Jesus Was Not a Real Estate Agent Nor Did he Invent the Bomb

There was a very interesting segment on the documentary program Vice recently, called Armageddon Now. In it they discussed Evangelical Christians and their strange devotion to Israel.

Vice's Thomas Morton travelled with a group of Born Again Christian tourists, as they visited the "Holy Land"; and spoke with End Times minister Irvin Baxter.

Baxter stood at the spot where Armageddon is supposed to take place, and described a rapturous scene of bloody horror. First; Russia, Iran, Iraq et al will attack Israel killing two-thirds of the Jewish population. Jesus will then appear for a final showdown with the Anti-Christ, after which the remaining one-third of Jews will see the light, convert to Christianity and live happily ever after.

If there is an "ever after".

But first, they have to make sure that only Jews reside in Israel, which includes the disputed territory now occupied by Palestinians of a variety of faiths, including Christian.

Morton spoke with several Israelis, who of course find the whole thing nonsense, but since these Evangelicals make up 40% of the tourist trade, they roll their eyes and leave them alone.

We might look at this and see Baxter and his flock as being on the edge of society, but since they now represent a huge voting block in the U.S., not a group we can afford to dismiss so lightly.

Even more troubling for Canadians, is that our current government appears to follow this same belief, led by a Prime Minister, who will defend Israel to the ends of the earth and support their actions no matter what. In fact, we lost our seat on the U.N. security Council, in part, because of that.

Most in the media believe that Stephen Harper is only doing this to secure the Jewish vote, but I think it is something more. His "Evangelical" indoctrination.

In February of 2005, Harper appeared on the Drew Marshall Christian radio program, to discuss his opposition to same -sex marriage, and the origin of his homophobic views. Apparently, his father had left the United Church after they began to accept gay and lesbian ministers, and he joined his dad and others in protest.

He also told Marshall that he had "found Jesus" when he was in his 20s. Yet, those closest to Harper at the time, including his former fiancée, Cynthia Williams; claimed that he never went to church or tried to proselytize. His former VP when he was running the National Citizens Coalition did contend that he held some pretty strong religious views.

Lawrence Martin gave us a hint at those views, when he noted that Stephen Harper did not support diplomatic solutions to attain world peace, but rather believed in the 'clash of civilizations'. ( Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, p. 79). Three very frightening words, that define the Neoconservative military agenda.

I've blogged on this before.

Stephen Harper has recently complained that the media is not asking Justin Trudeau the tough questions. But where are the tough questions on Harper's foreign policy and blind support of Israel?

Warren Bell wrote an excellent piece for the Vancouver Observer: Why Stephen Harper behaved strangely in Israel, in which he suggests that "... delving into the Prime Minister’s religious background goes a long way to explaining the otherwise inexplicable."

Harper's Religious Journey

In Lloyd MacKey's 2006 book, The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, he states that Harper's religious journey was led by Preston Manning, who spent countless hours indoctrinating the young man into his faith and the end times Christian and Missionary Alliance Church.

It's interesting to note that Manning's dad, former Alberta Premier, Ernest Manning; also held a very strong belief in end-time prophesy. After reading Sydney Watson's Mark of the Beast, Ernest wrote a play based on the novel, that was acted out for his congregation.

Tim LeHaye, co-author of the Apocalyptic Left Behind series, that is believed to have launched this new interest in Israel as sacred ground, was also influenced by Sydney Watson.

It does explain a lot.

The Book of Revelation

Most of the End Times philosophy, however, does not come from Watson or LeHaye, but The Book of Revelation.

Renowned biblical scholar, Elaine Pagels debunks this Book, as not being a legitimate part of the Gospels, but the work of a distressed man who lived during violent times. According to CNN's John Blake.

Anyone who has read the popular “Left Behind” novels or listened to pastors preaching about the “rapture” might see Revelation as a blow-by-blow preview of how the world will end.

Pagels, however, says the writer of Revelation was actually describing the way his own world ended.

She says the writer of Revelation may have been called John – the book is sometimes called “Book of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine” but he was not the disciple who accompanied Jesus. He was a devout Jew and mystic exiled on the island of Patmos, off the coast of present-day Greece.

The editors of the Bible cherry picked what Gospels made the cut, ignoring any that did not fit their blueprint for Christianity. The 1945 discovery of 52 additional works reveal a different view of Jesus and his teachings.

Pagels suggests that Jesus was gnostic, and his teachings based on the spiritual, rather than the literal. The virgin birth and resurrection were simply naive misunderstandings, since Jesus believed that with heightened spiritually we could all be reborn pure and resurrected.

Yet the Book of Revelation has caused so much damage. Charles Manson was a believer, and saw the Beatles as the Four Horsemen. David Koresh of Waco Texas followed the Book, and took out his followers in a "blaze of glory".

Tim McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber who murdered 168 people, including many children, was inspired by the Turner Diaries, which was inspired by the Book of Revelation. McVeigh chose the anniversary of the raid on Camp Davidian in Waco Texas, to carry out his horrific assault.

Now these "Evangelical Christians" are not only supporting an all out genocide, but appear to be encouraging it. Stephen Harper has some explaining to do, but don't expect that any time soon, given that our media believe that his support of Israel is only politically motivated, and has nothing to do with his indoctrination into the end-times cult.

Would Canadians Really Support Genocide?

In the Vice documentary, one of the men interviewed on the Evangelical goals, stated that Jesus was not a real estate agent.

I agree. There is nothing to suggest that he defined borders or attempted to create Jewish subdivisions. He did not build bombs or advocate genocide. He did not plan a comic book scenario of a final showdown with a fictitious anti-Christ and never mentioned a future land called the United States of America or even Canada.

Over the years, this anti-Christ has been everyone from Adolf Hitler to Barack Obama, but I think the real anti-Christ is the embodiment of everyone willing to accept so much death and destruction to serve their own agenda.

Usually it's money, but often an insane, narcissistic belief that they have somehow been chosen for greatness. They don't need a bloody battle but a bit of Prozac.

There was a piece in an Israeli newspaper recently, that was clearly a call for the genocide of the Palestinian people. It was pulled soon after publication, but Vox still carries the full text. The author of the piece says, "What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely?"

Indeed, if you look at the constitution of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party, it becomes clear that they mandate complete control of Palestinian lands, with or without HAMAS provocation.

"The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting."

How can you even negotiate from such strong positions? They leave no room for compromise.

The rest of the world is turning away from Israel, given their latest onslaught, including many prominent Jewish leaders. Some are even suggesting sanctions. But not Canada.

If you polled the Canadian people, asking if they supported Genocide, as Harper clearly does, what do you think they would say? I'm hoping and feel confident, that the majority would say no way.

If not, then maybe we're the Anti-Christ, or at least following him blindly.

Israeli Soldiers Fired at Gaza Aid Flotilla in Self-defence"? Give me a Break.

It was announced today that the attack on the Gaza bound flotilla of aid ships, in which nine activists were killed, has been deemed an act of "self defense".

Give me a break.

Israel would not allow an international investigation, but instead launched one of their own, placing two pro-Israel voices on their "independent" panel.

David Trimble is an Irish Conservative who has been an outspoken critic of Palestine. As one reader of the UK Guardian asked, when Trimble suggested that Palestine must end it's violent assaults: "Why does Mr Trimble not ask Israel to renounce violence? The violence that the IDF inflicts daily on the palestinian population. And the frequent miltary attacks into Gaza and the West Bank. And the kidnapping and detention without trial of thousands of Palestinians, including elected officials."

And Brigadier-General Ken Watkin of Canada has a history of being involved in cover-ups.

The other foreign observer is less well known. He is Ken Watkins. Watkins is a Canadian and military judge advocate general. Perhaps Watkins was chosen because he is great at cover ups. Recently a Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin blew the whistle on the practice of Canadian troops transferring captured suspected militants to Afghan custody knowing that they might be tortured. Colvin wrote several reports on the issue to his superiors warning them this could be a war crime. Among those to whom he reported was Ken Watkins. Here is a short bit from an inquiry into the issue: (CTV)

-Gen. Ken Watkins, the military judge advocate general, claimed solicitor-client privilege about whether he'd seen warnings from a diplomat in Kandahar and whether he'd received direction from the prime minister's office. "Obviously the coverup continues," said Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.

This is a sham.

I am so ashamed of my country now. I'm not anti-Israel, but am pro-Canadian, and Canadians always sought peaceful solutions to conflict. Now we are aiding and abetting.

The Harper government has aligned themselves with the Jewish Defense League, a terrorist organization if I ever saw one. Inexcusable.

We have got to start speaking up.

I'm so Disappointed in Peter Kent and His Views on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

When I first learned that Peter Kent had 'quit' his journalistic endeavours and was running for the Conservative Party, I almost saw it as a good sign that the party might be moving to the centre.

I must admit I never watched his show. Can West Global is a little too bias for me. Almost like Fox News in the U.S. ('Republican good ... Democrat bad ... ugh'!)

However, I assumed that Mr. Kent was able to do more than just read copy. I assumed he had a keen mind and an independent spirit. I mean he often locked horns with his bosses because he wanted to write his own broadcasts. I guess I can now see why they didn't let him.

What a disappointment. From his horrible assault on fellow journalist Lesley Hughes, to his unwarranted involvement in the York University student election. The man is tyrant. A tyrant with too much power and too few intelligent thoughts. Maybe he's only capable of reading copy after all.

Canada Complicit with Israeli War Crimes

Canada lives in the unfortunate position of being under the thrall of U.S. media for most its information and cultural relevance. At the same time, its own media, apart from the national broadcast company CBC, is highly centralized under the influence of two media empires (Canwest Global and CTV GlobeMedia) who support the same kind of biased coverage that is provided by the U.S.

In sum, Canadians who wish to receive a balanced view of events in the Middle East, Gaza in particular, have to rely on alternate or external media. Canwest Global (Israel Aspers' media empire) provides nightly updates with little context and "balanced" reporting of showing deaths in Israel from the Qassam rockets as being equally as devastating as the IDF attacks in Gaza.

The current Canadian Conservative government under Stephen Harper is very much a shadow of U.S. conservatism: right wing Christian moralism; a hawkish if small military projection to give the world what it needs (whether it asks for it or not); and an unquestioning support of 'neoliberal' free trade practices. As such it echoes/mimics/supports the all too familiar U.S. perspective that Israel is the victim and Hamas the perpetrator of events in Gaza .... In early January, 2009, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Peter Kent said, "The government of Canada has been very clear since the beginning of this crisis that it believes that the Hamas rocketing was responsible for the initial development of this crisis and for the continuing deepening humanitarian tragedy."

It's unfortunate that we have to go to alternative news sources if we want to learn both sides of this issue. The dimwit Jason Kenney has said: "People in Canada need to exercise freedom of expression responsibly and should be wary of the rise of a new form of anti-Semitism cloaked in debates about Israel's actions in the Middle East.

"Exercise freedom of expression responsibly"? "Should be wary of the rise of a new form of anti-Semitism cloaked in debates about Israel's actions in the Middle East." John Hagee must be so proud of him. Jason has obviously memorized his book, because hot dang if Hagee didn't say the same thing, only using 'People in America'.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Have Canadians Become Armchair Warriors?

There was a recent Opinion piece in the Toronto Star, by Dow Marmur, rabbi emeritus at Toronto's Holy Blossom Temple, discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Marmur supports a two-state solution, as do I, and his discussion centers on one man's attempt to reach out to both sides.

But his references to 'bystanders', and suggestion that "Canadians seem determined to fight it out to the last Israeli or the last Palestinian – of course, from the comfort and security of their own homes." I find very troubling.

It's like we no longer care and as a result have given our government free rein to make all major decisions for us, without our input. WE'VE GOT TO START PAYING ATTENTION or we're going to be in serious trouble.

Fuelling or dousing the flames?
Toronto Opinion
August 10, 2009 04:30 AM
Dow Marmur

Bystanders in conflicts, in the international arena no less than in schoolyards, can either fuel flames or help douse them. Though fuelling seems to come easier to most people, occasionally someone with imagination will lower the temperature and promote peace.

Leonard Cohen, the celebrated Canadian poet and singer, is one of them. As part of his current world tour he wanted to perform for both Jews and Palestinians in the land they share.

However, the concert in Ramallah, the present capital of the Palestinian Authority, had to be cancelled, but the 47,000 tickets for the event on Sept. 24 in Ramat Gan in Israel have already been sold.

Cohen wished to appear before both Israelis and Palestinians as a contribution to dousing flames. He's said to be disappointed that he cannot do so in Ramallah. To make up for it, he and his team intend to donate the income from the Ramat Gan concert to organizations working for Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation. In this way he hopes to lower the temperature a little in the ongoing conflict.

One of the recipients will be a fund that provides financial support for organizations and individuals working in Israel and the Palestinian Authority with families that have lost members in the many wars.
Determined to give some meaning to their pain, bereaved Israeli and Palestinian parents have dedicated themselves to the quest for peace in the hope of sparing others their agony.

The moving spirit is Yitzhak Frankenthal, an Orthodox Israeli Jew whose 19-year-old son Arik was killed by three members of Hamas. Instead of clamouring for revenge, he turned to then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin – later himself the victim of a terrorist assassination by one of his own people – urging him to make peace with the Palestinians. Rabin, a former army chief of staff, is said to have been very moved by the plea. He invited Frankenthal to the signing ceremony of the Oslo peace accords in 1993.

Frankenthal and Cohen may be separated by their religious practices, but they're together in their commitment to Jewish teachings. Speaking at a rally in Tel Aviv, Frankenthal declared that "ethics has to be free of vengefulness and rashness," that it's "blatantly unethical to wreak vengeance upon innocent bystanders" and that it's "supremely ethical to prevent the death of any human being." By throwing his support behind Frankenthal and the many Palestinians and Israelis who work with him, Cohen is showing us what should be done by bystanders.

As has become fashionable among some ostensibly well-meaning visitors to the region, Cohen could have accused one side and clamour for its humiliation, if not eradication. Instead, he has chosen to affirm that, though few may be guilty, all are responsible, including those who live as far away from the action as Canada.

Cohen's commitment to Israel – he performed for the Israel Defense Forces in the 1973 Yom Kippur War – hasn't made him indifferent to the plight of Palestinians. His support of and loyalty to both sides has prompted him to make a gesture that, whatever the monetary benefits, reminds us of the imperative to transcend boundaries in an effort to turn enemies into allies.

Cohen has many allies on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide. It is, however, not quite clear whether he'd have the same response in this country where, judging by media reports, many Canadians seem determined to fight it out to the last Israeli or the last Palestinian – of course, from the comfort and security of their own homes.

This is why I get so angry when it is suggested to me that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semite. That's so ridiculous that I don't even know how to address it. Where do you start from a statement like that. You can hate Brazil nuts without hating Brazil, and you can certainly hate the killing of innocent children without hating Israel or Palestine.

Jason Kenney and his crew may want to take away our right to oppose this war, but we are the only ones who can really give those rights away.

Wake up Canada and start paying attention to what this government is doing in our name.

Lawrence Cannon's Confusing Foreign Policy Re: Palestine

After ducking and dodging questions about Israel's occupation of the Gaza strip, Lawrence Cannon came out today and did an about face .....sorta' ... kinda'... I think.

We already know how the Harper government feels about a two state solution. They have hooked their wagon to John Hagee's and now roll along implementing 'God's Foreign Policy'; which is annihilate the Muslims, gather the Jews, and offer up Baptism, by water or fire. Their choice...

Jason Kenney has been pretty clear, but knowing that Canadians like Obama, and Obama is looking for a peaceful solution. What to do ... what to do?

If you're Lawrence Cannon, you panic until you can find the right answers.

Cannon dodges Jewish settlement issue after meeting with Abbas
CBC News
May 25, 2009

While U.S. leaders have openly called for Israel to stop the expansion of its settlements in Palestinian territory, Canada's foreign affairs minister avoided the issue after a meeting Monday with the president of the Palestinian Authority.

Speaking to reporters in Ottawa, with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at his side, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon was asked repeatedly to comment on the issue. He would only talk about development in new areas, not touching on the provocative issue of growth in existing locations.

"Concerning the development into new areas, we've also thought it wasn't a gesture that was helpful to the advancement of peace," Cannon said.

Canada supports roadmap

Cannon said he hoped Israel and the Palestinians would sit down soon and discuss a peace deal. He said Canada supports the roadmap for peace, a plan drafted by the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia that aims to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Complete freeze necessary: Abbas

Abbas on Monday told reporters that the absence of a complete freeze is hurting the Israel-Palestinian peace dialogue. He said the international community has been clear in advocating a complete freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank and elsewhere.

He and Cannon both expressed support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "This dedication and recommitment to the peace process is something that is welcome not only by this government but we believe by all Canadians, and a recommitment to the two-state solution, which is the Canadian position," Cannon said.

Well he may say that, but that is clearly not the intention of this government. Since Stephen Harper has stated that he is tapping into the theo-cons for support, even if it means putting a little muscle into our foreign policy, it means that Charles McVety and the Christian United for Israel will be calling the shots. And they are pro-Israeli aggression to help fulfil a biblical prophesy.

I can appreciate where Cannon would have difficulty, because Stephen Harper has told him one thing, but I think his conscience may be telling him something else. Who knows? I'm not so sure he has a conscience actually.

Back to - The Lawrence Cannon Story: Intelligent Incompetence

Theodore Hertzl and the State of Israel

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Theodore Hertzl is the father of the Zionist movement, a rather unusual honour for a man who was not terribly religious and always opposed organized religion, which he called uncivilized. His family were German speaking assimilated Jews, who followed a secular lifestyle.

When at university Theodore belonged to the Burschenschaften, an association of university students inspired by liberal and nationalistic ideas. However, he was moved by anti-Semitism and felt that it could never be defeated, and the only solution was the establishment of a Jewish state.

“ The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for
instance, France—so long as the Jewish question is not solved on the political level. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America. ”

Palestine was his first choice for such a state, so he arranged a meeting with Sultan Abdulhamid II in 1896, with his proposal, but he would have none of it. "if one day the Islamic State falls apart then you can have Palestine for free, but as long as I am alive I would rather have my flesh be cut up than cut out Palestine from the Muslim land." (1)

The following year he founded the First Zionist Congress and began a series of diplomatic initiatives intended to build support for a Jewish country, also looking at possibly Egypt or Uganda. However, the congress was determined to make Palestine their home and so they began buying up land from absentee landlords, which ultimately drove many peasants from their homes.

According to Jews for Justice in the Middle East:

Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, stated ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless [Arab] population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly’ ... (2)

In 1901 the Jewish National Fund was created ‘to redeem the land of Palestine as the inalienable possession of the Jewish people'.

At various locations in northern Palestine Arab farmers refused to move from land the Fund purchased from absentee owners, and the Turkish authorities, at the Fund’s request, evicted them...The indigenous Jews of Palestine also reacted negatively to Zionism. They did not see the need for a Jewish state in Palestine and did not want to exacerbate relations with the Arabs.”

An article by Yitzhak Epstein, published in Hashiloah in 1907...called for a new Zionist policy towards the Arabs after 30 years of settlement activity... no good land is vacant, so Jewish settlement meant Arab dispossession...Epstein’s solution to the problem, so that a new “Jewish question” may be avoided, is the creation of a bi-national, non-exclusive program of settlement and development. Purchasing and should not involve the dispossession of poor sharecroppers. It should mean creating a joint farming community, where the Arabs will enjoy modern technology. Schools, hospitals and libraries should be non-exclusivist and education bilingual ... The vision of non-exclusivist, peaceful cooperation to replace the practice of dispossession found few takers. Epstein was maligned and scorned for his faintheartedness.” (2)

The Zionist movement took on steam and on November 2, 1917, on the initiative of Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour and Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild) a formal statement of policy was announced by the British government:

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." (2)

But they soon became alarmed:

“Britain’s high commissioner for Palestine, John Chancellor, recommended total suspension of Jewish immigration and land purchase to protect Arab agriculture. He said ‘all cultivable land was occupied; that no cultivable land now in possession of the indigenous population could be sold to Jews without creating a class of landless Arab cultivators’...

In 1919, the American King-Crane Commission spent six weeks in Syria and Palestine, interviewing delegations and reading petitions. Their report stated, “The commissioners began their study of Zionism with minds predisposed in its favor...The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conferences with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase... “If [the] principle [of self-determination] is to rule, and so the wishes of Palestine’s population are to be decisive as to what is to be done with Palestine, then it is to be remembered that the non-Jewish population of Palestine — nearly nine-tenths of the whole — are emphatically against the entire Zionist program.. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle just quoted...No British officers, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms.The officers generally thought that a force of not less than fifty thousand soldiers would be required even to initiate the program. That of itself is evidence of a strong sense of the injustice of the Zionist program...The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a ‘right’ to Palestine based on occupation of two thousand years ago, can barely be seriously considered. (2)

Leo Strauss's friend Walter Moses, from his days with the Blau-Weiss, part of the Zionist Youth movement, became an early and prosperous settler, but as to be expected, the Arab population fought against the arrival of even more settlers and petitioned the League of Nations in 1928:

"It is the duty of the League of Nations, after ten years of absolute colonial rule, to grant to Palestine a democratic parliamentary government in accordance with the League's pledges and the pledges of the allies to the Arabs. "The people of Palestine cannot and will not tolerate the present absolute colonial system, and urgently insist upon and demand an alteration." Christians and Jews were shocked at this evidence of infidel determination to make of Palestine a home for Arabs. (3)

In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt...

David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that ‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’... The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality.” Tensions continued and raids on Jewish settlements escalated. (2)

According to Ghandi:

“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.” (2)

Two wrongs did not make a right. There was an opportunity, as Yitzhak Epstein suggested, for Arabs, Jews and and Christians to live in peace, but that notion was rejected. And the violence continued:

For weeks Jews and Arabs had uneasily bided their time, waiting on London's word. London, in turn, was waiting on Washington's word. Last week Jews and Arabs refused to wait any longer. Both factions concentrated on the 28the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration (Nov. 2).* For both it was an unhappy
milestone—for the Jews because of a promise made and unfulfilled, for the Arabs because the promise had been made at all. In advance, the Arabs had proclaimed a
general strike throughout the Near East on that day. But the Jews struck first.

Two nights before the anniversary, explosions rocked Palestine from Dan to Beersheba. Armed bands, operating under a master plan of sabotage, crippled the country's railroads with dynamitings at 153 points. In Haifa harbor, where a British cruiser and four destroyers lay at anchor, police launches used for halting illegal immigrants were boarded and scuttled. At dawn six men were dead, eight wounded. Two of the dead were Jews. British authorities clamped a curfew on the whole coastal area.

Speaking for Britain's normally pro-Jewish Labor Government, Colonial Secretary George Hall denounced "the dastardly series of outrages" in Palestine, carefully planned by a "very considerable organization among the Jewish community." Hall did not identify the organization. But two groups, both disavowed by the Jewish Agency, were almost certainly involved: the strongly militant underground Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization) and its still more aggressive offshoot, a gang of gunmen who called themselves "Israel's Freedom Fighters." Both were well armed, experienced guerrillas whose credo was: the time for talk is past.

Never before had so many Palestinian Jews sympathized with the guerrillas. Even the sober Palestine Post affirmed that Jews had gone over "from defensive to offensive action." But Britain was bitter. Secretary Hall bluntly warned Palestine's Jews that they could expect no help from London if violence was to be their policy.

Prime Minister Attlee, preparing to talk things over with President Truman (see INTERNATIONAL), knew that no decision would please everybody. Now he also knew that procrastination was as dangerous as decision. (4)

Eventually Truman did make a decision, siding with the Zionists. As he explained: “I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” (2)

*****************************

When the announcement was made in May of 1948 that Israel was to become a state, an eight-year-old boy was listening to the radio. The son of a revivalist preacher, he turned to his father, wondering what this meant, and his father stated: "This is the most important biblical day in the 20th Century. For all the prophets of the Old Testament have now been vindicated and Israel has been born."

That boy would grow up to be a preacher himself and made it his mission to fulfill his father's assessment. And that is how John Hagee became a millionaire.

Sources:

1. The Making of the Modern Near East 1792-1923, By M. E. Yapp, Longman, 1987, ISBN 0-582-49380-3, Pg. 290

2. The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, Published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East

3. PALESTINE: Intolerable! Time Magazine, July 16, 1928

4. THE NEAR EAST: Eruption, Time Magazine, November 12, 1945