full growth of Jewish national life.

Main article: Revival of the Hebrew language
See also: Yiddish, Ladino, and Hebraization of surnames
Zionists preferred to speak Hebrew, a semitic language that developed under conditions of freedom in ancient Judah, modernizing and adapting it for everyday use. Zionists sometimes refused to speak Yiddish, a language they considered affected by Christian persecution. Once they moved to Israel, many Zionists refused to speak their (diasporic) mother tongues and gave themselves new, Hebrew names.

Main article: anti-semitism
Zionism is dedicated to fighting anti-semitism. Some Zionists believe that anti-semitism will never disappear (and that Jews must conduct themselves with this in mind[19]) while others perceive Zionism as a vehicle with which to end anti-semitism.


[edit] History
Main articles: History of Zionism and History of Israel
Since the first century CE most Jews have lived in exile, although there has been a constant presence of Jews in the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel). According to Judaism, Eretz Israel, or Zion, is a land promised to the Jews by God according to the Bible. After the 2nd century Bar Kokhba revolt, the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine, thus forming the Jewish diaspora.

In the 19th century, a current in Judaism supporting a return to Palestine grew in popularity.[20] Jews began to emigrate to Palestine, pre-Zionist Aliyah, even before 1897, the year considered as the start of practical Zionism.[21].

Population of Palestine by religions[22] year Muslims Jews Christians Others
1922 486,177 83,790 71,464 7,617
1931 493,147 174,606 88,907 10,101
1941 906,551 474,102 125,413 12,881
1946 1,076,783 608,225 145,063 15,488
Jewish immigration to Palestine started in earnest in 1882. Most immigrants came from Russia, escaping the frequent pogroms and state-led persecution. They founded a number of agricultural settlements with financial support from Jewish philanthropists in Western Europe. Further Aliyahs followed the Russian Revolution and Nazi persecution.

In the 1890s, Theodor Herzl infused Zionism with a new ideology and practical urgency, leading to the first congress at Basel in 1897, which created the World Zionist Organization (WZO).[23] Herzl's aim was to initiate necessary preparatory steps for the attainment a Jewish state. Herzl’s attempts to reach a political agreement with the Ottoman rulers of Palestine were unsuccessful and other governmental support was sought. The WZO supported small-scale settlement in Palestine and focused on strengthening Jewish feeling and consciousness and on building a world-wide federation.

The Russian Empire, with its long record of state organized genocide and ethnic cleansing ("pogroms") was widely regarded as the historic enemy of the Jewish people. As much of its leadership were German speakers, the Zionist movement's headquarters were located in Berlin. At the start of the First World War, most Jews (and Zionists) supported Germany in its war with Russia.

Lobbying by a Russian Jewish immigrant, Chaim Weizmann and fear that American Jews would encourage the USA to support Germany culminated in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 by the British government. This endorsed the creation of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. In addition, a Zionist military corps led by Jabotinsky were recruited to fight on behalf of Britain in Palestine. In 1922, the League of nations adopted the declaration in the Mandate it gave to Britain:

The Mandatory (…) will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.[24]

Weizmann's role in obtaining the Balfour Declaration led to his election as the movement's leader. He remained in that role until 1948.

The British Mandate caused greater Jewish migration to Palestine and massive Jewish land purchases from feudal landlords, which created landlessness and fueled unrest (often led by the same landlords who sold the land). There were riots in 1920, 1921 and 1929, sometimes accompanied by massacres of Jews. The victims were usually local non-Zionist orthodox Jewish communities. Britain supported Jewish immigration in principle, but in reaction to Arab violence imposed restrictions on Jewish immigration.

In 1933, Hitler came to power in Germany, and in 1935 the Nuremberg Laws made German Jews (and later Austrian and Czech Jews) stateless refugees. Similar rules were applied by Nazi allies in Europe. The subsequent growth in Jewish migration and impact of Nazi propaganda aimed at the Arab world led to the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Britain established the Peel Commission to investigate the situation. The commission did not consider the situation of Jews in Europe but called for a two-state solution and compulsory transfer of populations. But Britain rejected this solution and instead implemented White Paper of 1939. This planned to end Jewish immigration by 1944 and to allow no more than 75,000 further Jewish migrants. The British maintained this policy until the end of the Mandate.

Growth of the Jewish community in Palestine and devastation of European Jewish life sidelined the World Zionist Organization. The Jewish Agency for Palestine under the leadership of David Ben-Gurion increasingly dictated policy with support from American Zionists who provided funding and influence in Washington, DC.

After WWII and the Holocaust, Jews, especially by Holocaust survivors, universally supported the Jewish community in Palestine. Zionist groups attacked the British in Palestine because of their restrictions on Jewish immigration, and eventually Britain was forced to refer the issue to the newly created United Nations.

In 1947, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended that western Palestine should be partitioned into a Jewish state, an Arab state and a UN-controlled territory (Corpus separatum) around Jerusalem.[25] This partition plan was adopted on November 29, 1947 with UN GA Resolution 181, 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. The vote led to celebrations in the streets of Jewish cities.[26]

The Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states rejected the UN decision, demanding a single state and removal of Jewish migrants. On 14 May 1948, at the end of the British mandate, the Jewish Agency, led by Ben-Gurion, declared the creation of the State of Israel, and the same day the armies of seven Arab countries invaded Israel. The conflict led to an exodus of about 711,000 Arab Palestinians[27] and the exodus of 850,000 Jews from the Arab world, mostly to Israel.

Since the creation of the State of Israel, the WZO has functioned mainly as an organization dedicated to assisting and encouraging Jews to migrate to Israel. It has provided political support for Israel in other countries but plays little role in internal Israeli politics.

The movement's major success since 1948 was in providing logistical support for migrating Jews and, most importantly, in assisting Soviet Jews in their struggle with the authorities over the right to leave the USSR and to practice their religion in freedom.


[edit] Opposition, critics and evolution
Main articles: Anti-Zionism, Non-Zionism, Post-Zionism, Neo-Zionism, and New Antisemitism
See also: Stalin's antisemitism and Karl Marx#Marx and antisemitism
In the 1920s, the growing secularization of the Zionist movement led to opposition from some Orthodox Jewish groups. The movement was also opposed by Islamic and Arab nationalist organizations, by some assimilated Jews and by British Imperialists who feared it would undermine Britain's relations with its many Muslim subjects in the Indian sub-continent. At times Marxist organizations have also opposed Zionism for a variety of reasons.

Since the creation of the state of Israel, anti-Zionism has increasingly become associated with anti-Semitism and this has led to claims that there is a New Anti-Semitism associated with anti-Zionism.

In Israel the Canaanite movement led by poet Yonatan Ratosh in the 1930s and 1940s argued that "Israeli" should be a new pan-ethnic nationality.

During the last quarter of 20th century, classic nationalism in Israel declined. This led to the rise of two antagonistic movements: neo-Zionism and post-Zionism. Both movements mark the Israeli version of a worldwide phenomenon: (1) the emergence of globalization, a market society and liberal culture, and (2) a local backlash.[28] Neo-Zionism and post-Zionism share traits with "classical" Zionism but differ by accentuating antagonist and diametrically opposed poles already present in Zionism. "Neo Zionism accentuates the messianic and particularistic dimensions of Zionist nationalism, while post-Zionism accentuates its normalising and universalistic dimensions".[29]


[edit] Marcus Garvey and Black Zionism
Zionist success in winning British support for formation of a Jewish National Home in Palestine helped to inspire the Jamaican nationalist Marcus Garvey to form a movement dedicated to returning Americans of African origin to Africa. During a speech in Harlem in 1920, Garvey stated: "other races were engaged in seeing their cause through—the Jews through their Zionist movement and the Irish through their Irish movement—and I decided that, cost what it might, I would make this a favorable time to see the Negro's interest through."[30] Garvey established a shipping company, the Black Star Line, to allow Black Americans to emigrate to Africa, but for various reasons failed in his endeavour. His ideas helped inspire the Rastafarian movement in Jamaica, the Black Jews[31] and The African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem who initially moved to Liberia before settling in Israel.



[edit] Non-Jewish support for Zionism
Political support for the Jewish return to the Land of Israel predates the formal organization of Jewish Zionism as a political movement. In the 19th century, advocates of the Restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land were called Restorationists. The return of the Jews to the Holy Land was widely supported by such eminent figures as Queen Victoria, King Edward VII, President John Adams of the United States, General Smuts of South Africa, President Masaryk of Czechoslovakia, philosopher and historian Benedetto Croce from Italy, Henry Dunant (founder of the Red Cross and author of the Geneva Conventions), and scientist and humanitarian Fridtjof Nansen from Norway.

The French government through Minister M. Cambon formally committed itself to “the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago".

In China, Wang, Minister of Foreign Affairs, declared that "the Nationalist government is in full sympathy with the Jewish people in their desire to establish a country for themselves."[32]


[edit] Christian Zionism
Main article: Christian Zionism
Christians have a long history of supporting Zionism. Famous supporters of Israel include British Prime Ministers David Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour, American President Woodrow Wilson and Orde Wingate whose activities in support of Zionism led the British Army to ban him from ever serving in Palestine. According to Charles Merkley of Carleton University, Christian Zionism strengthened significantly after the Six-Day War of 1967, and many dispensationalist Christians, especially in the United States, now strongly support Zionism.

The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, in his last years alive, declared "the time for Jews to return to the land of Israel is now." In 1842, Smith sent Orson Hyde, an Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, to Jerusalem to dedicate the land for the return of the Jews.[citation needed]

Christian Arabs publicly supporting Israel include US author Nonie Darwish, creator of the Arabs for Israel Web site, and former Muslim Magdi Allam, author of Viva Israele,[33] both born in Egypt. Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese-born Christian US journalist and founder of the American Congress For Truth, urges Americans to "fearlessly speak out in defense of America, Israel and Western civilization".[34]


[edit] Muslims supporting Zionism
In 1873, Shah of Persia Nasser al-Din Shah Qajar met with British Jewish leaders, including Sir Moses Montefiore, during his journey to Europe. At that time, the Persian king suggested that the Jews buy land and establish a state for the Jewish people.[35]

Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, the leader of Italian Muslim Assembly and a co-founder of the Islam-Israel Fellowship, and Canadian Imam Khaleel Mohammed find support for Zionism in the Qur'an.[36][37] Other Muslims who have supported Zionism include Pakistani journalist Tashbih Sayyed[38] and Bangladeshi journalist Salah Choudhury. Choudhury has been imprisoned since 2003 and is facing a death sentence.[39]

On occasion, some non-Arab Muslims such as some Kurds and Berbers have also voiced support for Zionism.[40][41]


[edit] See also
Religion portal

[edit] Types of Zionism
Christian Zionism
Hindu Zionism
Cultural Zionism
General Zionists
Labor Zionism
Reform Zionism
Religious Zionism
Revisionist Zionism
Muslim Zionism

[edit] Zionist institutions and organizations
Histadrut
The Jewish Agency for Israel
Jewish National Fund
Vaad Leumi
World Zionist Organization

[edit] History of Zionism and Israel
History of Zionism
History of Israel
History of Palestine
Israeli-Palestinian conflict
List of Zionist figures
Timeline of Zionism

[edit] Other
Anti-Zionism
Jewish Autonomism
Jewish Emancipation
Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom
Restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land

[edit] Footnotes
^ "An international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel." ("Zionism," Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary). See also "Zionism", Encyclopedia Britannica, which describes it as a "Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews," and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, which defines it as "A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel."
^ "...from Zion, where King David fashioned the first Jewish nation" (Friedland, Roger and Hecht, Richard To Rule Jerusalem, p. 27).
^ "By the late Second Temple times, when widely held Messianic beliefs were so politically powerful in their implications and repercussions, and when the significance of political authority, territorial sovereignty, and religious belief for the fate of the Jews as a people was so widely and vehemently contested, it seems clear that Jewish nationhood was a social and cultural reality". (Roshwald, Aviel. "Jewish Identity and the Paradox of Nationalism", in Berkowitz, Michael (ed.). Nationalism, Zionism and Ethnic Mobilization of the Jews in 1900 and Beyond, p. 15).
^ Wylen, Stephen M. Settings of Silver: An Introduction to Judaism, Second Edition, Paulist Press, 2000, p. 392). Calaprice, Alice. The Einstein Almanac, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004, p. xvi.
^ A.R. Taylor, 'Vision and intent in Zionist Thought', in 'The transformation of Palestine', ed. by I. Abu-Lughod, 1971, ISBN 0-8101-0345-1, p. 10
^ Walter Laqueur (2003) The History of Zionism Tauris Parke Paperbacks, ISBN 1860649327 p 40
^ A national liberation movement: Rockaway, Robert. Zionism: The National Liberation Movement of The Jewish People, World Zionist Organization, January 21, 1975, accessed August 17, 2006). Shlomo Avineri:(Zionism as a Movement of National Liberation, Hagshama department of the World Zionist Organization, December 12, 2003, accessed August 17, 2006). Neuberger, Binyamin. Zionism - an Introduction, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 20, 2001, accessed August 17, 2006).
^ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html accessed Feb 2009
^ De Lange, Nicholas, An Introduction to Judaism, Cambridge University Press (2000), p. 30. ISBN 0-521-46624-5.
^ Walter Laqueur (2006). 'Dying for Jerusalem: The Past, Present and Future of the Holiest City'. Sourcebooks, Inc.. p. 55. ISBN 1-4022-0632-1.
^ [Judaism Without Embellishment, by Trofim Kichko, 1963]
^ Beware: Zionism, Yuri Ivanov]
^ The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
^ A History of the Jews in the Modern World, Howard Sachar (Knopf, NY. 2005) p.722
^ Klug, Brian. "In search of clarity", Catalyst, March 17, 2006.
^ Source: A survey of Palestine, prepared in 1946 for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Volume II page 907 HMSO 1946.
^ http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=497&subject=43
^ E. Schweid, ‘Rejection of the Diaspora in Zionist Thought’, in ‘’Essential Papers onZionsm, ed. By Reinharz & Shapira, 1996, ISBN 0-8147-7449-0, p.133
^ For an example of this view see The New Anti-Zionism and the Old Antisemitism: Transformations By: Raphael Jospe at http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=2095 accessed 16/11/2008
^ http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/0,15478,3900-1,00.html#FlashPluginDetected
^ C.D. Smith, 2001, 'Palestine and the Arab-Israeli conflict', 4th ed., ISBN 0-312-20828-6, p. 1-12, 33-38
^ Anonymous (1947-09-03). "REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, VOLUME 1". UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE. http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3!OpenDocument. Retrieved on 2008-06-30.
^ Zionism & The British In Palestine, by Sethi,Arjun (University of Maryland) January 2007, accessed May 20, 2007.
^ League of Nations Palestine Mandate, July 24, 1922, sateofisrael.com/mandate
^ United Nations Special Committee on Palestine; report to the General Assembly, A/364, 3 September 1947
^ Three minutes, 2000 years, Video from the Jewish Agency for Israel, via YouTube
^ General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, GA A/1367/Rev.1 23 October 1950
^ Uri Ram, The Future of the Past in Israel - A Sociology of Knowledge Approach, in Benny Morris, Making Israel, p.224.
^ Steve Chan, Anita Shapira, Derek Jonathan, Israeli Historical Revisionism: from left to right, Routledge, 2002, p.58.
^ Negro World 6 March 1920, cited in http://www.international.ucla.edu/africa/mgpp/lifeintr.asp (accessed 29/11/2007).
^ BlackJews.org - A Project of the International Board of Rabbis
^ Palestine: The Original Sin , Meir Abelson [1]
^ ISBN 9788804567776
^ anonymous (unknown). "Mission/Vision". American Congress for Truth. http://americancongressfortruth.com/mission-vision.asp. Retrieved on 2008-04-17.
^ World Jewish Congress
^ Glazov, Jamie. "The Anti-Terror, Pro-Israel Sheikh" FrontPage Magazine, September 12, 2005. "I find in the Qur'an that God granted the Land of Israel to the Children of Israel and ordered them to settle therein (Qur'an 5:21) and that before the Last Day He will bring the Children of Israel to retake possession of their Land, gathering them from different countries and nations (Qur'an 17:104). Consequently, as a Muslim who abides by the Qur'an, I believe that opposing the existence of the State of Israel means opposing a Divine decree."
^ Cobb, Chris (6 February 2007). "The scathing scholar". The Ottawa Citizen. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=604855a0-7b9c-4519-a841-f4736d59eaa1. Retrieved on 26 March 2008. "despite what Muslims are taught, Islam's holy book, the Koran, supports the right of Israel to exist and for Jews to live there."
^ Neuwirth, Rachel. "Tashbih Sayyed ? A Fearless Muslim Zionist", The American Thinker, June 24, 2007.
^ Freund, Michael (2008-08-08). "Pro-Israel editor goes on trial in Bangladesh". Jerusalem Post. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104239563&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull. Retrieved on 2008-08-25.
^ "Islam, Islam, Laïcité, and Amazigh Activism in France and North Africa" (2004 paper), Paul A. Silverstein, Department of Anthropology, Reed College
^ WHY NOT A KURDISH-ISRAELI ALLIANCE? (Iran Press Service)

[edit] References
Taylor, A.R., 1971, 'Vision and intent in Zionist Thought', in 'The transformation of Palestine', ed. by I. Abu-Lughod, ISBN 0-8101-0345-1, Northwestern university press, Evanston, USA
David Hazony, Yoram Hazony, and Michael B. Oren, eds., "New Essays on Zionism," Shalem Press, 2007.

[edit] External links
http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/ WZO website
Works related to Zionism at Wikisource
Jewish State.com Zionism, News, Links
Exodus1947.com PBS Documentary Film focusing on the secret American involvement in Aliyah Bet, narrated by Morley Safer
Moshe Yaalon, Zionism in the 21st Century – Israel and the Jewish People May 2008.


Zionism
The history of Zionism and the creation of Israel

The word "Zionism" has several different meanings:

1. An ideology - Zionist ideology holds that the Jews are a people or nation like any other, and should gather together in a single homeland. Zionism was self-consciously the Jewish analogue of Italian and German national liberation movements of the nineteenth century. The term "Zionism" was apparently coined in 1891 by the Austrian publicist Nathan Birnbaum, to describe the new ideology, but it was used retroactively to describe earlier efforts and ideas to return the Jews to their homeland for whatever reasons, and it is applied to Evangelical Christians who want people of the Jewish religion to return to Israel in order to hasten the second coming. "Christian Zionism" is also used to describe any Christian support for Israel.

2. A descriptive term - The term "Zionism" was apparently coined in 1891 by the Austrian publicist Nathan Birnbaum, to describe the new ideology. It is also used to describe anyone who believes Jews should return to their ancient homeland.

3. A political movement - The Zionist movement was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897, incorporating the ideas of early thinkers as well as the organization built by Hovevei Tziyon ("lovers of Zion").

(more Definitions of Zionism )

"Zionism" derives its name from "Zion," (pronounced "Tzyion" in Hebrew) a hill in Jerusalem. The word means "marker" or commemoration. "Shivath Tzion" is one of the traditional terms for the return of Jewish exiles. "Zionism" is not a monolithic ideological movement. It includes, for example, socialist Zionists such as Ber Borochov, religious Zionists such as rabbi Kook, revisionist nationalists such as Jabotinsky and cultural Zionists exemplified by Asher Ginsberg (Achad Haam). Zionist ideas evolved over time and were influenced by circumstances as well as by social and cultural movements popular in Europe at different times, including socialism, nationalism and colonialism, and assumed different "flavors" depending on the country of origin of the thinkers and prevalent contemporary intellectual currents. Accordingly, no single person, publication, quote or pronouncement should be taken as embodying "official" Zionist ideology.

Background history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism *

Zionism did not spring full blown from a void with the creation of the Zionist movement in 1897. Jews had maintained a connection with Palestine, both actual and spiritual, even after the Bar Kochba revolt in 135, when large numbers of Jews were exiled from Roman Palestine, the remains of their ancient national home. The Jewish community in Palestine revived and, under Muslim rule, is estimated to have numbered as many as 300,000 about 1000 AD, prior to the Crusades. The Crusaders killed most of the Jewish population of Palestine or forced them into exile, so that only about 1,000 families remained after the reconquest of Palestine by Saladin. The Jewish community in Palestine waxed and waned with the vicissitudes of conquest and economic hardship, and invitations by different Turkish rulers to displaced European Jews to settle in Tiberias and Hebron. At different times there were sizeable Jewish communities in Tiberias, Safed, Hebron and Jerusalem, and numbers of Jews living in Nablus and Gaza. A few original Jews remained in the town of Peki'in, families that had lived there continuously since ancient times.

In the Diaspora, religion became the medium for preserving Jewish culture and Jewish ties to their ancient land. Jews prayed several times a day for the rebuilding of the temple, celebrated agricultural feasts and called for rain according to the seasons of ancient Israel, even in the farthest reaches of Russia. The ritual plants of Sukkoth were imported from the Holy Land at great expense.

From time to time, small numbers of Jews came to settle in Palestine in answer to rabbinical or messianic calls, or fleeing persecution in Europe. Beginning about 1700, groups of followers led by rabbis reached Palestine from Europe and the Ottoman Empire with various programs. For example, Rabbi Yehuda Hehasid and his followers settled in Jerusalem about 1700, but the rabbi died suddenly, and eventually, an Arab mob, angered over unpaid debts, destroyed the synagogue the group had built and banned all European (Ashkenazy) Jews from Jerusalem. Rabbis Luzatto and Ben-Attar led a relatively large immigration about 1740. Other groups and individuals came from Lithuania and Turkey and different countries in Eastern Europe.

At no time between the Roman exile and the rise of Zionism was there a movement to settle the holy land that engaged the main body of European or Eastern Jews. The condition of Jews both in Europe and Eastern countries made such a movement unimaginable. Many, however, were attracted to various false Messiahs such as Shabetai Tzvi, who promised to restore Jews to their land. For most Jews, the connection with the ancient homeland and with Jerusalem remained largely cultural and spiritual, and return to the homeland was a hypothetical event that would occur with the coming of the Messiah at an unknown date in the far future. European Jews lived, for the most part in ghettos. They did not get a general education, and did not generally engage in practical trades that might prepare them for living in Palestine. Most of the communities founded by these early settlers met with economic disaster, or were disbanded following earthquakes, anti-Jewish riots or outbreaks of disease. The Jewish communities of Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem and Hebron were typically destroyed by natural and man-made disasters and repopulated several times, never supporting more than a few thousand persons each at their height. The Jews of Palestine, numbering about 17,000 by the mid-19th century, lived primarily on charity - Halukka donations, with only a very few engaging in crafts trade or productive work.

Proto-Zionism history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism *
Following the French Revolution and the emancipation of European Jewry however, the vague spiritual bonds of the Jews to the "Holy Land" began to express themselves in more concrete, though not always practical ways. About 1808, groups of Lithuanian Jews, followers of the Vilna Gaon (a famous rabbi and opponent of Hassidism) arrived in Palestine and purchased land to begin an agricultural settlement. In 1836, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer petitioned Anschel Rothschild to buy Palestine or at least the Temple Mount for the Jews. In 1839-1840, Sir Moses Montefiore visited Palestine and negotiated with the Khedive of Egypt to allow Jewish settlement and land purchase in Palestine. However, the negotiations led to nothing, possibly frustrated by the outbreak of an anti-Semitic blood-libel in Damascus. Thereafter, Montefiore continued with less ambitious philanthropic schemes in Palestine and in Argentina. In the 1840s,

Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer



British Zionism - The idea of a Jewish restoration also took the fancy of British intellectuals for religious and practical reasons. It had been championed by Protestants since the seventeenth century. The restoration was championed in the 1840s by Lords Shaftesbury and Palmerston, who in addition to religious motivations, thought that a Jewish colony in Palestine would help to stabilize and revive the country, Jewish national stirrings were also voiced by novelists and writers such as Lord Byron, Benjamin Disraeli, George Eliot and Walter Scott. (see also British Zionism and off-site: Christian Zionism)

Role of Sephardic Jews - Through an accident of history, European (Ashkenazy) Jews took the lead in organized Zionism for many years. However, Sephardic (Spanish) Jews and Jews in Arab lands maintained a closer practical tie with the holy land and with the Hebrew language than did Ashkenazy Jews and also influenced and participated in the the Zionist movement from its inception. Sarajevo-born Judah ben Solomon Hai Alkalai (1798-1878,) is considered one of the major precursors of modern Zionism. Alkalai believed that return to the land of lsrael was a precondition for the redemption of the Jewish people. Alkalai's ideas greatly influenced his Ashkenazy contemporary, Rabbi Zvi Hirsh Kalischer. Alkalai was also a friend of the grandfather of Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism. Another Sephardi Jew, David Alkalai, a grand-nephew of Judah Alkalai, founded and led the Zionist movement in Serbia and Yugoslavia., and attended the first Zionist Congress in Basel (1897).

Rabbi Solomon Hai Alkalai


Early Zionists
The modern formulation of Zionism was at least partly divorced from religious aspirations. The 19th century enlightenment allowed the Jews to leave the ghettos of Europe for the first time. Some converted to Christianity and assimilated to surrounding society. Others, exposed to a general education, dropped their religious beliefs, but considered themselves Jews, and understood that others still considered them to be Jews. This suggested a conundrum. If one could be a non-believer and still be a Jew, then "Jew" must be more than just the name of a religion. German racists solved this conundrum by inventing a racial theory, which lacked any real scientific basis. Socialists cited the aberrant class structure of Jewish society and labeled Jews a "caste." Zionists solved the conundrum by declaring that Jews are a people, a fact implicit and explicit in the Jewish biblical and cultural concept of "am Yisrael." The Jews were a people without a country however, and would remain politically powerless as long as they did not have a national home. They would be guests everywhere and at home nowhere, according to Zionist ideology. This homelessness was the cause of the "Jewish Problem," and it could not fail to be exacerbated by the rise of nationalism and nations in the 19th century. This explained why, paradoxically, anti-Jewish sentiment might become more pronounced in "enlightened" Europe than it had been in previous centuries, when nationalism had been less pronounced.

Moses Hess, a relatively secular Jew and a socialist, was probably the first to enunciate these ideas in so many words in his book Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question, published in 1862, calling for a Jewish national movement similar to the Italian risorgimento nationalist movement. These and similar sentiments were adopted by numerous small groups that formed primarily in Eastern Europe, but also in Britain and in the United States.

The "first aliya" - The first groups of immigrants who came to the land of Israel (it had no official name in the Ottoman Empire) with the idea of turning the land into a national home for the Jews are known as the "first Aliya." "Aliya" literally means "going up" and it is a term Jews have used for a long time for coming to the holy land. Beginning in the 1870s, religious and nonreligious Jews established several study groups and societies for purchasing land in Palestine and settling there. In 1870 the Alliance Israelite, an ostensibly non-Zionist organization, founded the Miqveh Yisrael agricultural school near Beit Dagan.

In 1882, the BILU (an acronym for "Beyt Ya'akov Lechu Venelcha" - House of Jacob let us go) and Hibbat Tziyon (love of Zion) groups were established. They were inspired by the impetus of the wave of anti-Jewish violence that had swept Russia in 1881. Hibbat Tziyion began as a network of independent underground groups. These and similar groups established a number of early Jewish settlements including Yesod Hamaalah, Rosh Pinna, Gedera, Rishon Le Tziyon, Nes Tziyonna and Rehovot on land purchased from Arab owners with the aid of Jewish philanthropists, chiefly Lord Rothschild. Joel Solomon led a group of orthodox Jews out of Jerusalem to found Petah Tikva in 1878.

Petah Tiqva


The settlements were characteristically vineyards and orange orchards. The settlers were mostly religious Jews at least nominally, though the religious Jewish establishment frowned on Zionism. In 1882, 150 Yemenite Jews also found their way to Palestine. The first Aliya numbered about 25,000 persons, primarily from Eastern Europe. Many of them returned home defeated by disease, poverty and unemployment.

Revival of Hebrew - Among the first arrivals of the first Aliya was Eliezer ben Yehuda (Perelman). Inspired by European, particularly Bulgarian nationalism, Ben Yehuda was moved to settle in Palestine. He arrived in 1881 and undertook to revive the Hebrew language. With the help of Nissim Bechar, principal of a school operated by the Alliance Israelite Universelle, Ben Yehuda began teaching Hebrew. Later he founded and published the Hatzvi newspaper, and set up a linguistic council. Ben Yehuda's work was the major force in the revival of Hebrew as a modern language.

Leon Pinsker and Hovevei Tziyon - Inspired by the anti-Semitic violence in Russia, Leon Pinsker formulated the modern idea of Zionism in a small pamphlet called Auto-Emancipation, published in 1882. Pinsker believed that anti-Semitism was inevitable as long as Jews were guests in every country and at home nowhere, and wrote that the Jews' only salvation lay in liberating themselves and settling in their own country. Pinsker favored Argentina or other countries as sites for the Jewish homeland. However, Western Jews who might have favored this idea rebuffed him. In his native Russia, however, his ideas were well received, but they were channeled to settlement in Palestine. In 1882, Pinsker was made head of the Hovevei Tzion organization, which united many small and scattered groups, primarily in Russia, into a single organization. Pinsker favored "political Zionism," that is, organization of Jews in Europe and petitioning the great powers for land on which to establish a national home. However, his efforts in this direction were rebuffed by the Russian government. Instead, he directed his energies to the gradual purchase of land and settlement of small groups in Palestine.

Early settlers faced innumerable cultural and economic difficulties. In 1800, the ravages of misadministration and war had reduced the population to about 200,000. By the 1880s, the land had recovered somewhat, but it was still poor and disease ridden. The total population was about 450,00. Jerusalem was a small town of 25,000 inhabitants, slightly more than half Jewish. The first settlement of Petah Tikva in 1878 failed and was later refounded. The Ottoman government barely tolerated the settlers, especially those who retained their foreign nationality, and occasionally the government restricted immigration. Settlers who adopted Ottoman nationality were liable for the Turkish draft. Disease, poverty and unemployment caused many to leave.

Early Jewish Settlers


Theodore Herzl and the Foundation of the Zionist Movement
The Dreyfus Affair, in which a Jewish officer of the French army was falsely convicted of treason in 1894, initiated waves of anti-Semitism in the French press and in the street. It cast doubt on the notion that Jews could achieve acceptance in modern liberal democracies, and made Western European Jews conscious of their national identity. In particular, it affected a young Vienna journalist, Theodor Herzl . His pamphlet Der Judenstaat, The Jewish State, was published in 1896. Herzl's plan for creating a Jewish State, arrived at after contemplating other solutions as well, provided the practical program of Zionism, and led to the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in August, 1897.

After the first Basle Congress, Herzl wrote in his diary, “Were I to sum up the Basle Congress in a word- which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly- it would be this: ‘At Basle, I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. If not in 5 years, certainly in 50, everyone will know it.’”

Theodor Herzl

There had been lesser Zionist political gatherings with the same aims in the years just prior to the Zionist Congress, but they did not attract the attention that Herzl's congress did, and were largely forgotten. The Basle congress marked the foundation of Zionism as a world political movement.

In 1902, Herzl published a utopian novel to popularize the Jewish state, Altneuland, (old-new land) a vision complete with monorails and modern industry. The novel concludes, "If you will, it is no legend."

Herzl thought that diplomatic activity would be the main method for getting the Jewish homeland. He called for the organized transfer of Jewish communities to the new state. Of the location of the state, Herzl said, "We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by public opinion."

Herzl attempted to gain a charter from the Sultan of Turkey for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, then ruled by the Ottoman Empire. To this end he met in 1898 with the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, in Istanbul and Palestine, as well as the Sultan, but these meetings did not bear fruit.

Herzl negotiated with the British regarding the possibility of settling the Jews on the island of Cyprus, the Sinai Peninsula, the El Arish region and Uganda. After the Kishinev pogroms, Herzl visited Russia in July 1903. He tried to persuade the Russian government to help the Zionists transfer Jews from Russia to Palestine. At the Sixth Zionist Congress Herzl proposed settlement in Uganda, on offer from the British, as a temporary "night refuge." The idea met with sharp opposition, especially from the same Russian Jews that Herzl had thought to help. Though the congress passed the plan as a gesture of esteem for Herzl, it was not pursued seriously, and the initiative died after the plan was withdrawn. In his quest for a political solution, Herzl met with the king of Italy, who was encouraging, and with the Pope, who expressed opposition. A small group, the Jewish Territorial Organization ("Territorial Zionists") led by Israel Zangwill, split with the Zionist movement in 1905, and attempted to establish a Jewish homeland wherever possible. The organization was dissolved in 1925.

The insistence of Eastern European Jews on Palestine as the Jewish homeland, coupled with the failure of alternatives, maintained the focus of the Zionist movement on Palestine.

The Second Aliyah and Socialist Zionism ry zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism *
The "political Zionism" approach originally tried by Montefiore, Pinsker and Herzl, which attempted to obtain a Jewish homeland from colonial powers, failed to attain results at least initially. Meanwhile, however, practical settlement efforts gradually increased the Jewish population of Palestine from about 25,000 in 1882 to approximately 85,000 to 100,000 just prior to World War I.

A fresh wave of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia provided the impetus for a second wave of immigration, beginning about 1904 and called the Second Aliyah. At the same time, the rise socialist - Zionist stirrings had inspired several socialist Zionist movements. Thousands of new immigrants dedicated to the conquest of labor ethic and socialist ideals arrived in Palestine. Their Zionism was typified by the thinking of men like Ber Borochov andA.D. Gordon,. Hapoel Hatzair, ("The young worker") was founded by A.D. Gordon, Poalei Tziyon ("workers of Zion") , and later Hashomer Hatzair ("the young guard) were inspired by Ber Borochov. Borochov, an ideologue of the Poalei Tziyon movement, did not cite anti-Semitism as the basis or motivation of Zionism. According to him, the Diaspora produced aberrant social conditions that made Jews economically inferior and politically helpless. The normal organization of society was a pyramid, according to Borochov, with a large body of workers and smaller groups of intelligentsia, land owners and capitalists. The Diaspora had created an 'inverted pyramid' in Jewish society, with no Jewish peasant or worker class. Self-liberation of the Jews would come about by proletarianization of the Jews in their homeland, and the nascent Jewish proletariat would join the socialist international. Similarly, A.D. Gordon, inspired by 19th century romanticism, called for a Jewish return to the soil and virtually made a religion of work. These ideas fused into the ideals of "productivization" (returning the Jews, who engaged mostly in professional and mercantile trades, to productive labor) and "conquest of labor" ( Kibbush Haavoda). "Conquest of labor" later took on additional meanings. (See also Labor Zionism and Socialist Zionism )

Labor Zionism - Detail of photo showing delegates to the fourth meeting of the Hapoel Hatzair, about 1909. Click here for full photo and more about Labor Zionism and socialist Zionism.

The new immigrants arrived with the ideals of socialist Zionism, but reality was not favorable to implementing those ideas. The Zionist movement attempted to find them work. but the new immigrants , who had no training in agriculture and poor physical stamina, were unable to compete with Arab peasants. Arabs certainly would not hire Jewish workers, who could not work well and could not speak Arabic. Arab labor was also preferred by the plantation and vineyard owners of the first Aliya. Arabs were experienced and hard workers, and were able to work for much lower wages because they were often members of an extended family that made its main income from sharecropping. The plantation owners had also developed a superior colonialist mentality which suited the hiring of "natives," and clashed with the egalitarian ideas and social demands of the newly arrived socialists.

The socialist Zionist movements tried to force plantation owners to grant higher wages, and also began to insist that plantation owners hire only Jewish workers. This aspect of "conquest of labor" was controversial within the socialist-Zionist movements because it engendered lack of solidarity with the Arab working class and was discriminatory. One labor Zionist leader wrote:

"How can Jews, who demand emancipation in Russia, rob rights and act selfishly toward other workers upon coming to Eretz Israel? If it is possible for many a people to hide fairness and justice behind cannon smoke, how and behind what shall we hide fairness and justice? We should absolutely not deceive ourselves with terrible visions. We shall never possess cannons, even if the goyim shall bear arms against one another for ever. Therefore, we cannot but settle in our land fairly and justly, to live and let live. "
(Meir Dizengoff (writing as "Dromi") "The Workers Question," Hatzvi, September 21, 22, 1909)

At the same time, Conquest of Labor was a central part of Labor Zionist ideology, as a means of rebuilding the Jewish people, not a discriminatory ideology. A.D. Gordon wrote:

But labour is the only force which binds man to the soil… it is the basic energy for the creation of national culture. This is what we do not have, but we are not aware of missing it. We are a people without a country, without a national living language, without a national culture. We seem to think that if we have no labour it does not matter - let Ivan, John or Mustafa do the work, while we busy ourselves with producing a culture, with creating national values and with enthroning absolute justice in the world.

(A.D. Gordon, "Our Tasks Ahead" 1920)





The boycott of Arab labor, only partly successful, was carried out reluctantly as a matter of necessity, and because the establishment of Jews as a class of colonial plantation owners seemed worse than the alternative. The discriminatory program of "conquest of labor" also provoked bitterness among some Arabs, particularly watchmen who lost their jobs to Jews. In the main however, the "conquest of labor" movement was initially unsuccessful, nor could it have much real influence on the economic prospects of Arabs. Only a few thousand Jewish workers were involved. Gershon Shafir (Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914, University of California Press, 1996) estimates that about 10,000 such workers passed through Palestine in the second Aliya, many leaving in discouragement. Other sources claim there were about 3,000 workers out of approximately 33,000 who came to Palestine in the second Aliya. Because of the wage differential and because of the expertise of Arab workers, Arab labor continued to find employment in Jewish settlements. It was only with the massive Jewish immigration of the 1930s, coupled with Arab unrest and sabotage attempts, that Jewish workers began to replace Arab workers in most of the Jewish economy. Of course, few Jews worked in the Arab economy.

The kibbutz collective settlements were started as a practical method of settling Jewish laborers on the land and overcoming the preferences of plantation owners for Arab labor. A small group of Jewish immigrants was settled in an economic cooperative in Sejera, later founding Kibbutz Degania in 1909. The arrangement, originally thought to be temporary, proved to be practical, as well as suited to the socialist ideals of the new settlers and the practical requirements of Zionism. It soon inspired several other kibbutzim (collective farms). The kibbutz movement was to become the backbone of Labor Zionism in Palestine, and eventually provided political and military leadership. Kibbutzim provided ideal places for hiding arms from the British and recruiting and training troops, as well as for organizing local defense and guarding borders.

The Zionist movement did not give up efforts to find a political solution. The political Zionism and practical settlement approaches were merged into "Synthetic Zionism" advocated by Chaim Weizmann . The efforts ultimately bore fruit in the Balfour Declaration, a promise by Britain to further efforts for a Jewish national home in Palestine. and in the League of Nations Mandate,which give international sanction to the Jewish national home. Weizmann became head of the Zionist organization and later was the first President of Israel.

Chaim Weizman


Zionism and the Arabs

When Zionism had its first beginnings, in the early 19th century, there were about 200,000 Arabs living between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean in the approximate area that later became "Palestine," mostly concentrated in the countryside of the West Bank and Galilee, and mostly lacking in national sentiment. Palestine was, in Western eyes, a country without a nation, as Lord Shaftesbury wrote. Early proto-Zionists did not trouble themselves at all about the existing inhabitants. Many were heavy influenced by utopianism. In the best 19th century tradition, they were creating a Jewish utopia, where an ancient people would be revived. They envisioned a land without strife, where all national and economic problems would be solved by good will, enlightened and progressive policies and technological know-how. Herzl's Altneuland was in in fact just such a utopia. In the novel, Herzl envisioned a modern pluralistic society, in which Jews and Arabs had equal rights. A demagogic politician who wanted to form a narrow hyper-nationalist Jewish state, was defeated in elections.

In reality, Jewish population grew, but Arab population grew more rapidly. By 1914, there were over 500,000 Arabs in Palestine, but only about 80,000 to 100,000 Jews. Arab opposition to Jewish settlement grew as Arabs perceived that the Zionist goal was more than just a myth, and as they increasingly identified Zionism with British interests in the Middle East.

At the same time, early Zionist pronouncements and outlook were often frankly colonialist, especially when addressing leaders of foreign powers. The plantations sponsored by Baron Rothschild were modeled on plantation settlement in Algeria and other colonies. Colonialism was fashionable and "progressive," and some early Zionist leaders saw nothing wrong in assimilating this idea to Zionism along with other modern ideas such as socialism, utopianism and nationalism.

Later Zionists were heavily influenced by socialism and embarrassed at the colonialist aspects of the Zionist project. They were also aware, of course, that Palestine was already occupied by Arabs. Many however, including the young David Ben-Gurion, who headed the Executive committee of the Zionist Yishuv (Jewish community) in Palestine and was later the first Prime Minister of Israel, initially thought that the Arabs could only benefit from Jewish immigration and would welcome it. Others, such as Eliezer ben Yehuda, frankly envisioned removal of the Arabs from Palestine.

One of the earliest warnings about the Arab problem came from the Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg), who wrote in his 1891 essay "Truth from Eretz Israel" that in Palestine "it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled", and moreover:

From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake... The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future... However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place.
Ahad Ha'am, believed that the Jews would need to first build a strong Jewish culture abroad, and that this culture and awareness would then make the dream of a Jewish homeland possible. The Jewish community in Palestine, he felt should be a cultural center for Jews of the Diaspora, that would catalyze this revolution in Jewish life and eventually bring about mass Jewish support for the Zionist project. Contrary to the impression that some modern interpretations give, Ahad Ha'am was not anti-Zionist and was not an opponent of the formation of a Jewish national home. In fact, he was an enthusiastic supporter of Zionism. Hed wrote an article eulogizing Leon Pinsker in glowing terms and he emigrated to Palestine and lived in Tel Aviv.

Arab opposition to Zionism grew after 1900. The birth of Arab nationalism and Arab political aspirations in the Ottoman empire coincided with the arrival of fairly sizeable number of Zionists with the announced program of settling the land and turning it into a Jewish national home. In his book, Reveil de la Nation Arab in 1905, Najib Azouri stated that the Jews want to establish a state stretching from Mt Hermon to the Arabian Desert and the Suez Canal. Azoury wrote:

Two important phenomena of the same nature but opposed, are emerging... They are the awakening of the Arab nation and the latent effort of the Jews to reconstitute on a very large scale the ancient kingdom of Israel. These movements are destined to fight each other continually until one of them wins.

(Mandel, Neville, The Arabs and Palestine, UCLA, 1976)

Rashid Khalidi (Palestinian Identity, Columbia, 1997) notes that beginning about 1908 Palestinian newspapers offered extensive evidence of anti-Zionist agitation. Actual conflicts flared up because the Zionists purchased large tracts from landowners and subsequently evicted the tenant farmers. The former tenants, though they had received some compensation, continued to insist that the land was theirs under time honored traditions and tried to take it back by force. A notable case was Al-Fula, where Zionists had purchased a large tract of land from the Sursuq family of Beirut. Local officials took the side of the Arab peasants against the Zionists and against the Ottoman government, which upheld the legality of the sale. 150 Palestinian notables cabled the Ottoman government to protest land sales to Jews in March 1911. Azmi Bey, Turkish governor of Jerusalem responded:

We are not xenophobes; we welcome all strangers. We are not anti-Semites; we value the economic superiority of the Jews. But no nation, no government, could open its arms to groups... aiming to take Palestine from us.

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 62)

Likewise, the "conquest of labor" movement displaced some Arab watchmen and led to violence. While the actual number of persons displaced or dispossessed may have been small, and may have been offset by real economic benefits and increased employment provided by Zionist investment, the feeling grew among the Arabs that the Zionists had arrived to dispossess them. A Nazareth group complained that the Zionists were "a cause of great political and economic injury... The Zionists nourish the intention of expropriating our properties. For us these intentions are a question of life and death." (Morris, loc cit.) As the conflict intensified, the Zionists formed a guard association, Hashomer, to guard the settlements in place of Arab guards. The attempts to retake land and disputes with Jewish guards led to increased violence beginning in the second half of 1911. ry zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism *

Following World War I, Palestine came under British rule. Even before they had conquered Palestine from the Ottoman Turkish Empire, owing to the efforts of Zionists, the British government declared its intentions, in the Balfour declaration, of sponsoring a "national home" for the Jews in Palestine. Britain was given a League of Nations Mandate to develop Palestine as a Jewish National home. The Arabs of Palestine were appalled at the prospect of living in a country dominated by a Jewish majority and feared that they would be dispossessed. Anti-Jewish rioting and violence broke out in 1920 and 1921. By this time, Zionist leaders could no longer ignore the conflict with the Arabs. By 1919, representatives of the Jaffa Muslim-Christian council were saying

"We will push the Zionists into the sea or they will push us into the desert"

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 91)

Arab opposition to Zionism was not based only on economic and social issues. It was colored by the traditional Muslim vision of the Jews as second class citizens. By the 1920s, it was also motivated by a strong admixture of Western anti-Semitism. In 1920, Musa Kazim El Husseini, deposed as Mayor of Jerusalem because of his part in riots earlier that year, told Winston Churchill:

The Jews have been amongst the most active advocates of destruction in many lands... It is well known that the disintegration of Russia was wholly or in great part brought about by the Jews, and a large proportion of the defeat of Germany and Austria must also be put at their door.

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 99)

It is not clear how Churchill received this amazing and unwitting testimonial to the aid proffered to his country's war effort by the Jews, or what Husseini thought to accomplish by it. Aref Dajani had earlier voiced similar sentiments to the King- Crane Commission

It is impossible for us to make an understanding with them or or even to live with them... Their history and all their past proves that it is impossible to live with them. In all the countries where they are at present they are not wanted... because they always arrive to suck the blood of everybody...

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 91)

While Palestinian Arabs viewed themselves as a small group of helpless victims of powerful British and Jewish "interests," the Zionists saw the opposite side of the coin. The militant Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, asked in 1918:

The matter is not ... an issue between the Jewish people and the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, but between the Jewish people and the Arab people. The latter, numbering 25 million, has [territory equivalent to] half of Europe, while the Jewish people, numbering ten million and wandering the earth, hasn't got a stone...Will the Arab people stand opposed? Will it resist? [Will it insist] that...they...shall have it [all] for ever and ever, while he who has nothing shall forever have nothing?

(Caplan, Neil, Palestine Jewry and the Palestine Question, 1917-1925, Frank Cass, 1978)

Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky


Soon after World War I, Zionist leaders clearly recognized the problem. David Ben Gurion told members of the Va'ad Yishuv (the temporary governing body of the Jewish community in Palestine) in June 1919:

But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf; and nothing can bridge it.... I do not know what Arab will agree that Palestine should belong to the Jews...We. as a nation,. want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 91)

In 1923, in his Iron Wall article, Jabotinsky replied to his own question. He asserted that agreement with the Arabs was impossible, because they:

...look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile.
Jabotinsky, was initially against expulsion of the Arabs, which he was "prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never [do]". Rather in The Iron Wall, he claimed that the Jewish presence should be imposed by a strong defense that would show the Arabs that the Jews could not be forced out of Palestine. However, while The Iron Wall expressed a comprehensive philosophy, its practical background and intent were much more limited. Jabotinsky wanted the British authorities to allow the Jews to form a separate defensive force under British supervision, to combat attacks such as the riots that had occurred in 1920 and 1921. The British refused, and the Zionist organization resigned themselves to the British decision, but Jabotinsky wanted to continue with the formation of such a force. Though the Haganah defensive underground was founded in 1920 by Jabotinsky, it didn't become a major project of the Zionist movement until after the riots of 1929. These riots, and not any intrinsic aspect of Zionist ideology, were the real trigger for the birth of militant Zionism as a political force, as well as the progressively more important role played by self-defense and military prowess in Zionist thought, action and society.

Meanwhile the Arab and Jewish communities grew progressively apart. Arabs refused to participate in a Palestinian local government which gave equal representation to the Jewish minority. The British, nearly bankrupt after WW I, insisted that the mandate should be self-sufficient. Mandate services were paid for from taxes paid by the Jewish and Arab inhabitants of Palestine. Additional services were funded by philanthropists from abroad and from membership dues in various organizations. Zionist philanthropy and organization far-outstripped what Palestinian Arabs could provide. Neither Arabs nor Jews wanted integrated schools. Zionist groups funded religious, secular and labor-Zionist educational networks for Jewish children in Hebrew, but few comparable schools were set up for Arabs. The Zionists founded the Histadruth Labor federation to encompass Jewish workers, providing Hebrew education, medical care, worker-owned enterprises and cultural facilities as well as representation of labor rights. No comparable association was created by the more numerous Arabs of Palestine, though the Histadruth made some efforts to organize Arab labor beginning in 1927, and the Palestine Communist party attempted to represent both Jewish and Arab labor.

As the conflict unfolded, attitudes hardened on both sides. Some Zionist factions called for expulsion or "transfer" of Arabs "voluntarily" or otherwise. Beginning with the Husseini clan led by Hajj Amin El Husseini, the Grand Mufti, different factions of Palestinian Arabs, successively allied themselves with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and, after WW II with communist countries. Arab rhetoric became increasingly colored by European anti-Semitism, and adopted many of the claims and ideas of Holocaust deniers such as Roger Garaudy as well as the anti-Zionist ideology of radical Jewish intellectuals.

The conflict was intensified and complicated by the 1948 war. About 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled during the war, and Israel did not allow them to return. Many Palestinian refugees were settled in camps under miserable conditions, where they have remained for several generations. The Israeli point of view had in mind the recent convulsions of World War II, and the exchange of populations that occurred when India and Pakistan were created. Most Israelis believed the Palestinians became refugees through their own fault. Their exile was the result of the war which the Palestinians themselves had started by rejection of the UN partition plan, just as, for example, the Germans of Sudetensland, who helped instigate the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, were eventually banished as the result of their own mischief. For the Arabs of Palestine, their Nakba, or catastrophe, vindicated their fears that the Zionists were bent on dispossessing them.

Zionism and the Conflict With Britain





The British government increasingly understood that its promises to the Zionists and Mandate obligations were very unpopular in the Arab world. They split off a large part of the Palestine Mandate territory to form Transjordan and issued the Passfield White Paper that proposed limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Passfield White Paper was quietly withdrawn under pressure from Zionists, from British public opinion and from the League of Nations. However, the British eventually did impose a limit on immigration. These policies turned the once-friendly British into antagonists of the Zionist movement. Labor Zionists and the Zionist Executive were in favor of moderate policies that would try to work around the British opposition to Zionism. A faction led by Ze'ev Jabotinsky believed in confronting the British and the Arabs, and if necessary, using force. In 1923, Jabotinsky split from the main Zionist movement and formed the Revisionist movement. In 1925, an Arab Revolt (The Great Uprising) broke out in Palestine, triggered by rising Jewish immigration and systematic agitation by extremists. In 1937, the British proposed tentatively to partition Palestine in the Peel report. This caused additional divisions in the Zionist movement. Some believed in a bi-national Jewish Arab state and objected to the idea, contained in the Peel recommendations, of transferring Arabs "voluntarily" out of the territory to be allotted to the Jewish state. The revisionists and religious Zionists, on the other hand, objected to giving up any part of the territory of Palestine. Subsequently the British issued the White Paper of 1939, severely limiting Jewish immigration. The Arab revolt and the reaction to it crystallized the Zionist ethos of self-defense and emphasis on military service. The Revisionists formed the Irgun underground army, which attacked British soldiers and administrators and perpetrated terror attacks against Arabs in retaliation for Arab attacks on Jews. Atrocities committed by the Arabs, as well as counter-terror by Jewish groups, inculcated in both Jews and Arabs the idea that any means at all may be used against the enemy, even though the Hagannah officially maintained a military ethic of "purity of arms" - forbidding needless violence. The Arab revolt and the Peel report also legitimized, to some extent, the idea of "transfer," and solidified and entrenched the idea that conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine was inevitable.

The Zionists, attempting to rescue Jews from the Nazis, organized illegal immigration. The Revisionist Zionist movement began to organize immigration, both legal (with certificates) and illegal, in 1937, from Austria, and later from the free city of Danzig. At least 20,000 Jews were saved in this way. The Jewish agency opposed illegal immigration until the promulgation of the British White Paper of 1939, which stopped Jewish immigration. Thereafter, they founded and supported the Mossad l'aliya Bet ("B immigration institution") to bring immigrants from abroad. This operated between 1939 and 1942, when a tightened British blockade and stricter controls in occupied Europe made it impractical, and again between 1945 and 1948. Rickety boats full of refugees tried to reach Palestine. Additionally, there were private initiatives, an initiative by the Nazis to deport Jews and an initiative by the US to save European Jews. Many of the ships sank or were caught by the British or the Nazis and turned back, or shipped to Mauritius or other destinations for internment. The Patria (also called "Patra") contained immigrants offloaded from three other ships, for transshipment to the island of Mauritius. To prevent transshipment, the Haganah placed a small explosive charge on the ship on November 25, 1940. They thought the charge would damage the engines. Instead, the ship sank, and over 250 lives were lost. A few weeks later, the SS Bulgaria docked in Haifa with 350 Jewish refugees and was ordered to return to Bulgaria. The Bulgaria capsized in the Turkish straits, killing 280. The Struma, a vessel that had left Constanta in Rumania with about 769 refugees, got to Istanbul on December 16, 1941. There, it was forced to undergo repairs of its engine and leaking hull. The Turks would not grant the refugees sanctuary. The British would not approve transshipment to Mauritius or entry to Palestine. On February 24, 1942, the Turks ordered the Struma out of the harbor. It sank with the loss of 428 men, 269 women and 70 children. Apparently, it had been torpedoed by a Soviet submarine, either because it was mistaken for a Nazi ship, or more likely, because the Soviets had agreed to collaborate with the British in barring Jewish immigration. Illegal immigration continued until late in the war, apparently without the participation of the Mossad l'aliya Bet. The illegal immigrant Mefkure, organized with the help of the United States government, was sunk by a Soviet submarine in 1944. Despite the many setbacks, tens of thousands of Jews were saved by the illegal immigration.

To circumvent British regulations against creating new settlements, the Zionists initiated the "stockade and tower" ("homa umigdal") program, that allowed overnight creation of a new "settlement," consisting of a wall and watch tower. Under the law, the British could not destroy such an 'established' settlement.

Reports of Nazi atrocities became increasingly frequent and vivid. Despite the desperate need to find a haven for refugees, the doors of Palestine remained shut to Jewish immigration. The Zionist leadership met in the Biltmore Hotel in New York City in 1942 and declared that it supported the establishment of Palestine as a "Jewish Commonwealth." This was not simply a return to the Balfour declaration repudiated by the British White Paper, but rather a restatement of Zionist aims that went beyond the Balfour declaration, and a determination that the British were in principle, an enemy to be fought, rather than an ally. This was a defeat for the left-wing party of the Labor Zionists, Mapam, who wanted a bi-national Zionist state, and for Chaim Weizmann, who opposed confrontation with the British and favored partition. The Revisionists rejoined the Zionist movement, but were still called "dissidents" and did not merge their underground armies, the Irgun and the Lehi (also called the "Stern Gang") into the Hagannah defense organization of the mainstream Zionists.

On November 6, 1944, members of the Lehi underground Eliyahu Hakim and Eliyahu Bet Zuri assassinated Lord Moyne in Cairo. Moyne, a known anti-Zionist, was in charge of carrying out the terms of the 1939 White Paper. The assassination turned Winston Churchill against the Zionists. The Jewish Agency and Zionist Executive believed that British and world reaction to the assassination of Lord Moyne could jeopardize cooperation after the war, that had been hinted at by the British, and might endanger the Jewish Yishuv if they came to be perceived as enemies of Britain and the allies. Therefore they embarked on a campaign against the Lehi and Irgun, known in Hebrew as the "Sezon" ("Season"). Members of the underground were to be ostracized. Leaders were caught by the Hagannah, interrogated and sometimes tortured, and about a thousand persons were turned over to the British.

Following World War II, Britain continued to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine. The Zionist factions united and conducted an underground war against the British, as well as applying pressure on the British government through the United States. In June of 1947, the British rammed the Jewish illegal immigrant ship Exodus (formerly "President Warfield") on the high seas. They towed it to Haifa where it was the subject of extensive publicity, generating public sympathy for the Zionist cause. The passengers were eventually disembarked in Hamburg. The incident set world, and particularly US, opinion against the British, and caused the British to intern illegal immigrants thereafter in Cyprus, rather than attempting to return them to Europe. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs did not accept the partition plan, and a war broke out. The state of Israel was established on May 14, 1948. The civil war that took place beginning on December 1, 1947, between Arab and Jewish Palestinians, and the subsequent invasion of the state of Israel by Arab States on May 15 1948, shaped the ideological development of Zionism, and the conflict and propaganda surrounding the Arab invasion of Israel and subsequent refusal to recognize the state, as well the Arab Palestinian refugee that was created, shaped the perception of Zionism in the Arab world and in the West. (See 1948 Israel War of Independence (1948 Arab-Israeli war) Timeline (Chronology) and Israel War of Independence)

Click this link for information about President Harry S. Truman and US Support for Creation of Israel

Labor Zionism vs Revisionism - After independence, the Labor Zionist movement became, for many years, the leading political force in Israel. Mapai (Miflegeth Poalei Eretz Yisrael - the party of the workers of the land of Israel) party led by David Ben-Gurion and his successors held power continuously until 1977. The Zionist movement had split when Jabotinsky led the revisionists out of the Zionist organization in the 1930s. The Zionist executive was led by Labor Zionism under David Ben-Gurion. Revisionists and Labor Zionists had separate underground armies. Revisionists and Labor Zionists cooperated against British after World War II. However, the "Sezon" in 1944-45, the massacre perpetrated at Deir Yassin by the Revisionists in April 1948, and the subsequent sinking of the "Altalena" Irgun arms ship by the Israeli government, as well as numerous smaller incidents, helped to deepen the split between mainstream Labor Zionism and Revisionist Zionism. Begin, the leader of the Revisionist Zionists, was distrusted by Ben-Gurion and viewed a dangerous extremist. It was not until the 6-day war in 1967 in 1967 that revisionists were allowed to participate in a government coalition.

David Ben-Gurion


Anti-Zionism ry zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism *
Anti-Zionism is often defined as "opposition to the existence of Israel," but that definition is a historical distortion and probably detracts from understanding the nature of anti-Zionism and its diverse ideological roots. It is true that anti-Zionists are necessarily opposed to the existence of a Jewish state, but it is not the essence of their ideology. Anti-Zionism existed long before there was a Jewish state and long before the Zionist movement formally adopted the goal of founding an independent Jewish state in 1942. Anti-Zionists were and are opposed to Zionism for a variety of reasons. Assimilationist Jews denied that there is a "Jewish people." Marxists admitted that there is a separate Jewish group, but believed that it is undesirable to perpetuate its existence (see Marxist anti-Semitism The Jewish Bund and Anti-Zionism ).

. Marx's views of Judaism are more or less indistinguishable from those of anti-Semites. In "A World Without Jews," Marx wrote,

The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.

The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails.

The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed.

Ultra-orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist because, while they recognize the existence of the Jewish people, they believe that redemption of the Jews must come through the agency of the Messiah rather than through any actions of the Jews, and that certainly it cannot come about through the agency of a non-religious political organization such as Zionism. (See Jews Against Zionism - the Neturei Karta Jewish anti-Zionism Anti-Zionism of Orthodox and establishment Judaism

Arab nationalists are anti-Zionists because Zionism conflicted with their nationalism, though Feisal himself envisaged cooperation with the Zionists.

Zionism was popular among Jewish people as a movement they might support with money or at political meetings. However, few, especially in Western countries, thought of coming to Palestine or Israel until the latter decades of the twentieth century, except when in danger of persecution. Palestine was too far, economically backward and dangerous to draw many immigrants. Nonetheless, non-Zionist groups like Alliance Israelite Universelle and many others helped Zionist efforts in Palestine and joined the Jewish Agency for Palestine.

Jews who sought to assimilate in their own countries claimed that they were loyal citizens of a different faith, sometimes styling themselves "of the Mosaic persuasion" as did early reform Jews (see Reform Jewish anti-Zionism )They felt that the Zionist movement and the concept of a "Jewish People" would raise questions about their own loyalty, and they resented the fact that Zionists often spoke as though they represented all Jews. This movement was particularly prevalent in Germany, where Jews were staunch supporters of German nationalism. Valuable insight into the prevailing ideologies of the time can be gained from Amos Elon's book, "The Pity of it All" (Henry Holt, 2002) which chronicles the tragic history of German Jewry. At one point, the reform Jewish movement went so far as to systematically remove all references to the Holy Land and Jerusalem from their liturgy. A large segment of ultraorthodox Jews were displeased by the secular ideas that dominated Zionism, and insisted that the rebuilding of Israel must await the coming of the messiah. In Europe, the agitation of assimilationist and ultraorthodox Jews helped to actively block Zionist rescue efforts in the 1930s, when it began to be apparent that Nazism would soon make Europe very dangerous for Jews. Jewish communists were and are opposed to Zionism because Marxism posited the disappearance of the Jews as a historic anomaly, once international atheistic communism triumphed over nationalist particularism, and religion, the opium of the people, died out. In the USSR, as part of his "nationalities" policy, which assimilated or murdered numerous national groups, Stalin tried to handle the Jewish problem by creating an autonomous Jewish republic in the wastelands of Birobidjan. This project was never supported very seriously and was later abandoned. Though the USSR supported the creation of the state of Israel, Stalin was opposed to Zionism inside Russia and the USSR suppressed Zionist activities and at times persecuted Jews as well as Zionists.

Most religious Jews and the reform movement, initially anti-Zionist, reconciled themselves with Jewish state, after the Holocaust seemed to bear out the basic thesis that Jews required a homeland of their own and would not necessarily be safe even in the best circumstances, and after creation of Israel proved that Zionist aspirations could become a reality. Success has many fathers. Nonetheless, anti-Zionist ideologies and their representatives persist among religious groups such as the ultraorthodox Neturei Karta and writers such as Noam Chomsky.

This ideological opposition to Zionism later dovetailed with the anti-Israel cold-war politics of the Soviet Union and the Arab antagonism to Israel, as well as with anti-Semitism. Retrospectively, communist ideologues pegged Zionism as a colonialist ideology bent on exploiting and dispossessing the native inhabitants of Palestine, and creating an apartheid colonialist fascist Jewish state. In 1975, a pro-Soviet and pro-Arab majority in the UN passed General Assembly Resolution 3397, branding Zionism as racism. The resolution was repealed in 1991, but similar sentiments were repeated at a conference of non-government organizations in Durban, South Africa in 2001. The rationale for this idea is that Zionism is a colonialist movement that assumes that the racial superiority of the Jews gives them the right to dispossess the Arabs of Palestine. However, Zionist ideology is not based on racial notions and didn't assume superiority of the Jews. Zionist theorists assumed that the Jews are socially inferior and "abnormal" because they did not have a national home. The "abnormal" Diaspora character of Jews would be corrected when the people returned to their own land, realized their right to self-determination and renewed their nation existence. Zionists believe that the Jewish right to the land is based on ancient historical links, not racial superiority. Some Zionists see the Arabs as usurpers, just as the Arabs see the Zionists as usurpers. As the conflict between Arab and Jew escalated, some Zionists favored voluntary or not so voluntary transfer to remove the Arabs, and others seem to have thought the Arabs could be wished away. However, Zionism as an ideology did not posit dispossession of the Arabs.

It is undeniable that early Zionist leaders used the language and rhetoric of colonialism and established organizations with names like "The Jewish Colonial Trust." In part, this reflects the influence of the 19th century European cultural milieu, when colonialism was a perfectly acceptable concept. In part, it reflects efforts of Zionist leaders to sell leaders of the great powers on the idea of supporting a Jewish colonization scheme that would support German or British or French interests in the Middle East. The Socialist-Zionist movement certainly did not see themselves as colonialists and were opposed to colonialism and imperialism, nor did the USSR originally oppose Zionism on the basis that it is a colonialist movement.

Anti-Semitic writers identify Zionism with the spurious program enunciated in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a nineteenth century forgery of the Russian secret police, and insist that Zionists are intent on taking over the world.. A related notion, perhaps inspired by the writings of Najib Azouri, is that Zionism insists on expanding the Jewish state to the borders promised in the Old Testament - the Nile and Tigris Euphrates rivers. Though there are at present some religious and nationalist extremists in Israel who want such borders, Zionism never had any such program. Early Zionists did not always envision a national home in the Middle East, and "Palestine" did not exist as a political entity before 1922. The map of Zionist borders presented by Zionists to the Paris conference in 1919 was somewhat larger than modern Israel. It covered parts of what are now Jordan and Lebanon and Syria, ending just west of the Damascus-Hejaz railway. However, this optimistic (from the Zionist point of view) proposal was a bargaining position, had little to do with biblical promises, and did not reflect any deep seated ideology.

Zionism After the Establishment of the State of Israel
The Zionist organization has continued to function after the establishment of the Jewish state. It has helped to bring millions of new immigrants to Israel, encourages the teaching of Hebrew and Jewish culture abroad, lobbies for Israel with the US and other governments, and rallies support to Israel in times of crisis. However, in Israel, "Zionism" became somewhat of a pejorative, associated with government propaganda, super-patriotism and regimentation. The Labor Zionist movement, that had founded the state, eventually found itself in a minority, replaced in large part by more militant religious Zionists and the Likud party, which inherited the mantle of revisionism, carried on by a Begin after the death of Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

Zionism and the 6-day War- The 6-day war, which resulted in a dramatic victory for Israel, had a profound affect on the attitude of Jews in Israel and abroad to Zionism and Israel. The war and lightning victory taught many Arabs that Israel was here to stay, and in fact, it did the same for Jews. In Israel, it lifted the populace out of the doldrums of economic stagnation and frustration, and gave them renewed faith in the Zionist idea and the state. Abroad, the war had a more profound effect. The United States and Canada held the largest concentration of Jews outside the USSR. The vast majority of American Jews had looked upon Israel benignly and condescendingly as a refuge for persecuted Jews, and as a charitable cause that they would support with the same feelings of superiority that they supported their less fortunate relatives in Europe. Among secular American Jews, Zionism was regarded as the aberration of misfits and dreamers, somewhat as it had been at the beginning of the twentieth century. The state of Israel, had after-all been founded and Zionism had therefore "accomplished its purpose," they felt. They had seen the penniless immigrants, the wretched of the earth, arriving in the displaced-persons refuge called Israel with their pitiful bundles and strange clothing, coming off the gangplanks of ships in Haifa on newsreels. This was all very well for those poor unfortunates, who needed a place to live, but surely, it could have nothing to do with them or their lives, living in the United States or Canada and building their futures there. As an ideology, Zionism threatened their own sense of identity as Americans perhaps, or even worse, threatened to take their sons and daughters to a far-away land.



The ultra-orthodox Hassidic Jews were opposed to the Zionist state, or at best neutral. The focus of religious Zionism was the dovish Mizrachi movement, whose representatives in the Israeli government, the National Religious Party (NRP) had opposed the war.All this changed rapidly in June of 1967. Israel became a source of pride for most Jews. They all wanted to be partners in this successful enterprise and to claim pride of ownership. Socialists came to volunteer in kibbutzim. Capitalists brought investment capital. Willing donors were found for the beautification and revitalization of Jerusalem. The NRP began to mobilize to settle and retain the conquered territories. Ultra-orthodox rabbis who did not recognize the Zionist state, nonetheless issued injunctions against returning any part of the "liberated" "holy land."

Zionism and Occupation - For many people in Israel and abroad, "Zionism" came to imply support for the settlement of Jews in the territories occupied by Israel in the 6-day war. It assumed a very negative connotation for those who oppose the occupation. The word "Zionism" in the sense of support for settlers is used both by right wing Zionist extremists, and by anti-Zionists. Right wing Zionist extremists insist that withdrawal from the occupied territories will mean the "end of Zionism." Anti-Zionists insist that "expansionism" is part of Zionist ideology. Historically, this view does not seem to have ideological support, since "Greater Israel" was the ideology of the breakaway religious movement created after 1967, and was never the ideology of mainstream Zionism except perhaps for a few decades following the Six Day war. Messianism was part of proto-Zionism, but the Zionist movement was pragmatic in all that it said and did. Expansionism became popular as a result of historical accidents, and not because of ideology. The territory that might be allotted to the Jewish state shrank during the British mandate, creating a sort of irredentism. Rather than being friendly neighbors, it became apparent that the Arab countries would be hostile, generating a desire for "strategic depth" to protect against invasion. It was easy for Israeli governments to say they would return territories for peace, and at the same continue to build Greater Israel, since peace or anything approaching it appeared to be a remote abstraction.

A part of the religious Zionist movement grafted itself on to the temporary realities created after the 6 day war, and evolved a radical messianic ideology. They insisted that they, and only they, represent the "real" Zionism. A quiet coup had transformed Zionism. Unfortunately, a considerable part of the world took them at their word. The image of Zionism in the world was transformed from that of a progressive movement of liberation to a movement of fanatics who wanted to create a religious state and disenfranchise a native population.


Disillusionment and Zionist Counter-Revolution - However, the dream of Greater Israel collided with hard realities. If the conquered territories were kept, the Arabs of Palestine would soon be a majority between the river and the sea, making a democratic Jewish state impossible. Tens of thousands of IDF soldiers were needed to guard 8,000 settlers against Palestinian terrorism in Gaza. Israelis were confronted with images of Zionist soldiers destroying houses, uprooting trees and killing children as "collateral damage." This was not the Zionism of the school books. Messianism and wishful thinking aside, the state created by flesh and blood was faced with the facts of Palestinian demography, military necessity, humanitarian values and international commitments.

The resolution of this conflict within Zionism is unfolding before our eyes. It has created an earthquake in Israeli politics, splitting the ruling Likud party, and it has generated a counter-revolution in Zionism that is overthrowing the coup of the Greater Israel supporters. Israel withdrew from Gaza, but Zionism did not end. IDF and Israel police used force to destroy an illegal outpost, but Zionism survived that too. The changes do not come without a price. A residue of the religious Zionist movement have become embittered anti-Zionists who fight against the state. The transformation is not yet complete. (see commentaries: The real self-hating Jews: the paradoxical tragedy of extremists and Avram Burg on the future of Religious Zionism )

Post-Zionism - Beginning in the 1980s, some Israeli historians and sociologists began to question facts about the official history of Israel and Zionism, as well as the Zionist ideology. They reasoned that Zionism had accomplished its purpose in creating the Jewish state, and that now it was time to move on. They posited that Israel and the Zionists had a large share of the blame for the animosity between Jews and Arabs, and had in fact, ignored the existence of the Arabs in Palestine and then dispossessed the Palestinians by force. This reasoning was supported by new histories, that talked frankly about less savory aspects of Israeli history that had been previously ignored. The new historians made a case that at least part of Zionism had always envisioned expulsion or transfer of the Arabs, and described massacres and expulsions which took place in 1948, often claiming that these were part of a deliberate policy. The historians claimed that these new facts were revealed by declassified archives. In fact, the most important facts supposedly "revealed" by the new historians were known to all Israelis who wanted to know them, though perhaps not in detail, and not presented in the particular way that new historians presented them. Facts can be interpreted in different ways. The ideas behind the facts, called by some "post-Zionism," do not necessarily form a coherent ideology and their practitioners do not generally see themselves as members of a movement or followers of a distinct philosophy. Some "post-Zionists" like Ilan Pappe are indistinguishable from anti-Zionists, while others, like Benny Morris, use the same facts to arrive at very different conclusions that might support a militant Zionist ideology. Post-Zionism attained a wide popularity for a while, but fell into eclipse after peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israel failed and violence flared up in September of 2000.

See here for details about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and History of Israel and Palestine.

Ami Isseroff

Some Related Materials at MidEastWeb

Labor Zionism and Socialist Zionism

Brief History of Israel and Palestine - Overview of Zionism and details of Israeli-Palestinian history.

British Zionism - British movement to restore the Jewish People to their Homeland

Jew, Zionism and Talmud

Population of Palestine before 1948

President Harry S. Truman and US Support for Creation of Israel

The Growth of Palestinian Identity

Biography - Shimon Peres
Biography - Yitzhak Rabin
Biography - Ariel Sharon

Books about Zionism

1942: The Biltmore Program - The 1939 British White Paper had closed Palestine to Jewish immigration, trapping millions of Jews in Nazi occupied Europe. Zionist leaders met in the Biltmore Hotel in New York, and declared their support for a Jewish Commonwealth and renewed immigration, in open defiance of the British mandatory authorities.

1923: Vladimir Jabotinsky: The Iron Wall - This essay was published by the head of the Zionist Revisionist movement, Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky in 1923. In reaction to riots that had occurred in 1920 and 1921. It called for an independent, legal Jewish defense force, a Jewish Legion in Palestine, which Jabotinsky referred to as an "Iron Wall."

1922: The British Mandate for Palestine - The League of Nations Mandate giving Great Britain control of Palestine for the purpose of making a Jewish national home there.

1919: Statement of the Zionist Organization to the Paris Peace Conference - The Zionist organization presented this statement at the Paris peace conference, outlining the Zionist position regarding Palestine, and supporting the British proposal for a mandate that would create a Jewish national home, in line with the Balfour Declaration . The statement provides a great deal of background regarding the position of various Zionist groups and foreign governments, and gives proposed borders for the Palestine mandate as well as proposals for organization of the Palestine government.

1917: Balfour Declaration - The "letter" from Lord Balfour to Lord Rothschild, declaring that the British government "view with favor" the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. This was to be the basis of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, granted to Great Britain.

1897: Program of the First Zionist Congress - Theodore Herzl organized the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897. Prior to the Congress, Zionist activities had been initiated by several different groups such as Hovevei Zion (lovers of Zion) with no central direction or political program. The Basle Congress was the foundation of a mass Zionist movement.

1897: Max Nordau - Opening Address at the first Zionist congress.

1896: The Jewish State, by Theodore Herzl - This book became, essentially, the program of the Zionist movement and the embodiment of its common ideology. Complete downloadable source, with a historical preface.

1882: Auto-Emancipation by Leon Pinsker - This early Zionist pamphlet was written by Leon Pinsker after violent pogroms in Russia.

1799 - Napoleon's Proclamation of a Jewish State - In this stillborn proclamation, Napoleon offered the Jews a state in Palestine under French protection. This was the first of many such nineteenth century projects for restoration of the Jews in Palestine.

Additional documents about Israel, Zionism, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are here

External Zionism Links
Please note that we are NOT responsible for content of external links.

Additional source documents about Zionism

Maps of Israel at Zionism & Israel

Christian Zionism at Zionism & Israel

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Zionism, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict at Zionism and Israel Information Center No Frames version of Zionism and Israel Dictionary

Photo Gallery of Zionism and Israel

Article: Zionism and its Impact at Zionism & Israel

Zionist and Israeli Biography

Definitions of Zionism at Zionism & Israel

Timeline of Zionism and the Creation of Israel

Palestine-Israel Procon - Balanced examination of Middle East Issues



Zionism and Israel on the Web - Zionist presentation of Issues, advocacy and history

Zionism and Israel Pages

Wikipedia article about Zionism - A comprehensive and fairly balanced article including the history of Zionism as well as links to specific topics and articles about anti-Zionism.

Zionism - Definition, History Policies

Zionism - Table of contents at the Jewish Virtual Library

The US Library of Congress has a comprehensive and balanced set of articles about Zionism

Zionist Precursors - US Library of Congress

Political Zionism - US Library of Congress

Cultural Zionism - US Library of Congress

Labor Zionism - US Library of Congress

Revisionist Zionism - US Library of Congress

Centenary of Zionism - Detailed History and biographies at the Israel Ministry of Information.

What is Zionism?

Chaim Herzog's Address regarding the Zionism is Racism resolution


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm

Solomon's Temple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Artist's depiction of Solomon's Temple (Drawing by Christiaan van Adrichem (1584).)Solomon's Temple (Hebrew: ??? ??????, transliterated Beit HaMikdash), also known as the First Temple, was, according to the Hebrew Bible, the first temple of the ancient religion of the biblical Israelites in Jerusalem and originally constructed by King Solomon.

According to the Bible, it functioned as a religious focal point for worship and the sacrifices known as the korbanot in ancient Judaism. Completed in 960 BCE, it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. A reconstructed temple in Jerusalem, which stood between 516 BCE and 70 CE, was the Second Temple. Jewish eschatology commonly includes belief that a Third Temple will be built.

Contents [hide]
1 Biblical account
1.1 Raids and destruction
2 Location
3 Archaeological evidence
4 Description
5 Comparison with other temples
5.1 Other Near Eastern temples
5.2 A miniature world
6 Modern influences and events
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 External links
10.1 General references
10.2 Websites

[edit] Biblical account
According to the biblical account, David's first action as king of Israel was to conquer Jebus (Jerusalem) and declare it the capital of his kingdom. Even though the city was not the perfect choice from many points of view, a geopolitical constraint dictated this choice. Mount Moriah is an important place where Abraham bound Isaac and thus the Temple was to be built there. David conquered Jerusalem at the end of the 11th century BCE, then chose it as the center of his new government.[1] He brought the Ark of the Covenant to the city. Jerusalem became the political and spiritual nexus of the ancient Hebrews. King David was instructed by God not to build the Temple, leaving the task to his son Solomon. The concentration of religious ritual at the Temple made Jerusalem a place of pilgrimage and an important commercial center.

The city served as the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel, but became the capital of the less powerful of the two kingdoms (Judah) after the death of Solomon and the division of the country into two kingdoms. It regained its central status after the conquest and destruction of the northern Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BCE. In 586 BCE the city was captured by the Babylonians. At the order of King Nebuchadnezzar II the city was torched, the Temple was razed, and the people were taken into exile. Jewish tradition holds this incident to be the first exile of the Jewish nation.


[edit] Raids and destruction
According to the Bible, the temple was pillaged many times during the course of its history (dates before Ahaz are approximate):

by king Shishak of Egypt, c.933 BCE (1 Kings 14:25, 26);
by king Asa of Judah, c.900 BCE in order to persuade Ben-Hadad I of Damascus to come to his aid against Baasha of Israel (1 Kings 15:9-24);
by king Jehoash of Judah, c. 825 BCE, in order to pay Hazael of Damascus, who was besieging the city (2 Kings 12:17-18);
by king Joash of Israel, c.790 BCE (2 Kings 14:14);
by king Ahaz of Judah, 734 BCE, to persuade Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria to come to his aid against Pekah of Israel and Rezin II of Damascus (2 Kings 16:8, 17, 18);
by king Hezekiah of Judah, 712 BCE, to pay king Sennacherib of Assyria, who was besieging the city (2 Kings 18:15, 16);
by king Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon who pillaged it twice — once in 597 BCE, and again in 586 BCE, after which he destroyed it (2 Kings 24:13; 2 Chr. 36:7). He burned the temple, and carried all its treasures with him to Babylon (2 Kings 25:9-17; 2 Chr. 36:19; Isaiah 64:11).
These sacred vessels were, at the end of the Babylonian Captivity, restored to the Jews by Cyrus, in 538 BCE[citation needed] (Ezra 1:1-11).


[edit] Location
See also: Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque
The Temple is believed to have been situated upon the hill which forms the site of the present-day Temple Mount, in the center of which area is the Dome of the Rock. Under the Jebusites the site was used as a threshing floor. 2 Sam. 24 describes its consecration during David's reign. Two other, slightly different sites for the Temple have also been proposed, on this same hill. One places the stone altar at the location of the rock which is now beneath the gilded dome, with the rest of the temple to the west. The Well of Souls was, in this theory, a pit for the remnants of the blood services of the korbanot. The other theory places the Holy of Holies atop this rock.


[edit] Archaeological evidence
Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar has conjectured that archaelolgical evidence supports the possible historical existence of Solomon's Temple. This evidence includes remains taken from refuse from an extensive construction project performed on the Temple Mount by the Islamic waqf in November 1999. [2][3] The second was discovered in the summer of 2007, as archeologists overseeing construction at the site reported “evidence of human activity” most likely belonging to the first temple period.[4] In January 2008 Israeli archaeologist Mazar publicized the Shelomit seal.

According to Israel Finkelstein, the archaeological remains considered to date from the time of Solomon reflect an unabated continuation of Canaanite material culture and do not show a magnificent empire or cultural development. Finkelstein suggests that comparing pottery from areas traditionally assigned to Israel with that of the Philistines points to the Philistines having been significantly more sophisticated. Finkelstein conjectured that due to religious prejudice, later writers (i.e. the Biblical authors) suppressed the achievements of the Omrides (whom the Bible describes as being polytheist), and instead pushed them back to a supposed golden age of godly rulers (i.e. monotheist, and Yahweh worshiping). [5] However, when reading Finkelstein's work, it must be taken into account that his methods and results have met with significant controversy.


[edit] Description

A sketch of Solomon's Temple based on descriptions in the Tanakh.
A sketch of Solomon' Temple facing East.The detailed descriptions provided in the Tanakh and educated guesses based on the remains of other temples in the region are the sources for reconstructions of its appearance. Technical details are lacking, since the scribes who wrote the books were not architects or engineers.[6] Reconstructions differ; the following enumeration is largely based on Easton's Bible Dictionary and the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Kadosh Kadoshim, the Temple's Most Holy Place (1 Kings 6:19; 8:6), called also the "inner house" (6:27), and the "Holy of Holies" (Heb. 9:3). It was 20 cubits in length, breadth, and height. The usual explanation for the discrepancy between its height and the 30-cubit height of the temple is that its floor was elevated, like the cella of other ancient temples.[6] It was floored and wainscotted with Cedar of Lebanon (1 Kings 6:16), and its walls and floor were overlaid with gold (6:20, 21, 30). It contained two cherubim of olive-wood, each 10 cubits high (1 Kings 6:16, 20, 21, 23-28) and each having outspread wings 10 cubits from tip to tip, so that, since they stood side by side, the wings touched the wall on either side and met in the center of the room. There was a two-leaved door between it and the holy place overlaid with gold (2 Chr. 4:22); also a veil of blue, purple, and crimson and fine linen (2 Chr. 3:14; compare Exodus 26:33). It had no windows (1 Kings 8:12). It was considered the dwelling-place of God.
The reason for the color scheme of the veil was symbolic. In Jewish tradition, blue represented the heavens, while red or crimson represented the earth. Purple, a combination of the two colors, represents a meeting of the heavens and the earth. Thus, purple can also be a representation of the Holy Messiah in Jewish and Christian traditions.

The Hekhal: the holy place, 1 Kings 8:8-10, called also the "greater house" (2 Chr. 3:5) and the "temple" (1 Kings 6:17); the word also means "palace".[6] It was of the same width and height as the Holy of Holies, but 40 cubits in length. Its walls were lined with cedar, on which were carved figures of cherubim, palm-trees, and open flowers, which were overlaid with gold. Chains of gold further marked it off from the Holy of Holies. The floor of the Temple was of fir-wood overlaid with gold. The door-posts, of olive-wood, supported folding-doors of fir. The doors of the Holy of Holies were of olive-wood. On both sets of doors were carved cherubim, palm-trees, and flowers, all being overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:15 et seq.)
The Ulam: the porch or entrance before the temple on the east (1 Kings 6:3; 2 Chr. 3:4; 9:7). This was 20 cubits long (corresponding to the width of the Temple) and 10 cubits deep (1 Kings 6:3). 2 Chr. 3:4 adds the curious statement (probably corrupted from the statement of the depth of the porch) that this porch was 120 cubits high, which would make it a regular tower. The description does not specify whether a wall separated it from the next chamber. In the porch stood the two pillars Jachin and Boaz (1 Kings 7:21; 2 Kings 11:14; 23:3), which were 18 cubits in height and surmounted by capitals of carved lilies, 5 cubits high.
The chambers, which were built about the temple on the southern, western and northern sides (1 Kings 6:5-10). These formed a part of the building and were used for storage. They were probably one story high at first; two more may have been added later.[6]
According to biblical tradition, round about the building were:

The court of the priests (2 Chr. 4:9), called the "inner court" (1 Kings 6:36), which was separated from the space beyond by a wall of three courses of hewn stone, surmounted by cedar beams (1 Kings 6:36).
The great court, which surrounded the whole temple (2 Chr. 4:9). Here the people assembled to worship God (Jeremiah 19:14; 26:2).
The inner court of the Priests contained the Altar of burnt-offering (2 Chr. 15:8), the brazen Sea (4:2-5, 10) and ten lavers (1 Kings 7:38, 39). 2 Kings 16:14 says that a brazen altar stood before the Temple, 2 Chr. 4:1 gives its dimensions as 20 cubits square and 10 cubits high.

The brazen Sea (Laver), 10 cubits wide brim to brim, 5 cubits deep and with a circumference of 30 cubits around the brim, rested on the backs of twelve oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26). The Book of Kings gives its capacity as "2,000 baths" (24,000 US gallons), but Chronicles inflates this to three thousand baths (36,000 US gallons) (2 Chr. 4:5-6) and states that its purpose was to afford opportunity for the purification by immersion of the body of the priests. (According to Talmud tractate Mikwaoth, a "bath" of 40 seahs is the minimum permissible size for a Mikvah).

The lavers, each of which held "forty baths" (1 Kings 7:38), rested on portable holders made of bronze, provided with wheels, and ornamented with figures of lions, cherubim, and palm-trees. The author of the books of the Kings describes their minute details with great interest (1 Kings 7:27-37). Josephus reported that the vessels in the Temple were composed of Orichalcum in Antiquities of the Jews. According to 1 Kings 7:48 there stood before the Holy of Holies a golden altar of incense and a table for showbread. This table was of gold, as were also the five candlesticks on each side of it. The implements for the care of the candles—tongs, basins, snuffers, and fire-pans—were of gold; and so were the hinges of the doors.


[edit] Comparison with other temples
According to De Vaux, the Temple has recognizable similarities to other regions. Syro-Phoenician, Egyptian, and Mesopotamian influences are visible, and a plaza or courtyard surrounding the sacred residence of the god, marked with stones, is a feature common throughout ancient Semitic religions. De Vaux found earlier evidence of this practice among the Hebrews surviving in the two stones that Joshua placed at Gilgal (Joshua 4:20) and the marking of Mount Sinai by Moses (Ex. 19:12), and in the forbidden zone surrounding the tent which was the predecessor of the Temple. According to De Vaux, contemporary Muslims' designation of certain areas, especially that surrounding Mecca, as inviolate haram represents a comparable practice.[6]

The Biblical text states that Solomon received aid from Hiram, the King of Tyre, in the construction of his buildings. This aid involved not only material (cedarwood, etc.), but architectural direction and skilled craftsmen. According to De Butt, the tripartite division of the Temple is similar to that found in 13th century BCE temples at Alalakh in Syria and Hazor in the upper Galilee. A 9th century BCE temple at Tell Tayinat also follows this plan.[6] Phoenician temples varied somewhat in form, but were similarly surrounded by courts.[citation needed]

Among the details which, according to[specify] were probably copied from Tyre, were the two pillars Jachin and Boaz. Herodotus (ii. 44) says that the temple at Tyre contained two such pillars, one of old tin. According to most translations of 1 Kings 7:13-22, the two pillars of Solomon's Temple were cast of brass, though some believe[7][8] the original Hebrew word used to describe their material, "nehosheth", is actually either bronze or copper, because the Hebrews were unfamiliar with the metal zinc, which along with copper, is required to create brass. The ornamentation of palm trees and cherubim were also probably derived from Tyre, because Ezekiel (28:13, 14) represents the King of Tyre, who was high priest also, as being in the "garden of God". Probably both at Tyre and at Jerusalem the cherubim and palm tree ornaments were remnants of an earlier conception—that the abode of God was a "garden of Eden." The Tyrians, therefore, in their temple imitated to some extent the primitive garden, and Solomon borrowed these features.[citation needed]

The Solomonic Temple's plan has also been compared to that of the Ain Dara temple.

Both architecturally and in terms of its historical importance, the Temple has long stood out in comparision to other monuments. In the sixth century CE, it was included on a list of seven wonders which included the Pharos of Alexandria and Noah's Ark, compiled by Gregory, Bishop of Tours.[9]


[edit] Other Near Eastern temples
Several temples in Mesopotamia, many in Egypt, and some of the Phoenicians are now known. In Babylonia the characteristic feature was a ziggurat, or terraced tower, evidently intended to imitate the mountains on which the gods resided. The chamber for the divine dwelling was at its top. The early Egyptian temples consisted of buildings containing two or three rooms, the innermost of which was the abode of the deity. A good example is the granite temple near the sphinx at Giza. The Middle Kingdom (12th dynasty) added obelisks and pylons, and the New Kingdom (18th dynasty) hypostyle halls. Solomon's Temple was not a copy of any of these, nor of the Phoenician buildings, but embodied features derived from all of them. It was on the summit of a hill, like the altar of Ba'al on Mount Carmel and the sanctuaries of Mount Hermon, and like the Babylonian idea of the divine abode. It was surrounded by courts, like the Phoenician temples and the splendid temple of Der al-Bakri at Thebes. Its general form is reminiscent of Egyptian sanctuaries and closely matches that of other temples in the region, as described above.[citation needed]

According to[specify], the two pillars Jachin and Boaz had their parallel not only at Tyre but at Byblos, Paphos, and Telloh. In Egypt the obelisks expressed the same idea. The Jewish Encyclopedia stated that "All these were phallic emblems, being survivals of the primitive Hamito-Semitic ma??ebah",[10] Jachin and Boaz were really isolated columns, as Schick has shown[11], and not, as some have supposed, a part of the ornamentation of the building. Their tops were crowned with ornamentation as if they were lamps; and W. R. Smith supposed (l.c. p. 488[specify]) that they may have been used as fire-altars, positing that they may have contained cressets for burning the fat.


[edit] A miniature world
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (May 2007)

The chambers which surrounded the Holy Place in Solomon's Temple are said in 1 Chr. 28:12 to have been storehouses for the sacred treasure. According to[specify], these are paralleled in Babylonian and Egyptian temples by similar chambers, which surrounded the naos, or hypostyle hall, and were used for similar purposes. The "molten sea" finds its parallel in Babylonian temples in a great basin called the "apsu" ('deep'). As the ziggurat typified a mountain, so the apsu typified the sea.[specify] thus characterizes the Temple as "a miniature world".[citation needed] In Babylonian temples, an apsu was used as early as the time of Gudea and continued in use till the end of Babylonian history; it was made of stone and was elaborately decorated. According to[specify], in Solomon's Temple there was nothing to correspond to the hypostyle hall of an Egyptian temple; but this feature was introduced into Solomon's palace.[specify] states that the "house of the forest of Lebanon" and the "porch of pillars" are strongly reminiscent of the outer and the inner hypostyle hall of an Egyptian temple.[citation needed]


[edit] Modern influences and events

The floorplan of El Escorial was altered for functionality and later changes, moving the church to a side and adding another wing.The structure of this temple and its successor built by Herod the Great was an influence in Juan Bautista de Toledo's design for the Escorial Monastery in Spain (1563-1584)[12]. Modern temple architecture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has influences from Christian interpretations of biblical descriptions of Solomon's Temple. Each of the 125 operating temples has a baptismal font which is supported by 12 oxen patterned after the brazen Sea described in 1 Kings 7:23-26. Three of the church's early temples exteriors were patterned loosely on the design of Solomon's Temple.

On December 27, 2004 it was reported that the Israel Museum in Jerusalem had alleged that the ivory pomegranate that some scholars believed had once adorned a sceptre used by the high priest in Solomon's Temple may not be related to the Temple. This artifact was the most important item of biblical antiquities in its collection; it had been part of a traveling exhibition at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in 2003. The report described the thumb-sized pomegranate, which is a mere 44 millimetres in height, as being inscribed "... with ancient Hebrew letters said to spell out the words 'Sacred donation for the priests in the House of YHVH.'" The Israel Museum now believes that the artifact actually dates back to the 14th or 13th century BCE, and there is much dispute over the age of the inscription. Some experts fear that this discovery is part of an international fraud in antiquities; Israeli authorities have charged five people.[13]

On May 3, 2007, in Jerusalem, a group of American, French and Israeli scholars met in attempt to resolve differences over whether the Ivory Pomegranate Inscription was authentic or a forgery, with no conclusion resulting. [14]



palashcbiswas,
 gostokanan, sodepur, kolkata-700110 phone:033-25659551