The world Prophecy of Majeshi Leon

Dated: Sunday, 24 July 2011. 15:11hrs The Journal Inyangenews.com interviewed MAJESHI Leon about his Prophecy which will be published in ...
Read More

Amabanga y’Ikuzimu mu karere k’Ibiyaga bigari.

Uyu muryango washinzwe nabanyafurika bakundaga umugabane wabo w'Africa, ariko uyu muryango wageze mu mabako yabayobozi bo mu karere k'ibiyaga bigari ...
Read More

A Lebanese satellite TV station affiliated with terror group Hezbollah reported

A Lebanese satellite TV station affiliated with terror group Hezbollah reported on details of assassinated arch-terrorist Samir Kuntar’s last will and testament, claiming it calls for revenge against Israel.


 

Wall Street Journal correspondent Sam Dagher reported on Twitter that Kuntar’s supposed will was published in Arabic on the website almanar.com.

In the will, Kuntar, who was assassinated late Saturday night in Syria and buried in Lebanon on Monday, asks that Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah carefully plan the precise time and place to retaliate against Israel, which has been blamed for the strike, rather than responding immediately. He said Israel “deludes itself into thinking that by killing us it can drag the Resistance into a confrontation whose timing and place it chooses.” Kuntar added that Nasrallah is aware of his “responsibility to avoid being dragged into a battle, the timing and place of which have been determined by the enemy.”

Kuntar, a high-ranking Hezbollah official who spent 30 years in an Israeli prison for the slaughter of a Nahariya family, was killed near Damascus in an airstrike. While foreign media outlets and Hezbollah attributed the mission to Israel, the Jewish state has neither confirmed nor denied involvement.

By: The Algemeiner

A Guide to the Palestinian Lexicon by Khaled Abu Toameh

  • Many Palestinians refer to cities inside Israel proper as “occupied.” Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, Tiberias, Ramle and Lod, for example, are often described in the Palestinian media as “Palestinian Cities” or “Occupied Cities.” Jews living in these cities, as well as other parts of Israel, are sometimes referred to as “Settlers.”

  • Many Palestinians have still not come to terms with Israel’s right to exist. For them, this not only about the “occupation” of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The real “occupation”, for them, began with the creation of Israel in 1948.
  • Non-Arabic speakers may find this assertion baseless, because what they hear and read from Palestinian representatives in English does not reflect the messages being relayed to Palestinians in Arabic.
  • It is no secret that Palestinian leaders have failed to prepare their people for peace with Israel, and deny its right to exist.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” — George Orwell, 1984.

What do you do if you do not like Israel, but have only one outlet for that dislike: expressing it in rhetoric and print?

Well, if you are a Palestinian, you can always come up with your own terminology — one that sheds negative light on Israel and anything that is associated with it. This is precisely the tack Palestinians have taken over the past few decades, inventing their own terms and phrases when talking about Israel.

George Orwell, of course, saw through this behavior. For him, “language can also corrupt thought.” The anti-Israel sentiments, delivered for decades by Palestinians, not only corrupt thought, but also incite people against Israel, by creating incendiary situations that are designed to burst into flames.

To be clear: this is not the familiar incitement in the Palestinian media that is discussed in international forums.

This is a different color. This incitement demonizes Israel and Jews. In this narrative, Israel is evil, as well as alien to the Middle East.

Orwell, in his wise remarks on language, did not mention the deceit of multiple tongues. But that deceit is deeply embedded in the Palestinian discourse on Israel.

Political affiliations somewhat determine which terminology is employed by Palestinians with reference to Israel. Yet across affiliations, Palestinians employ extremely negative terms to discuss Israel.

Until the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the “moderate” Fatah faction, currently headed by President Mahmoud Abbas, referred to Israel, as its Palestinian brothers do today, as the “Zionist entity.” That was before the PLO officially recognized Israel under the terms of the Oslo Accords. Back then, it was considered disgraceful and unacceptable to call Israel by its name, lest that be interpreted, God forbid, as recognition of Israel.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, speaking in Arabic at a press conference broadcast December 24, 2014, used the word “Israel” in explaining that he refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. (Image source: Palestinian Media Watch)

More than two decades later, Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah faction and the Palestinian Authority (PA) still find it difficult to mention the name Israel.

Since its creation in 1994, the Palestinian Authority’s official policy (in Arabic) has been to refer to Israel as “the Other Side.” These were the instructions handed down to PA civil servants and security personnel, and they remain in effect today.

In those days, when the PA security forces were still conducting “joint patrols” with Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers in many parts of the West Bank, Palestinian policemen were banned from using the name Israel or IDF, especially when they were communicating with their colleagues and commanders through walkie-talkies. The names Israel and IDF were replaced with “the Other Side.”

A senior Palestinian security official who was asked about this back then admitted that the orders came directly from the office of Yasser Arafat. “Yes, we signed an agreement that recognizes Israel, but most of our officers and policemen still have a real problem mentioning the name Israel,” the officer said.

The instructions remain in effect even as the Palestinian Authority continues to conduct “security coordination” with Israel. Palestinian security and civilian officials who maintain daily contact with their Israeli counterparts regularly refrain from uttering the names Israel or IDF. In a sliver of good news, they no longer refer to Israel as the “Zionist Entity.”

Yet the Palestinian media and representatives of the PA, in their statements (in Arabic), continue to use terminology that is degrading and even abusive when it comes to dealing with Israel.

Israel, for example, is often referred to as the “State of Occupation” and the Israeli Government is described as the “Government of Occupation.”

Many Palestinians remain opposed to the use of the name Israel because they simply do not recognize its right to exist.

Palestinian writer Muhsen Saleh criticized some Arabs and Palestinians for sometimes using the name Israel in their speeches and writings:

“For many years, the Arabs and regimes and their media outlets refused to use the name ‘Israel’ when referring to the usurper entity that was established on large parts of the land of 1948 Palestine. They used to refer to it as the enemy, the Zionist entity or the Occupation, or at least they used to put the name Israel in quotes as a sign that they do not recognize it. Today, however, the name ‘Israel’ is being used without quotes and without embarrassment.”

The prime minister of Israel, regardless of his identity or political affiliation, is often called the “Prime Minister of Occupation.” Some prefer to use the term “Prime Minister of Tel Aviv.”

The Israeli Defense Minister, again regardless of his identity or political affiliation, is often referred to as the “Minister of War.” The implication: Israel is at constant war with the Palestinians and Arabs. Needless to say, the IDF is always referred to as the “Occupation Forces,” whose only mission is to kill Palestinians, destroy their homes and turn their lives into misery.

Another sign of the difficulty many Palestinians find in using the name Israel can be found in their talk about the Arab citizens of Israel.

Palestinian officials and media outlets regularly refer to these citizens as “the Arabs of the Inside” — implying that the “inside” is actually an internal part of “Palestine.” Others refer to these citizens as “the Arabs of 1948” or the “Palestinians Inside the Green Line” or “the Arabs living inside the 1948 Occupied Territories.”

And we still have not talked about the fact that many Palestinians refer to cities inside Israel proper as “occupied” cities and towns. Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, Tiberias, Ramle and Lod, for example, are often described in the Palestinian media as “Palestinian Cities” or “Occupied Cities.” Jews living in these cities, as well as other parts of Israel, are sometimes referred to as “Settlers.”

Jews visiting the Temple Mount, or Haram Al-Sharif, in Jerusalem are regularly described by Palestinian media outlets and officials as “Herds of Settlers” and “Settler Terrorist Gangs.”

These are only a handful of examples of the language of the Palestinian narrative. Such language exposes the truth: that many Palestinians have still not come to terms with Israel’s right to exist. For them, this not only about the “occupation” of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The real “occupation,” for them, began with the creation of Israel in 1948.

It is no secret that Palestinian leaders have failed to prepare their people for peace with Israel. Even worse, the terminology adopted by these leaders and a growing number of Palestinians is a clear sign that these leaders, through their rhetoric and media outlets, continue to promote a policy that not only delegitimizes Israel and depicts it as an evil state, but also denies its right to exist. Non-Arabic speakers may find this assertion baseless, because what they hear and read from Palestinian representatives in English does not reflect the messages being relayed to Palestinians in Arabic.

The international English-speaking audience would do well to get some accurate translations of what is being said about Israel in Arabic. It is the only way out of Palestinian Newspeak, although it might make Orwell roll over in his grave.

Khaled Abu Toameh, an award-winning journalist, is based in Jerusalem.

A Gruesome Christmas under Islam

Muslim governmental officials — not “ISIS” — in nations such as Brunei, Somalia, and Tajikistan continue openly and formally to express their hostility for Christmas and Christianity. And extremist Muslims — not “ISIS” — continue to terrorize and slaughter Christians on Christmas in nations as diverse as Bangladesh, Belgium, the Congo, Germany, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Philippines, Syria, the West Bank, and even the United States.


On Christmas Day in the West Bank, two Muslims were arrested for setting a Christmas tree on fire in a Christian-majority village near Jenin. On the same day in Bethlehem, Muslim rioters greeted the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem with a hail of stones. Authorities subsequently arrested 16 “Salafi radicals” who were planning to carry out terror attacks against tourists celebrating Christmas.

If this was Christmas in Bethlehem — Christ’s birthplace and scene of the Nativity — Christmas in other parts of the world experienced similar abuse.

In the United States, a 46-year-old Christian mother of three was among the 14 people killed in the San Bernardino terrorist attack targeting a Christmas party. Ironically, Bennetta Bet-Badal had fled Iran for the U.S. when she was 18 to escape the persecution of Christians after the 1979 Islamic revolution. After graduating from college with a degree in chemistry and marrying and raising three children, the jihad caught up with her. She was attending a Christmas luncheon and bringing gifts to her co-workers when Muslim terrorists burst in and massacred them.

Belgium resembled Bethlehem: A video appeared showing a number of youths lighting a firebomb under a Christmas tree in Brussels. Seconds later, there is an explosion, and the tree is engulfed in flames. Young men shouting “Allahu Akbar,” [“Allah is Greater”] run away. The person who originally uploaded the video, Mohamed Amine, has since taken his Facebook page down.

In Germany, four Eastern Orthodox Christians were accosted in the early morning hours after Christmas Day in Berlin by a man shouting, “I am a Muslim! What are you?” The man and his friends then attacked and violently beat the Christians.

The few anecdotes of Muslims terrorizing, beating, and even killing Christians on the occasion of Christmas in the West — where Muslims are minorities — were expanded in Muslim-majority nations.

Stifling Christmas

In Syria, the Islamic State “arrested, if not executed, some youths [five] in the city of Raqqa for befriending and greeting Christians on the occasion of Christmas.” ISIS reportedly told the five youths that “they are being detained after an investigation [including their personal computers], found that they greeted the Christians and wished them a Happy New Year.” When one of the youths tried to clear himself, an ISIS member replied: “Shut up! You accompany the Christians — is that not so?” The five youths were then hauled to an unknown location. There has been no further information on their fate.

ISIS was not alone. The governments of three countries — Somalia, Tajikistan, and Brunei — formally banned Christmas (celebrating its Gospel message, putting up trees, dressing like Santa Claus, and giving gifts). Transgressors can face up to five years in prison. Some Islamic clerics in Brunei stated: “Using religious symbols such as crosses, lighting candles, putting up Christmas trees, singing religious songs, sending Christmas greetings … are against the Islamic faith.”

In Bangladesh, churches skipped traditional Christmas midnight mass because of the increasing number of threats against, and attacks on, Christian leaders. Although Christians constitute less than one percent of the Muslim nation, more than three dozen church leaders received death threats and at least four narrowly escaped attempts on their lives.

Although not canceled, Christmas church services were tense and on high alert in the supposedly most “moderate” Muslim nation, Indonesia. More than 150,000 security personnel and others were deployed to safeguard churches around the country during Christmas and New Year’s Eve celebrations. Days earlier, on December 20, police arrested six men who had bomb-making materials and jihadi literature.

On December 25 in Iran, a group of about 10 Christians celebrating Christmas were verbally abused and arrested after plain-clothes government agents raided a private service in their home. Separately, on December 23, agents beat, handcuffed, and arrested a Christian man during a raid on his home. His books, computer, mobile phone, and a decorated Christmas tree were seized.

Christmas Carnage

On December 24 in the Philippines, Muslim jihadis terrorized the Christian-majority nation after they seized and executed 10 Christians. A military spokesman said the terrorist attack was intentionally launched on Christmas Eve “to make a statement.”

On December 25 in Nigeria, the Islamic group, Boko Haram, slaughtered 16 Christians, including children. The jihadi group has been bombing churches and massacring Christians on Christmas Day for several years in a row. One of the deadliest attacks occurred in 2011, when the jihadis bombed a Catholic church during Christmas mass. They killed 39 and wounded hundreds.

On Christmas Eve in the Democratic Republic of Congo, over 50 people of the Christian-majority nation were massacred by the Ugandan-based group, ADF-Nalu, which “has acquired in recent years the characterization of a jihadist movement.”

On Christmas Eve in Iraq, the Islamic State bombed ten Christian homes and a convent in the Assyrian village of Tel Kepe. Several people were injured. On December 30, members of the Islamic State bombed several Christian-owned restaurants in Syria; 16 people were murdered.

Left: The Miami restaurant was bombed by the Islamic State, one of three Christian-owned restaurants bombed in Qamishli, Syria on December 30, killing 16 people. Right: A number of youths set fire to a Christmas tree in a public square in Brussels, Belgium, while yelling “Allahu Akbar” [“Allah is Greater”].

Muslim governmental officials — not “ISIS” — in nations such as Brunei, Somalia, and Tajikistan continue openly and formally to express their hostility for Christmas and Christianity. And extremist Muslims — not “ISIS” — continue to terrorize and slaughter Christians on Christmas in nations as diverse as Bangladesh, Belgium, the Congo, Germany, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Philippines, Syria, the West Bank, and even the United States.

Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War in Christians (a Gatestone Publication, published by Regnery, April 2013), is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum

A Few Questions for London’s New Mayor and Other Luminaries by Robbie Travers

  • London Mayor Sadiq Khan has called moderate Muslims “Uncle Toms” – not quite what one would expect to hear from a supposed advocate of equality.

  • The irony of course is that to show you are not a racist, you are using racist terminology. Is that what an anti-racist should sound like?
  • Name-calling is usually just a form political blackmail designed to close down a discussion before it has even begun. What it does not wish to take into consideration is that someone might simply have a different opinion.
  • Every candidate’s record on terrorism should be questioned. It is the public’s right. Just because Khan happens to be Muslim, does that entitle him to special treatment? Why should one not be able to ask Khan the same questions one might ask any other politician?

Many are hailing the election of London’s new mayor, Sadiq Khan, admirably the “son of a Pakistani bus driver,” as the sign of a new, tolerant London and that Britain’s Black and minority ethnic communities are making progress.

But there are concerns. Khan has called moderate Muslims “Uncle Toms” – not quite what one would expect to hear from a supposed advocate of equality.

The irony of course is that to show you are not a racist, you are using racist terminology. Is that what an anti-racist should sound like?

Branding someone an “Uncle Tom” also implies that the poor primate cannot think independently or formulate an opinion apart from his ethnicity. Basically, the accusation would seem an attempt to intimidate those within a community to conform to whatever the group-think is; anyone who disagrees must therefore be a traitor. But name-calling is usually just a form political blackmail designed to close down discussion before it even begins. It seemingly does not wish to take into account that someone might just have a different opinion.

It is unfortunate that the Mayor of London, a city of such diversity of both opinions and demographics, would use such terminology to suggest that Muslims who disagree with the more conservative interpretation of Islam are possibly traitors to their religion.

In fairness, Khan has stated that he “regretted” using the term. It is refreshing that a politician took the responsibility to apologize, but might there nevertheless be room for a few candid questions?

Does Khan believe, for instance, that law-abiding, moderate British Muslims are disloyal to their community for holding views that might differ from those of the majority? Also, does he think that using terminology such as “Uncle Tom” makes it more difficult for liberal or progressive Muslims to promote reform within their community? In fact, what does Khan think of the idea of reforming or reinterpreting Islam?

Earlier, in 2006, Khan defended London’s mayor at the time, Ken Livingstone, now suspended from the Labour Party “for bringing the party into disrepute” after MPs accused of him of antisemitism and making offensive comments about Hitler supporting Zionism.

Khan has since condemned Livingstone for remarks made about the Holocaust, and even added:

“I accept that the comments that Ken Livingstone has made makes it more difficult for Londoners of Jewish faith to feel that the Labour party is a place for them, and so I will carry on doing what I have always been doing, which is to speak for everyone.”

It is certainly promising that, as his first official event since attaining office, Khan attended a Holocaust memorial event, and said that Labour has not done enough to tackle antisemitism.

Well then, how, within Labour, does he plan to tackle the rising antisemitism?

Khan’s judgement about advisers, however, has also raised concerns. Khan’s former top adviser, Shueb Salar, began working for him in 2014, when Khan was Shadow Justice Secretary and Shadow Minister for London. Salar’s duties included “assisting in the drafting of speeches, reports, press releases, briefings, parliamentary questions, letters and email correspondence.”

Yet, while Labour’s own written material claimed that “Labour means fighting for “fairness, justice and for equality, Salar tweeted about a same-sex couple travelling on London’s Underground system: “Had the funniest tube journey ever, some rowdy chavs were cussing these 2 gay guys kissing LOL maybe they deserved it.”

Did he mean that assaulting same-sex couples is acceptable and to be expected? He also made other remarks that could be construed as homophobic.[1]

In the wake of polls illustrating that 52% of UK Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal, what does Khan think of views such as this?

On another topic, a few years ago, in 2004, Khan shared a platform with five Islamic extremists at an event sponsored by Al-Aqsa, and featuring “gender segregation.” The organization has published materials by Holocaust denier Paul Eisen which challenge “the ideological, spiritual and religious meaning of the Holocaust narrative and the use to which it has been put to enforce Jewish power.” What does Khan think about the Holocaust, the views of Al-Aqsa, Eisen and gender segregation?

In 2004, when Khan was chair of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee, he commented on remarks by the Islamic theologian, Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi at the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Muslim Council of Britain, which Khan represented at the hearing, had described Al-Qaradawi “a voice of reason and understanding. “

“Oh God,” al-Qaradawi had said, “deal with your enemies, the enemies of Islam. Oh God, deal with the usurpers and oppressors and tyrannical Jews. Oh God, deal with the plotters and rancorous crusaders.”

Khan responded:

“I cannot comment on the specific quote you have given but there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that Mr. al-Qardawi is not the extremist that he is painted as being by selective quotations from his remarks.”

Unfortunately, Qaradawi also cited a passage in the Hadith [the actions and sayings of Muhammad] — a passage, incidentally, that is also part of the Hamas Charter:

“The Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, with Muslims fighting them until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees saying: ‘Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah, this Jew behind me, come kill him.'”

Al-Qaradawi has also stated that rape victims who dressed immodestly must be “punished,” but also that, “to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct.” Al-Qaradawi also defends female genital mutilation (FGM), a crime in the UK.

What, then, are Khan’s views on FGM, rape, anti-Semitism and Qaradawi? What, in fact, are his views on Islamic extremists?

Finally, in 2006 Khan signed a letter declaring that “the debacle in Iraq” had contributed towards terrorism affecting the UK. It is not clear if Khan was suggesting that British foreign policy actively creates terrorism, or if British Muslims, angered by the alleged murder of innocent Muslims in the Middle East, think that the best way to counter British foreign policy is to kill more innocents in the Middle East.

What, then, does Khan think are the main causes of terrorism? What does Khan think about Islamists and how they become radicalized?

In conclusion, why do some people suggest that asking Khan questions about Islam and Islamic extremism is somehow “Islamophobic”? Is it possible they are afraid of what the answers might be?

Shouldn’t every candidate’s record on terrorism be questioned? Is that not the public’s right? Just because Khan happens to be Muslim, should this entitle him to special treatment? Is failing to evaluate someone, using the same standards you would use to evaluate others, just because of his or her race, religion, sexual preference or gender is, not, in the broadest sense, “racist”?

Why should one not be able to ask Khan the same questions one might ask Jeremy Corbyn, David Cameron or any other politician?

Do “inconvenient” questions come about because people are racist, or because they might just be horrified by events such as the murder in Glasgow of a shopkeeper, Assad Shah, killed by another Muslim for wishing his friends a “Happy Easter” on Facebook?

Most of all, why are questions considered so dangerous that they must not even be asked?

Robbie Travers, a political commentator and consultant, is Executive Director of Agora, former media manager at the Human Security Centre, and a law student at the University of Edinburgh.

A Call on All Christians to Defend Their Birthplace and the Homeland of the Jewish People by Petra Heldt

  • We need ensure that the Old City of Jerusalem, the heart of Judaism for more than 3,000 years and the seat of Christianity for 2,000 years, will not be allowed to be Islamic as part of what would soon be an Islamic country, and very likely a terrorist one. In such a state, all polls show that the next vote will be to install Hamas.

  • Based on the Hamas Charter that denies Israel’s right to exist, the vote could complete eliminating Jewish — and Christian — history and replacing it with Islam.
  • What drives Western politicians to be servants aiding the destruction of Judeo-Christian culture in the Middle East and Europe? Why does the Paris peace conference prepare for the destruction of the Jewish State while Christians are murdered in Muslim countries in historically unparalleled numbers?
  • Christians will not be silent when all these places will be voted to go to those who will destroy them — as they destroyed Palmyra, Antioch, Nisibis, Niniveh, and in late 2014, Iraq’s oldest Christian monastery, St. Elijah, leveled by the Islamic State.
  • The streets of Paris must hear the protests against the attempted rewriting of history at the peace conference and any subsequent Security Council vote. Such protestors are like “a man who would built up the wall and stand in front of God in the gap on behalf of the Land” (Ezekiel 22:30) — so that the only bastion of democracy, the very defender of Christianity, the last keeper of Judeo-Christian heritage in the Middle East and Europe will continue to prosper.

Christians’ collective consciousness must stop the planned peace conference in Paris on January 15-17, and prevent the presumably intended UN Security Council (UNSC) vote on a Palestinian State as a 22nd Muslim state, in the midst of the one Jewish State. We need to ensure that there will be no capitulation to the Islamization of the Middle East and Europe. We need to ensure that the Old City of Jerusalem, the heart of Judaism for more than 3,000 years and the seat of Christianity for 2,000 years, will not be allowed to be Islamic as part of what would soon be an Islamic state, and very likely a terrorist one. In such a state, all polls show, the next vote will be to install the terrorist group Hamas. That would mean the eventual destruction of all Judeo-Christian heritage, as we have been seeing throughout the Middle East.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on 13 October 2016 gave preliminary approval to a resolution that denies Jewish ties to its most holy religious sites: the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. The vote in Paris could firmly establish the Temple Mount as a Muslim place. Since UNESCO’s rewriting of history, by renaming ancient Biblical sites Islamic, such as Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem, even though there was no Islam until the seventh century (hundreds of years later), Muslim guards on the Temple Mount already attempt to impose UNESCO’s revisionist agenda. On January 1, 2017 the Waqf (an Islamic trust to preserve whatever has ever occupied by Muslims for Allah, forever) forced the eminent Israeli scholar of archaeology, Professor Gabriel Barkay, not to use the word “Temple Mount” but the Muslim word for the place. After Israeli police intervention, Barkay continued his talk using the abbreviation “TM.” He refused to behave like a dhimmi (second-class, “tolerated” citizenship for non-Muslim minorities).

A similar event in October 2016 took a different direction. Visiting the Temple Mount, Cardinal Marx and Bishop Bedford-Strohm, the preeminent Catholic and Protestant representatives of the German Churches, respectively, accepted orders and removed their crosses. After huge protests in Germany against the banning of the cross on the Temple Mount, the Cardinal Marx apologized. Bishop Bedford-Strohm, in contrast, did not apologize but blamed Israeli security — an allegation Israel rejected.

The Paris conference could well make the Temple Mount Judenrein and Christenrein [free of Christians and Jews] and accelerate dhimmitude in Europe.

An aerial view of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and much of Jerusalem’s Old City. (Image source: Andrew Shiva / Wikipedia)

For 3000 years, Jewish history says that “Jerusalem is built up like a city that is united together” (Psalms 122:3). Ever since, Jerusalem has been the undivided capital of the Jewish homeland. Neither relentless terror, nor multiple wars, nor cynical boycotts against the Jewish State have succeeded in destroying Israel’s history. In a rough move, however, the Paris peace conference and a subsequent Security Council vote could accomplish just that: the end of Jewish history in its homeland. Based on the Hamas Charter that denies Israel’s right to exist, the vote could complete eliminating Jewish — and Christian — history and replacing it with Islam. It would terminate Israel, the only thriving, beautiful, prosperous, and truly democratic country in the Middle East. It would end freedom of worship, which Israel guarantees for people of all religious faiths, from around whole world. It would end the inspiration for Judeo-Christian culture and for the faiths of Jews, Christians, and, yes, of Moslems, which Israel provides.

What drives Western politicians to be servants aiding the destruction of Judeo-Christian culture in the Middle East and Europe? Why does the Paris peace conference prepare for the destruction of the Jewish State, while Christians are murdered in Muslim countries in historically unparalleled numbers? Why are millions of Christians kept in the dark about the intended destruction of their birthplace on the Temple Mount from where, on Pentecost, the disciples of Jesus were empowered to carry the faith to the whole world? Not a few answers point to greed for might and money. It might be one of the Christians’ last chances to rescue and honor the Judeo-Christian patrimony, which has been built with love and faith and passed on through many perils over millennia.

Christians of this age are grateful to Israel for enabling the biblical faith, more than ever, through numerous archaeological findings on the Temple Mount, in the City of David, in Qumran, on Massada, in Beersheva, in Bethlehem, in Tekoah, in Ariel, at the Jordan river, in Jericho, in Capernaum, Megiddo, Nazareth, Tel Dan, and a hundred other biblical places in the Land of Israel.

For this, Christians will not be silent when all these places will be voted to go to those who will destroy them — as they destroyed Palmyra, Antioch, Nisibis, Nineveh, and in late 2014 Iraq’s oldest Christian monastery, St. Elijah, leveled by the Islamic State. It was reported how ISIS seized the Christian site, forcing the Christians to convert to Islam, paying a special tax or be killed. This is the reality familiar to Christians and Jews in the Middle East for more than a millennium.

The Judeo-Christian culture is based on history transmitted in Holy Writ. That needs to be addressed in public, on social media, in print media, on television and radio — on all media. The streets of Paris must hear the protests against the attempted rewriting of history at the peace conference and any subsequent Security Council vote. Such protestors are like “a man who would built up the wall and stand in front of God in the gap on behalf of the Land” (Ezekiel 22:30) — so that the only bastion of democracy, the very defender of Christianity, the last keeper of Judeo-Christian heritage in the Middle East and Europe will continue to prosper.

Rev. Dr. Petra Heldt is Director of the Ecumenical Theological Research Fraternity, Jerusalem.

Page 390 of 401
1 388 389 390 391 392 401
Skip to toolbar