Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘john-hagee’

Breivik’s Neo-Nazi Manifesto, Latter-Day Mein Kampf

Sunday, July 24th, 2011
2083   a European Declaration of Independence

Title page of Breivik's manifesto

Hitler had his Jewish problem. Anders Breivik, his Muslim problem. The more I read of Breivik’s manifesto, A European Declaration of Independence, the more it appears to me a latter-day version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

Remember that when the dictator-to-be wrote his magnum opus he had not yet devised the formula for the Final Solution. He knew what the problem was (Jews) and had some ideas about how to deal with it, but he hadn’t come up with the policy of genocide adopted at the 1942 Wansee Conference. So Breivik sees clearly that the problem for Europe is Muslims (rather than Jews). They are the common “foreign” body infecting the pure western European gene pool. But Breivik hasn’t yet developed a genocidal policy to accompany this realization. He only states that Muslims must be removed from Europe (and the western world, including Israel), not that they must be exterminated.

But given that Breivik forecast that his right-wing revolution would not succeed till 2083, we can only wonder at what sort of Final Solution there would be for the Muslim problem in Europe by then.

While Breivik’s views in one major particular diverge from those of Hitler, in many other ways they mirror each other precisely. As for the difference, Breivik only sees SOME Jews as the problem. Those are the Marxist Jews in the Diaspora and Israel, the ones embracing multiculturalism. They are the enemy. But the Norwegian neo-Nazi views Zionist Israel, as represented by anti-jihadis like Avigdor Lieberman, as what he calls “cultural cousins.” Israel is the far-right’s friend in this view because this is a nation that hates Islam and will expel the Muslims living within it.

Interestingly, John Hagee’s views of Jews and Israel are very similar.  Hagee too believes that secular Jews and Jewish political leftists are the enemies of Christianity and the ones who will die in the End Times.  Israel, that is Zionist Israel living out the Biblical dream, will survive in his world view.  They will be the saving remnant, and of course the group that will eventually turn to accept Jesus as Christ.  Hagee’s best friends in Israel, the settlers and political leaders like Avigdor Lieberman, are precisely the ones admired most by Breivik.

Hitler too railed against Jewish Bolsheviks and saw them as the heart of all evil. Perhaps had Hitler lived to see the creation of the State of Israel he too might’ve modified his views about Jews (or conversely, had Hitler lived there might never have been a State of Israel). At any rate, Muslims play the same role Jews did for Hitler in the Breivik universe. They are the irredeemably evil.

But interestingly, while Hitler chose to attack Jews unmercifully almost from the beginning of his political career, Breivik chose not to attack Muslims physically at all. Instead, he chose to attack the heart of the ‘Marxist multicultural’ beast, Norway’s ruling party and institutions of state. To his mind, the rightist revolution would resonate most with an attack on the soft underbelly of the state, rather than on the nation’s Muslims.  For Breivik, Marxists like those of the Norwegian Labor Party and the hated European Union, are collaborators with the Muslim enemy.  The former are the ones who will enable to latter to overrun Europe.  And because these collaborators are white Christians like himself, they are race traitors.  All of which probably justifies attacking them, before going on to ‘getting the job done’ against Muslims.  Here is his underlying thinking on the subject:

Why armed resistance against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe is the only rational approach

Multiculturalism, like drugs, is an insidious weapon. Both destroy the heart and fabric of a people. All ties to family, community, and one’s people as a whole are destroyed by these two opiates of the human mind. Both are sponsored from the top down by one world elitists bent upon creating a world order who’s power is such that its subjects posses no potential for resistance.

…War or armed resistance has traditionally always been used as a last resort, when dialogue has proven to ineffective. The justification for use of armed resistance against the European cultural Marxist/multiculturalist systems is tied to the outlook for cultural conservative political success. You have to ask yourself; is it remotely possible under the current conditions that a conservative, monocultural political party will ever gain substantial political influence? An increasing number of Europeans are opening their eyes to the reality that the democratical struggle through dialogue has been lost. The cultural Marxists have institutionalised multiculturalism and have no intention of ever allowing us to exercise any political influence of significance. In theory we, the cultural conservatives of Europe, have become slaves under an oppressive, tyrannical, extreme left-wing system with absolutely no hope of reversing the damage they have caused. At least not democratically..

Breivik made common cause with other European far-rightist groups like the English Defense League (whose name may be a deliberate echo of the Jewish Defense League), Geert Wilders and others. One factor that they all share is pro-Israelism. For them, the enemy of my (Muslim) enemy is my friend. That’s precisely why Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Bat Yeor and other Jewish anti- jihadis find the European far-right so attractive. And it’s a reason why all of them are so dangerous. Not in the way that Breivik is physically dangerous. But intellectually and politically dangerous.  Scott Shane wrote an interesting story about this today in the Times.

The Norwegian mass-murderer may’ve killed regardless of whether Geller et al. existed. But his certitude in his cause and the intellectual underpinnings of it come from them. Without them, he may’ve just been a malcontent searching for a cause. With them, he had a cause to live and die–and kill others–for.

Yesterday, I identified a number of interesting quotations from the Breivik manifesto and excerpted them in a post.  I’ve continued my review and there are several more quotations I’d like to offer.  This deals with the issue of expulsion of Muslims from Europe with a clear parallel to the policy of transfer advocated by Israeli nationalist rightists (including Lieberman, though in a slightly more refined articulation).  The call to action that concludes it is chilling and reveals that all that separates Breivik from Geller, Spencer et al. is the former’s willingness to take up arms, while the the latter do everything but:

Future deportations of Muslims from Europe

“It’s difficult to discuss deportation of Muslims openly in a society where it is not even allowed to discuss Islam…”

The reason why authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe – Fjordman, Spencer, Ye’or, Bostom etc. aren’t actively discussing deportation is because the method is considered too extreme (and thus would damage their reputational shields). This would un-doubtfully undermine their work and probably disallowing them to publish any future books. However, the warning about Islam has been repeated for more than two decades and it is apparent that 40 more years of dialogue, without action, would have a devastating effect on Europe. If these authors are to scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.

Here Breivik outlines the need to rid oneself of the human impulse for mercy in this Christian conservative revolutionary jihad.  This passage distills his method to its pure essence:

The process of destroying and replacing the current cultural Marxist/ multiculturalist regimes of Western Europe will not be easy or painless….

As a Justiciar Knight you are operating as a jury, judge and executioner on behalf of all free Europeans. Never forget that it is not only your right to act against the tyranny of the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites of Europe, it is your duty to do so.  There are situations in which cruelty is necessary, and refusing to apply necessary cruelty is a betrayal of the people whom you wish to protect.

The preferred method is to attack in a violent and deceptive form (shock attack), usually with limited forces (1-2 individuals).  Once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike. Explain what you have done (in an announcement distributed prior to operation) and make certain that everyone understands that we, the free peoples of Europe, are going to strike again and again. Do not apologise, make excuses or express regret for you are acting in self-defence or in a preëmptive manner. In many ways, morality has lost its meaning in our struggle. The question of good and evil is reduced to one simple choice. For every free patriotic European, only one choice remains: Survive or perish. Some innocent will die in our operations as they are simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Get used the idea. The needs of the many will always surpass the needs of the few.

In a subsequent passage, Breivik notes that the number of acceptable dead in this revolutionary coup d’état would be 45,000 (with 1-million wounded), which corresponds, in his delusional mind, to the numbers that the Marxist political élite have killed in their drive for continental dominance.  He notes that some conservatives also include in the number of those killed aborted fetuses, which raises the number to 2-million.

In this terrorist’s universe, the goal of overturning the Eurabian regime justifies use of weapons of mass destruction including chemical and biological weapons, which he goes to great lengths to specify.  He even speculates on the possibility of negotiating with Israel (noting that Israeli nationalists would be most likely to be sympathetic to his cause) for access to nuclear weapons though he concedes that Israel is unlikely to do so until it sees clear signs that his revolution is nearing success.

Houston Jewish Federation and Hagee End Funding for Im Tirzu

Sunday, August 22nd, 2010
im tirzu ad against naomi hazan

Im Tirzu's ad attacking Naomi Hazan

I would like to reach out my arms to dance a intercontinental hora with Didi Remez, the Calcalist, Yossi Gurvitz, and all those others who helped expose John Hagee’s $120,000 gift to Im Tirzu.  It seems that both the Houston federation and Hagee have gotten the message that Im Tirzu is not an educational organization providing Zionist training to Israel’s college students, but an outright ideological and highly partisan rightist political group.

One of my Facebook friends and a reader of my blog, Simcha Burstyn, brings this message from Houston federation CEO, Lee Wunsch:

We helped John Hagee Ministries fund Im Tirtzu as part of Pastor Hagee’s annual gifts to Israel. He funded Im Tirtzu because of its original mission of educating young Israelis on Israel’s college campuses about the history of Israel and Zionism. That funding continued for two years. In light of recent events and in my discussions with Pastor Hagee, he will not continue that funding as we both believe that Im Tirtzu has morphed into a quasi-political organization and neither Pastor Hagee nor the Houston Jewish Federation will fund such groups. If any of your friends want to communicate with me about their concerns, you are welcome to forward along this message and/or give them my contact information.

Lee Wunsch

tamir kafri im tirzu coordinator

Tamir Kafri, Im Tirzu's Ben Gurion University campus coordinator (Max Blumenthal)

We have won a victory in the fight for decency, human rights and derech eretz in the Israeli political debate.  Even as extreme a figure as John Hagee has red lines on such issues.  In truth, I doubt Hagee cared enough to make this decision.  In all likelihood it was the Houston federation that got cold feet.  But whoever it was they are to be commended for seeing reason.

This is perhaps not a big victory and shouldn’t be blown out of proportion.  After all, just look at the list of far-right settler groups which Hagee still supports:

Gush Katif, $200,000
Young Israel, $150,000
Shurat Ha-Din, $100,000
Nefesh B’Nefesh, $1,000,000 (settles new immigrants in settlements)
Ariel (settlement), $500,000
Gush Etzion, $150,000

But it’s a victory nonetheless.  And in this dark day and age even the small ones count.

Now, I challenge Haviv Gur, the Jewish agency communications director to renounce Im Tirzu as well.  If he won’t, will he tell us what redeeming value he finds in the group that the Houston federation missed in declaring it treif?  Wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall in the phone conversations that will go back and forth between Jerusalem and Houston on this one?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Jewish Agency PR Flack Defends Hagee Gift to Im Tirzu

Saturday, August 21st, 2010

A few days ago the Israeli financial blog Calcalist published an expose (English translation) on a $3-million gift by John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel, which was passed through the Jewish Agency via the Houston Jewish federation where it originated.  I’ve reported in the past on the beneficiaries of tens of millions of dollars of Hagee/CUFI largess which are often settler projects and major settlements.  The gift Calcalist was most interested in was $120,000 transmitted to the far-right Israeli group, Im Tirzu.

Among other violations of Jewish Agency procedure concerning this gift and noted by the Israeli blog was that its funding is supposed to support educational projects, which it does in many cases.  But the notion that there is any educational component to Im Tirzu’s agenda is laughable.  It is a purely partisan entity characterized by bare-knuckle, brawling-style political activism as evidenced by its scuzzy attacks on the New Israel Fund‘s Naomi Hazan and its nascent campaign to sack the leadership of Ben Gurion University’s political science department for alleged “anti-Zionist” tendencies.

Israel has (or once had, before major cuts in the national education budget) a fine higher education system developed over decades and nurtured in the principles of academic inquiry and the freedom to pursue knowledge in diverse ways.  Im Tirzu, if it had its way, would turn the Israeli educational system into cheerleaders for an ideologically correct pro-Zionist agenda.  They would destroy the notion of academic freedom which is the pillar of any good university.  And the Jewish Agency is willing to financially pimp on behalf of this garbage.

Just after I published my post on this, I noticed that Haviv Rettig Gur asked to friend me on Facebook.  I remembered he was at one time a Jerusalem Post reporter, one of the interchangeable set which vent their noxiousness under the tutelage of queen bee neocon ranter-editor, Caroline Glick.  I wondered why he wanted to friend me.  After I confirmed him as a friend I received a message from him on my Wall sternly admonishing Calcalist and, by inference, me for “profound and irresponsible ignorance” in our reporting on Hagee’s gift.

In his initial message he wanted to make the point that the Jewish Agency wasn’t endorsing Hagee’s gift or Im Tirzu, but was merely providing “philanthropic oversight,” which in a later message he described as follows:

In order to enable contributions to charities and Israeli civil society from abroad, the Federations, the UIA and the Agency provide a special program of financial oversight. This program is trusted by the American authorities, so that when we say the money arrived at its destination and is used for its intended purpose, they believe us and the donor back home can receive the tax benefits of his or her donation.

Translation: the Jewish Agency passes money from Hagee along to Im Tirzu.  Further, the Houston federation sends the check to the JA, which in turn transfers it to Im Tirzu.  Which means the Agency, in doing so, gives Hagee and his dirty anti-Semitic money an Israeli-Zionist heksher in addition to a 501c3 designation making it tax-deductible.

Here Rettig Gur argues that Israel should be proud of Hagee’s beneficence:

Hagee, for his part, uses the [JA pass-through] service for gifts for which Israel should be deeply grateful. Hagee’s own Israel portfolio…included last year a $750,000 gift to Barzilai Hospital, among others. Ironically, Im Tirzu’s latest target, Ben Gurion University, also received money from Hagee.

Again, this is self-serving pap.  If you read the post I wrote on Hagee’s Israel giving, anyone can see that the preponderance of his charity is to the settlement enterprise.  Yes, he does give to glatt kosher non-profits like hospitals and he does give major gifts for aliya absorption, but it doesn’t cancel out his massive giving to support the “don’t give an inch” brigade.  As for Ben Gurion University, I think it’s safe to say next year BGU won’t be receiving a red cent (or agora) from the likes of Hagee since he’ll certainly want to honor Im Tirzu’s version of pro-Zionist BDS.

Rettig Gur argues additionally that Hagee’s gift to Im Tirzu is no different from gifts it designates for “leftist” Israeli groups as well such as Bustan and Shatil.  The mere fact that Im Tirzu is a Zionist group gives it immediate approval.  No mention, in this line of argument, of the Agency’s requirement that funds only be given for educational purposes.  Further, the so-called leftist groups he mentions are not engaged in intimidation or incitement against anyone.  They don’t pay for full-page ads in all the major Israeli papers picturing Naomi Hazan with a rhino-horn on her nose in a Shturmer-like pose.  Nor do they extort Zionist-correctness from Israeli universities.  In fact, Bustan and Shatil are engaged in the important work of building Israeli democracy through empowering Bedouin communities (on the one hand) and promoting social justice for underprivileged sectors of Israeli society (on the other).  These are positive and constructive goals in which no one is smeared, no one is sacked from their job.  You can’t say the same for Im Tirzu.

The Jewish Agency PR flack argued that the story of Hagee’s gift was “old news” because Didi Remez had reported it on his blog in February.  What this conveniently ignores is that Didi did not know at the time that the gift was funneled to Israel via the Jewish Agency and Houston federation.  That is BIG news.  News that it is Rettig Gur’s job to minimize as insignificant.  Additionally, Calcalist reported that the Central Fund of Israel, an American Jewish pro-settler group sent $35,000 to Im Tirzu.  None of this was reported by Didi.  So the term “scoop” used by Calcalist, and which so annoys Rettig Gur, is a precise and correct term.

My trusty correspondent also takes humbrage that I’ve implicated his boss, Natan Sharansky, in the matter by mentioning him in my first post.  I merely noted that Hagee would surely feel right at home trusting his money to be channeled through an agency directed by the Israeli neocon, Sharansky.

Rettig Gur closed his last message (undoubtedly there will be more as he seems to have an inveterate need to explain and defend himself and his employer) with a strange set of near-non sequiturs intended to buff his Israeli liberal street cred:

I’ll accept your apology for sullying my good name, and happily respond to any further concerns. Funny, I have some good friends in places like B’tselem, Van Leer and ACRI. My father was a parliamentary aide to Yossi Sarid as far back as the 1970s and was a board member of RHR for a while. In all my life, no one from that world has ever been as rude and crude to me as you, and you’ve never even met me.

Why does someone like this feel he is owed any special treatment?  Why should I treat him with kid gloves when he aids and abets the likes of John Hagee and Im Tirzu?  So I replied:

You can accept my apology if you wish to be a fantasist. But you won’t be getting an actual apology from me any time soon. There is always time to repent from your embrace of scum like Im Tirzu. But I doubt you’ll ever do so. When you do, then let me know and I’ll concede teshuva is a concept that works in your case. Till then, you’ll have my consistent criticism of you and JA.

Oh, and isn’t that nice ‘some of your best friends are Negroes.’ How sweet and condescending. You’re really a good guy aren’t you? Liberal & all.

Your father was an aide to Yossi Sarid 40 years ago & you want a pass because of that? What have you done lately? Not your father, you.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Houston Jewish Federation, Jewish Agency Fund Im Tirzu’s Assault on Israeli Universities

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010
hagee gift to im tirzu

Gifts by John Hagee and Central Fund of Israel to Im Tirzu

What do the Houston Jewish federation, the Jewish Agency, John Hagee, and Im Tirzu have in common?  They’re all either directly or indirectly funding a major assault on academic freedom on Israeli campuses.

Im Tirzu is on the warpath once again.  Not to be outdone by the BDS movement, one of whose tools is an academic boycott of Israel, the Israeli rightist group has threatened the president of Ben Gurion University–if she doesn’t depose the current leadership of the political science department and reform the “anti-Zionist” syllabi of its courses that it will begin a campaign to convince donors to stop giving and students to stop enrolling.

Since the Knesset is considering a cockamamie bill punishing any Israeli who supports a boycott of Israel, perhaps the good solons might want to consider including Im Tirzu in the list of those who could be punished.  I’d think that supporting an academic/fundraising boycott of Ben Gurion University might enable faculty there to make a plausible legal case that their institution suffered tangible damaged by Im Tirzu’s assault.

The Israeli finance website, Calcalist, reports (Hebrew) that John Hagee donated $120,000 to Im Tirzu in 2009 through the Jewish Agency.  The money had been transferred to the Agency by the Houston Jewish Federation as part of an overall $5-million gift.  $3-million of that came from CUFI and went towards its largely pro-settler Israel philanthropy.  Hagee passed the gift through the Agency in order to qualify for a U.S. tax deduction.  The Israeli site also notes that the Central Fund of Israel, a pro-settler fund supported by American Jews, donated $35,000 as well.  I reported some of this earlier in this post.  But what I’m trying to discover is whether the funds reported on by the Calcalist are independent of the $200,000 in Hagee gifts I reported earlier.  I suspect that they may be since there was no mention concerning the earlier gift that it was a pass-through via the Jewish Agency.

The Israeli website notes that the Agency is only supposed to act as pass-through for donations to “non-political” Israeli groups.  I wonder how they fudge this one concerning one of the most hardline political groups currently functioning in Israel?  Further the Agency is only supposed to accept funds for projects that are directly connected to its work.  So does this mean that Im Tirzu is a project under the official auspices of the Agency?  Or has someone there fudged those inconvenient rules again?  Further, the funds provided to the Zionist-Brut group were supposed to be used for “educational” purposes.  Instead, they were used to support political activism.  They went for salaries and covering other organizational expenses.

Is it any accident that the Jewish Agency’s chair is Natan Sharansky, doyen of the Israeli right, and affiliated with the Likudist Shalem Center.  The latter is heavily funded by American Jewish gambling magnate Shelly Adelson, an ardent funder of Bibi Netnayahu’s political career.

A second article in the Calcalist makes this important point:

The Jewish Agency supports organization’s from the Israeli lunatic right, which are attempting to destroy the values of academic freedom in Israeli higher education.  The Agency, a body whose mission it is to bring new immigrants to settle in the Holy Land, instead transfers very large sums to poisonous organizations which seek legitimacy in attacking academics who’ve actually done something in their lives, having not just written propaganda exposes divorced from any reality.

The columnist concludes by noting the absolute insanity of the Jewish Agency providing funding to an organization that wishes to unleash the thought police on Israeli universities.  You’d think the Agency’s mandate would be to improve the quality of life in Israel rather than attempt to destroy one of the jewels of the Israeli state (well, perhaps a bit tarnished, but still the universities are key national institutions).

Will anyone in Israel make Ronen Shoval and his jackbooted friends in Im Tirzu explain why they are accepting a single kopek from a crazy Texas preacher who says Hitler was half-Jewish, that the latter and the Holocaust were sent by God in order to create the State of Israel, and that the Rothschild’s were part of an international economic conspiracy???

Morgenstern Claims Forward Publisher Interceded to Soften Zeek Coverage of Hagee

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

Ari Morgenstern, John Hagee‘s PR flack for the Jewish community, has now weighed in on the controversy surrounding Zeek’s suspension of coverage of Christian Zionism and Pastor Hagee.  For the background: Rachel Tabachnick contributed regularly to Zeek and that was her beat.  In April, Morgenstern approached editor Jo Ellen Kaiser complaining about Tabachnick’s coverage.  Zeek did extensive fact-checking and found she had not misrepresented anything Hagee had said or written and there were no errors in her reporting.  On the strength of this, Zeek told Morgenstern to take a hike.

Then Morgenstern went higher up the food chain to Sam Norich, the Forward’s editor.  Here is how the former characterizes that interaction:

Christians United for Israel (CUFI) contacted the editors of Zeek to request that they seek comment from our organization if the publication was to run further stories concerning Pastor John Hagee, CUFI, or Christian Zionists.This request is in accordance with the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, specifically the second statement in the first section of the code which states “Journalists should:” “Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.”

Initially Zeek’s editor did not agree to this request; that decision prompted CUFI to contact the Forward’s publisher due to the two organizations’ co-marketing agreement. Zeek has now agreed to our request, therefore CUFI considers this matter closed.

At no point in time did anyone affiliated with CUFI threaten Zeek or the Forward with legal action.

So according to Morgenstern, if he can be believed, Sam Norich interceded with Jo Ellen Kaiser to allow CUFI to respond to anything Zeek intended to publish about Hagee, CUFI or Christian Zionism.  And Zeek agreed.  Again, if this is true it is extraordinary.  In fact, I’ve never heard of any serious publication agreeing to allow a specific organization to comment whenever it planned to publish anything about that organization, its leader or the general movement of which the organization is a part.

That might explain why Kaiser suspended publication of any articles on this subject because every single one would have a reply appended from Hagee and his henchmen.  It just wouldn’t look good.

Now to Sam Norich’s characterization of his own role in this:

I cannot speak for Zeek…We host that publication on our web site, TheJewishDailyForward.com [ed. actually someone should tell him that the Forward's website is actually Forward.com]. That brings the editorial offerings of each publication to the attention of the other’s online readership, but they have no say about our editorial judgments and we have no say about theirs.

In other words, we have a he said-he said situation here in which Norich claims he had no involvement in any editorial decision Zeek made about this matter.  I’ve written to Norich and asked him if he’d like to clarify or respond to Morgenstern’s claim.  But given that Rachel Tabachnick has been removed from the Chrisitian Zionism beat at Zeek, it would appear that Morgenstern’s version is more credible than Norich’s.

What I cannot understand is why Sam Norich would think it was a good idea for Zeek to go easier in its coverage on John Hagee .  Maybe the reason he wouldn’t talk to me about this was that it would be hard for him to explain it too.

We ought to return to Morgenstern’s comment for a little analysis.  First, his little quotation from the Society of Professional Journalist’s code of ethics is a total non sequitur since Zeek was not accusing Hagee of “wrongdoing” in the sense that the code intended.  It wasn’t accusing him of a criminal act or lawbreaking or even immorality.  It was attacking his views and his statements.  So there is absolutely no reason for Zeek to have agreed to this nor any reason Norich should’ve pressured Zeek to do so.

The fact that Zeek and The Forward did so indicates a callow sense of journalistic standards.  Instead of standing by their newspapers, their product and their authors, they retreated and did the bully’s bidding.  I feel ashamed really of both since they both, at their best, represent good journalism and humane values.

There is one portion of Morgenstern’s statement which is either a lie or a gross misrepresentation of fact.  I know for a fact that after a conversation with Sam Norich, who’d just spoken with Morgenstern, that Kaiser wrote to others that she fully expected Hagee to sue.  I know for a fact that she hired an attorney to represent Zeek in the event of such a suit.  If I have to, I will bring forward the proof that Morgenstern is grossly dissembling.

Jo Ellen Kaiser too has weighed in with a comment on this affair.  She seems to be engaging in a bit of revisionism regarding decisions she made about Zeek’s editorial approach to Christian Zionism and Israel:

Zeek has not ceased coverage of Israeli politics or even of Christian Zionists. I decided to put our coverage of Christian Zionism on hiatus for three months while we determine our editorial direction. I communicated this to all our writers. We will continue to publish articles about Israeli politics in the next three months, and I believe it is likely that we will resume some coverage of Christian Zionist activity in Israel–I just wanted to take a breather to reassess our editorial position. Zeek is a catalyst for conversations about the Jewish tomorrow. Our role is to engage Jews around questions of Jewish identity. How American Jews relate to Israel, and specifically the Israel-Palestine situation, is critical to our understanding of Jewish identity…

I know for a fact that besides Rachel Tabachnick, whose writing has been suspended, other writers who covered Israel changed their status.  One resigned and one was told not to write about Israeli politics.  So if Kaiser does intend to publish on Israel in the next three months either she’s going to find a new writer to do so or she’s changed her mind.

Further, she has specifically said that she intends for the Diaspora to be the central focus of Zeek and that coverage of Israel (and for some reason she sees Hagee as associated with Israel) is “tangential” (her word) to the magazine’s mission.  So once again this seems to be revisionism.  Either she’s changed her mind and Israel is no longer tangential or she’s not being fully honest with herself.

My final word on this affair to Sam Norich and Jo Ellen Kaiser is that if you lie down with dogs you’ll get up with fleas.  Both of them played the game by Hagee’s rules and it makes them look all the smaller for it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

My Quarrel With Sam Norich

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Sam Norich, the publisher of the Jewish Forward, disappointed me today.  After e mailing him twice and leaving an office voice mail message asking him to answer questions I had about Ari Morgenstern’s threats against the Forward and Zeek and related matters, all he could muster was the feeble virtual non sequitur below published as a comment at my blog.

A little background for those new to the story.  The Forward’s right-wing op-ed editor Daniel Treiman published a mendacious op ed by John Hagee which I critiqued (with the assistance of Rachel Tabachnick) here on Sunday.  In the course of that post, I was critical of Treiman’s editorial judgement and some other related matters.  But the vast majority of my post was a point by point rebuttal of Hagee’s miasma of lies and deceit.

Note that there is not a single word defending what Hagee peddled to Forward readers.  Not a single substantive rejoinder to my post.  Here is Norich’s response:

To Richard Silverstein,

I received your email early Saturday morning asking to speak with me, and intended to contact you on Sunday, until I read your post of Saturday night titled “Jewish Forward helps Hagee wash away his sins.” Having read your smashmouth treatment of the Forward I saw no point in responding to your request, not even after your second email, on Sunday evening, asking for “an opportunity to hear your side of the matter before I publish.” A peculiar sequence.

But your readers deserve better. I would guess that many of them would welcome a clear expression of John Hagee’s views on issues of concern to Jews in particular, though not only to us. It’s precisely because the op-ed in question is so markedly different in tone and emphasis compared to some of Pastor Hagee’s previous statements that it bears serious consideration by the audience it was addressed to. To be sure, the piece should raise questions in the minds of knowledgeable readers, about the evolution of the author’s own thinking about these issues, about the differences between his views and those of some other spokesmen for Christian Zionists and evangelicals, and indeed about how those views will inform the positions that Pastor Hagee and Christians United for Israel will be taking in the months ahead. I’m proud of our editors’ decision to run the op-ed and eager to see where it takes us. Your readers and ours can be sure that the Forward will continue to report on this subject, and that we’ll continue to do so independent of the forces and agendas arrayed on these issues inside and outside the Jewish community.

I cannot speak for Zeek. We have a co-marketing agreement with Zeek and as part of that arrangement we host that publication on our web site, TheJewishDailyForward.com. That brings the editorial offerings of each publication to the attention of the other’s online readership, but they have no say about our editorial judgments and we have no say about theirs.

Finally, I want to correct just one error of fact in your post, for the record. Neither Daniel Treiman nor anyone else at the Forward removed the comments that had been posted to the Hagee op-ed. We’re still trying to understand how that happened, and how a second, identical version of the op-ed was posted for several days, before we removed it. Our tech team have reason to doubt that it was the result of foul play; they are looking into whether an improper character in one of the tags or in the text of a comment could have taken down the connection between this piece and our commenting system. We’re working to restore that connection.

Samuel Norich, Publisher, The Forward

Apparently, the publisher and managing editor (after writing this critical post I was blacklisted by her) of The Forward are so thin-skinned that they cannot accept serious criticism of their editorial judgment.  Norich’s response is sophistry.  Instead of dealing with the fact that Hagee lied through his teeth and sold The Forward readers a bill of goods, Norich says that the piece reveals the “evolution of Hagee’s thinking.”  I’ve got news for Norich.  Megalomaniacs’ thinking doesn’t “evolve” except in ways that allow them to aggrandize themselves further.  And I call Hagee a megalomaniac because he sees himself as God’s agent in the world whose job is to midwife the End Times.

We Jews would never accept such a figure (though we did in earlier times in the form of Shabbtai Tzvi and Jacob Frank and look how well that ended).  It pains me to think that The Forward has aided and abetted Christian fundamentalism‘s answer to Shabbtai Tzvi.

Norich calls my treatment of The Forward “smashmouth” which is patently untrue.  The vast majority of the post dealt with the content of Hagee’s op ed which I treated with the derision it deserved.  In one paragraph, I criticized the editorial judgement of Dan Treiman and called him right wing (which he is).  That is the sole basis of Norich’s claim that I smashmouthed The Forward.  Gee, it makes you wonder how they would react if someone really took ‘em to the woodshed.

A few comments on Norich’s statement.  Normally, it’s a good thing for a publisher to stand by an editor.  As long as the editor has performed his job properly.  But when an editor has not done so, for a publisher to defend him may appear honorable and proper, but it does a disservice to the newspaper they both serve.  I can only hope that Sam Norich has the qualities of a politician who is able to speak to a public audience differently than an internal one.  I can only hope that Norich understands how deficient and damaging the Forward piece was and will deal with it in ways he would prefer not to reveal publicly.

Norich’s claim that the Forward and Zeek are independent entities and that he does not get involved in the latter’s business is not entirely true.  In fact, Ari Morgenstern, when he wished to complain about Rachel Tabachnick’s in Zeek which criticized Hagee did so to Sam Norich.  There is a danger in making claims that shade the truth as Norich has done.  In fact, Ari Morgenstern threatened Zeek with a lawsuit via Norich.  What I wanted to ask Norich, and which he refused, was what was said in that conversation.  Perhaps the reason he won’t talk to me directly is that the contents of that conversation might not be flattering.

I do know that the conversation Norich had with Morgenstern concerned Kaiser enough that she said she fully expected a lawsuit.  I also know that she found herself a pro bono attorney to represent the publication in the event of such a lawsuit, which she fully anticipated.  And Norich would’ve been derelict in his duties had he not consulted The Forward’s own attorney to determine whether the Forward had any liability in this matter.  Undoubtedly, the attorney would’ve responded, No.  But The Forward, in the person of Norich, was very much involved in this matter.

Might John Hagee’s piece have become part of this entire conversation between Hagee’s side and The Forward?  This again is a question Norich could’ve answered if he’d had the guts to talk to me.

And here’s another derelection of editorial duty on the part of  Treiman in vetting this piece before publication.  I know Hagee’s rhetorical style.  I’ve also consulted others who’ve followed Hagee’s career, preaching and writing for years.  We both agree that the Forward piece contained nothing of Hagee’s normally flamboyant, dramatic style.  It contained nothing of the vividness or imagery of his standard theological rhetoric.  So in fact, I suspect (without having a smoking gun to prove it) that Hagee did not write this piece.  I strongly suspect that he trusted his Jewish advisors to do so for him and it was submitted in his name.  But Dan Treiman doesn’t know enough about Hagee’s MO nor his writing style to have sussed this out.  So here’s a question for you, Sam. Did you or Dan at any time ask whoever submitted this piece whether Hagee wrote it himself?  And who sent you the piece?  Was it Morgenstern or did it come from Hagee?  Did you ever see any notations, edits or even a signature from Hagee on the piece he allegedly submitted?

I know that normally a newspaper can accept on faith that a writer who submits a piece has written it himself.  But this case is different.  Here we’re dealing with an author who has lied about his views in the piece he is attempting to publish.  An author attempting through artifice and deceit to inveigle himself into the good graces of The Forward’s largely suspicious readership.  Did Dan Treiman know this?  If not, why not?  And how does Sam Norich with a straight face defend The Forward’s accepting a piece for publication such as this?  And has he gone back to Morgenstern and Hagee to demand an explanation of the multiple deviations from his previous theological record that are evident in what he wrote for the Forward?

Finally, Norich’s claim that I made an error in saying that Tabachnick’s comments in the Hagee article thread were deleted is only partially true.  As a webmaster, I have never faced the type of technical glitch he describes in which the Hagee article was “disappeared” from the Forward site and the comments lost.  But I do know that any decent webmaster retains copies of his website for just such an eventuality.  It is not very hard to go back to the last iteration of the site and find the lost post and restore it with its comments.  And if somehow the comments became separated from the article itself there is a site online which retains all the comments for this article and if Norich really wishes to restore them I can get him the URL.  Finally, why does the current iteration of the Hagee article online not offer any opportunity to post comments?  In essence, they’ve closed comments for the article.

I’m sorry to be so harsh, but I think Hagee has performed a type of malpractice on The Forward and the publication has been taken.  And I say this as someone who has admired The Forward over the years and written very strong positive statements about it in this blog.  I do not say this as an enemy.  I say this as someone who is deeply disappointed when a friend has let them down very badly.

One final note: John Hagee and Avi Morgenstern are very litigious fellows.  So I make crystal clear that everything stated above about John Hagee’s authorship of this article is my considered opinion and not a statement of fact.

The title of this post is a reference to the seminal Chaim Grade story, My Quarrel With Hersh Rasseyner, about a quarrel between two Jews, one who has lost his faith and another who has retained his, despite being a Holocaust survivor.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Jewish Forward Helps Hagee Wash Away His Sins

Saturday, May 22nd, 2010
john hagee

Hagee ♥ Jews--or so he claims

Many Jews know John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel and leading Christian Zionist zealot, as an anti-Semite who believes Hitler was sent by God to help create the State of Israel.   They may also know he supports an Israeli attack on Iran and that he likens Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler.  They may also know that he is a pro-settler, not-one-incher, who believes every bit of Biblical Israel was given to the Jewish people by God.  Hagee condemns any peace settlement or Israeli leader who considers withdrawing from a single settlement and labels withdrawal or territorial compromise a betrayal of God’s covenant with Israel.  Perhaps he is most notoriously known for embracing an End Times narrative that calls for Jews who refuse to convert to be killed with the remaining remnant coming to Jesus to be reborn in the blood of the Christian lamb.  Less well-known is his classical anti-Semitic view that the world economic order is controlled by a group like the Illuminati, one of whose primary members are the Rothschild family:

Our economic destiny is controlled by the Federal Reserve system that is now headed by Alan Greenspan. Think about this. It is not a government institution. It is controlled by a group of Class A stockholders including the Rothschilds of Europe…So get this one thought : The value of your dollar is controlled by an organization that is not controlled by America.

Jewish leaders like Rabbi Eric Yoffie have railed against Hagee in the pages of the Jewish Forward, urging their members not to collaborate with or participate in events sponsored by CUFI.

So imagine my surprise when I read John Hagee’s name plastered on The Forward’s website this week.  Astonishingly, the liberal Jewish publication had given the uber-Zionist. anti-Semite a platform for his noxious views.  The piece the Forward published is extraordinary in so many ways.  I have read many speeches and sermons by John Hagee.  While they are always deeply disturbing, the Forward op ed is startingly different because it advances a revisionist version of Hagee as philo-Semite, two-stater, land-for peacer that is entirely at variance with his preceding career.  It’s as if a plastic surgeon took a flabby, balding, flat-footed, nondescript man and turned him into George Clooney (or to be more political accurate, Charlton Heston–when he was alive at least).

In fact, the Forward column is so poles apart from the Hagee that anyone who’s read him knows that I half-believe it wasn’t written by him; but rather by a Jewish ghost-writer (possibly like his PR flack Ari Morgenstern or political lobbyist, David Brog).

In short, the Forward piece is a tissue of lies easily disproved by the most basic Google searches of his previous writings.  For the most detailed and cmprehensive refutation of Hagee’s claims read this primer researched and published by Talk2Action’s Rachel Tabachnick, one of the most authoritative of the former’s Jewish critics.  The main howlers are his claim that he is willing to accept a two-state solution (although he doesn’t endorse this path himself even in this column) if Israel itself does:

Another concern that some individuals have expressed is that Christian Zionists will use our influence to stand in the way of efforts to advance a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Such a claim shows a complete disregard for our record.

What is Hagee’s record?  Just after 30 evangelical leaders wrote a letter to Pres. Bush endorsing a two-state solution, the good Pastor penned his own letter which laid out his negative views of a two-state solution.  It read in part:

Mr. President, we write this letter to state we are opposed to America pressuring Israel to give up more land for any reason.

…Simply stated, land for peace is a policy is a failed policy of the past that has produced nothing but more war.

And further:

There will be grave consequences for the nation or nations that attempt to divide the land of Israel… This is not a time to provoke God and defy him to pour out judgment on our nation for being a principal in the division of the land of Israel.”

–from Hagee’s Jerusalem Countdown: a Warning to the World

In this video, Hagee argues that if the U.S. pressures Israel to give up land for peace that God will judge this country be releasing a terrorist who will wreak havoc on us:

To give up more land for peace, Joel 3:2, says any nation that tries to get Israel to divide my land, I will bring it into judgement,  I want those of you in the State Department and in Washington to hear this..  If America does not stop pressuring Israel to give up land I believe that God will bring this nation into judgment because I believe what this book says.  And if God brings this nation into judgement he will very likely release the terrorist that you’ve already let here  through the ridiculous immigration policy that you refuse to stop and this nation is going to go through a blood bath that you have permitted because of what you have done.”

In fact, Hagee defines for us what he believes Israel’s legitimate modern borders should be, which if implemented, would be a whopper of a land for peace deal in Israel’s favor!

“In modern terms, Israel rightfully owns all of present-day Israel, all of Lebanon, half of Syria, two-thirds of Jordan, all of Iraq, and the northern portion of Saudi Arabia.”

The Battle for Jerusalem

So, if you read Hagee’s Forward screed carefully you will see what he is really saying is I detest a two state solution and land for peace.  But if Israel embraces it, I won’t stand in the way. But even that is undermined by his seeming endorsement of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin as detailed by Max Blumenthal in The Nation:

…In his 1996 book The Beginning of the End, Hagee described the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as fulfillment of prophecy and suggested admiration for Rabin’s assassin, Yigal Amir.

Imagining Amir’s mindset as he prepared himself to kill Rabin, Hagee wrote, “Tonight, if God was good, an opportunity would show itself. No longer would Rabin be able to transfer Israeli lands to Palestinians. The damage he’d done in the West Bank and Gaza was enough. Israel had a divine right to the land, and to give it away was an act of treason against Israel and an abomination against God.”

Does this suggest to you someone who’s prepared to accept an Israeli peace plan that betrays such principles?

Hagee claims, in the Forward, to be uninterested in the conversion of Jews:

The first rule adopted by Christians United for Israel was that there would be no proselytizing at our events. CUFI exists only to honor and support the Jewish people, never to convert them.

Well, get a gander of this:

“There are several purposes [in the Tribulation which accompanies the End Times], and the first is to bring Israel to the place where she will recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah…

While CUFI itself may not proselytize, Hagee has in fact endorsed a Christian ministry preaching to Jews in Israel:

“Your gift to support the ongoing work of Maoz Israel Ministries enables us to continue on our mission – to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Messiah to the people of Israel until ALL ISRAEL IS SAVED!”

A CUFI director, Stephen Strang, who publishes much of Hagee and CUFI’s materials also brings out a magazine, Charisma, which offered this appraisal of missionary work in Israel :

“In this issue, we offer a look at the Christian peacemakers who are taking the gospel of Jesus Christ not only to Jews and Muslims but also to Russian and Ethiopian immigrants, prisoners, unwed mothers, drug addicts and tourists who visit this unique land. We hope that when you visit Israel you will look beyond the stone monuments, churches and biblical sites to discover the people of faith who are transforming the land.”

Hagee claims to have nothing but respect for the Jewish religion.  Yet, this is what he had to say about Rabbi Hillel, perhaps the most important rabbinic figure of the Talmudic era:

“Hillel was an extremist...

Final Dawn Over Jerusalem

And this concerning those stiff-necked Jews who refused to accept the divinity of Jesus:

“When will the divinely imparted spiritual blindness upon the Jewish people end concerning the identity of Jesus Christ as Messiah?

Jerusalem Countdown

Do feel some pity for the poor godless Reform Jews Hagee excoriates here:

“I think if I could put a dividing line, the Orthodox and Conservatives who have a Torah appreciation give us wholehearted support. The rest who are not driven by the Word of God have a liberal agenda. And the liberal agenda is they are pro-abortion. They’re pro-homosexual. They’re pro-gay marriage — they want men to marry men and women to marry women…

–San Antonio Express, July 2006

And then there is the whigged-out Hagee devising a theory of Jewish demons so convoluted that it would drive even a conspiracy theorist to drink:

“The case of Esau and Jacob is the pinnacle of divine election.  Each was a pure-blooded Jew…Esau’s descendants would also produce a lineage that would attack and slaugher the Jews for centuries…It was Esau’s descendants who produced the half-breed Jews of humanity who have persecuted and murdered Jews beyond human comprehension.

Adolph Hitler was a distant descendant of Esau.”

In the following passage from Hagee’s Forward article, he addresses the End Times scenario of which so many Jews are leery:

Other [Jews suspicious of us] posit that our Zionism is tied to an effort to speed the second coming of Jesus. [This] allegation is flat wrong…

…The fact is that the vast majority of Christian Zionists and Evangelicals do not believe there is anything we can do to hasten the second coming of Jesus. Our theology is clear that we humans are utterly powerless to change God’s timetable. Yes, like many Jews we do believe that the creation of Israel was the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. And like our Jewish friends we also search the Scriptures to understand what may come next in God’s plans for His creation. But since we are powerless to change these plans, our motives for standing with Israel come from elsewhere.

In other words, Hagee’s belief in an apocalyptic future in which Jews are fated to die (curiously any discussion of this theological belief of his is missing from the Forward)  is nothing personal.  Rather it is a divine plan over which Hagee has no control.  So if Jews have any problem with it don’t take it up with Hagee, take it up with the Guy Upstairs.  Further, he would have us believe that he and his followers are quiescent folks who sit back and wait for the Lord’s will to be done.  That they do nothing in order to hasten God’s plan.  And whatever they do do, they do for the purest of motives having nothing to do with End Times theology.

In fact, this view of Hagee and CUFI flies in the face of everything we know about them.  The truth is they are an activist group and the purpose of their activism is to hasten the Second Coming.

Hagee in The Forward is only too happy to play the religious hate card by making Israel’s and America’s chief enemy, Islam:

Christian Zionists also recognize that Israel is not the cause of militant Islam’s hatred of America, but an ally in the fight against militant Islam. Until 9/11 and the ensuing events, Israel largely confronted this threat alone. And to this day the frontline of this conflict remains Israel’s backyard. But Christian Zionists understand that Israel is merely militant Islam’s first target. While American and Israeli soldiers do not fight on the same battlefield, they defend the same values.

In penning this bilge, Hagee is oblivious to the fact that Israel’s chief opponent is not “militant Islam,” but the Palestinian people, who are not motivated primarily by religious hatred, but rather by a political grievance, that is 42 years of Occupation.  Even if you argue falsely that Hamas is no different from Al Qaeda and it is motivated by religious hatred of Israel, how do you explain the equally implacable resistance of Fatah and West Bank Palestinians to Occupation?  Such nuance is lost on Hagee.

Finally, the idea that American and Israeli soldiers defend the same values is ludicrous, unless you want to argue somehow that U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are parallel to Israel’s Occupation of Palestinian lands.  This, of course is Al Qaeda’s argument and it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find the latter in agreement with John Hagee, as they are both religious extremists.

Finally, I take strong exception to The Forward’s decision to publish this execrable nonsense. The paper’s op-ed editor, the right-leaning Daniel Treiman commissioned this piece and he should have his license to practice journalism suspended. Did he do any fact-checking before publishing this? Or did he feel his author was of such impeccable reputation that such rudimentary editorial review was unnecessary?

Furthermore, the Forward deleted comments posted by Rachel Tabachnick and Bruce Wilson of Talk2Action, Jewish opponents of Hagee, in the thread for this article. Their contributions offered Hagee quotations like the ones above to rebut the claims he made. I’m assuming that Treiman as op-ed editor made the decision to excise these perfectly reasonable comments. Did he or did someone higher in the food chain? If so, why?

Until recently, Rachel Tabachnick contributed articles twice a month to Zeek, a progressive Jewish publication which shares a website with The Forward, about Hagee and Christian Zionism. Her work on this subject has been suspended by Zeek’s editor, Jo Ellen Kaiser. No one can now write for Zeek about either matter.

This is the first in a series of posts I’ll be writing about Hagee’s relationship with The Forward and Zeek, threats levelled against them by Hagee, and questions raised about the suspension of Tabachnick’s work. Stay tuned…

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Efrat: Without Palestinians ‘Who’ll Wipe Settlers’ Asses?’

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Rabbi Doctor Shlomo Riskin's Efrat, Arab-rein on Israel Independence Day

efrat bannerWorried that the hired help might steal the silverware or take vengeance for stealing surrounding land, Rabbi Sholom Riskin’s Efrat is Arabrein on Yom HaAtzmaoot.  But on other days it appears little of any real value gets done there without them.

An Israeli reader has e-mailed me a message meant for the Efrat community, a major West Bank settlement founded by former Lincoln Square Synagogue Rabbi Doctor (his own website attaches the honorifics to him) Shlomo Riskin:

בימים שני ושלישי הקרובים (19-20/4/10)
יום הזכרון והעצמאות
לא תתאפשר כניסת פלשתינאים לאפרת

This coming Tuesday and Wednesday, Memorial and Independence Days, no Palestinians will be permitted to enter Efrat.

My correspondent’s ‘wicked’ rejoinder:

So who’s going to wipe the settlers’ asses on Independence Day?

It should be kept in mind that Efrat is a settlement known for being an especially cruel neighbor to surrounding Palestinian villages, whose misdeeds have included stealing surrounding land for its own expansion and polluting farm land with its own untreated sewage.  Perhaps Efrat’s residents think their turds are golden and have special medicinal powers that would benefit their Palestinian neighbors.  If so, that’s mighty white of ‘em.

Also, Efrat is one of the settlements which received largesse from Christian Zionist Pastor John Hagee and his pro-settler Christians United for Israel.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE