MESSIANICS 2: Countering Messianic Claims

This is a follow up about the Christian Evangelists who pose as ‘messianic jews’. The original post was called ‘The Missionary Position’.


Firstly,  to address a few queries I have received:


1 - Yes, of course Messianics have of course every right to their own beliefs, rituals and practices.
They just don’t have any right to call it ‘judaism’. 
Because it isn’t.



2 - The Messianic movement is a very specific Christian Evangelical movement.
It does not represent all Christians. Indeed, many Christians have spoken out in condemnation of the Messianics and their lies when they pose as ‘jews’.

Tips For Countering The Lies Messianics Tell About Judaism:

Be warned before you start: Messianics relish the chance to debate Jews!

Their main aim is to convince *you* that yes, you ‘can remain Jewish and worship Jesus’. Now of cousre, this is a lie. But Messianics desperately need to believe it – it is the deceptive premise that underlies their entire ‘religion’.


The majority of Messianic groups get organised training in just *how* to debate genuine Jews. Former members of Messianic congregations often describe how they had to attend seminars and mock discussions in which they learned how to ‘disprove judaism’. 

Chances are, any Messianic that you meet, either online or in the ‘real world’ will know their bible inside out and upside down. Don’t let them distract you with scripture. Keep calm and keep stating the facts.




Here are some of the most common arguments that Messianics  come up with:


Messianic Claim:
“lots of Jews have now found Jesus, and are Jewish Christians”


FACT:

A Jew who becomes a Christian = a Christian.
Nobody can be both Jewish and Christian: it’s a theological contradiction. The two faiths contradict one another on almost everything.

A Jew who adopts Christianity as their religion is an EX Jew.

They are not ‘a jew for jesus’ any more than a Hindu who becomes a Christianity is a ‘hindu for christ’!

Judaism alone gets to define Jewish identity.
Judaism does not permit dual religious identity.
You are a Jew or you are a Christian.
Not both.




Messianic Claim: 

“Lots of Jews are ethnically or racially Jewish, but Christian by faith.’

Note: This is one of the most common arguments used by Messianics.

FACT:

No such thing as being ‘racially’ Jewish. 
Jews are not a ‘race’.

It was Hitler who tried to persuade the world that Jewish people were a separate race but it was a lie then, and it is a lie now.

You can’t change your race, but you can change your faith; many Gentiles convert to Judaism, thus proving it is not a ‘race’.

Nor is Judaism an ‘ethnicity’. How can it be? Which one ‘ethnicity’ unifies all Jews?

An Indian Jew is not the same ethnicity as a Japanese Jew. 
A Japanese Jew is not the same ethnicity as a Black Ethiopian Jew.
A Black Ethiopian Jew is not the same ethnicity as a Swedish caucasian Jew
.
There are Jews of *all* ethnicities!

And what we share is the Jewish religion. A person cannot be both Jewish and Christian.






Messianic Claim: “Messianic ‘jews’ are simply Jews who know the truth about Jesus.”


FACT:

98% of Messianics were *literally* never Jews to start with. 
Not via birth. Not via faith. Not via theology. Not via worship. Not via heritage.

If they aren’t Jewish according to Judaism’s criteria, then they are not Jewish – period.

Christianity does not get to REdefine Jewish identity.
Judaism and only Judaism gets to define Jewish identity. 
Just as Christianity and only Christianity gets to define Christian identity.



Messianic Claim: ‘But Jesus was Jewish – so why don’t Jews worship and accept him?’


FACT: 

Woody Allen is Jewish as well. Does that mean if *he* claimed to be the maschiach we should believe him?

Let’s say Woody Allen did declare that he was the Jewish messiah. Let’s say a small group of Jews believed him and began worshipping him.

Would they still be practising Judaism?

Answer: no, of course not!

Now apply the same logic to Jesus.








Messianic Claim: ‘Religion is a personal thing. I have every right to define myself as Jewish.’


FACT: You don’t have any ‘right’ to hijack the very word ‘jew’ and then lie about what it represents.

Judaism has defined Jewish identity the same way for thousands of years. You don’t get to REdefine ‘judaism’ to suddenly INclude worshipping Jesus.

I can wake up tomorrow and announce I’m a Native American Indian! Does that make it true? 

Do I then have the ‘right’ to MISrepresent what Native American Indians stand for, in public forums?

No, of course not. And nobody has any ‘right’ to do it with Judaism!






Messianic Claim: ‘Jesus was Jewish. Therefore if I worship him, I’m Jewish as well.’



FACT: 

The ‘logic’ here is so flawed it’s almost amusing. Almost.

The facts are crystal clear: if you worship Jesus as ‘christ’ you are a Christian. 

Again, let's use the Woody Allen analogy. Let’s say Woody Allen declared himself the Jewish messiah. If you believed him, would that make you Jewish?

Answer: no, of course not! Jesus is irrelevant to Judaism and always has been. Judaism was a complete and fulfilling faith for thousands of years before Jesus was even a twinkle in Joseph’s eye.






Messianic Claim: ‘The ‘old testament’ refers to Jesus again and again. Jews are just too stubborn to see it.’


FACT:

Given that the OT is a purely Christian text, yes, it probably does point towards Jesus.

The OT was produced by the Church; it is a MIStranslated, REorganised and REinterpreted, Christianised version OF the Jewish Tanakh.

Jews study and read the Tanakh in the original Hebrew. We don’t use any translation. And in the original Hebrew, Jesus is nowhere to be found. If he appears in the OT, it’s because the Church put him there.

* (note: you can find a detailed list of these MIStranslations in the Scripture section of this blog)

“jews for jesus”

Sooner or later someone will ask you about the infamous group ‘jews4jesus’. This is the most aggressive and well known of all the Messianic groups.

Let’s be crystal clear:

‘jews4jesus’ is a Christian group. It was founded by Martin Meyer, an ordained Baptist Minister.

Baptists don’t get to REdefine Judaism. Nor do Baptists get to start a ‘new jewish sect’ that practises Christianity!


Usually, Martin Meyer goes by the name Martin ‘Rosen’. He apparently feels it sounds more ‘jewish’. And at times, he claims that his parents were Orthodox Jews. This may or may not be true. Either way, it’s utterly irrelevant. Even if he started out a Jew, Martin Meyer exercised his right to leave Judaism, and to convert to Christianity.

Among the members of ‘jews4jesus’ there are a few former Jews. The key word here is of course: former.

If a few Jews convert to Islam – does Islam become somehow ‘jewish’?
No, of course not.

If a group of Jews become Hindus – does Hinduism now equal ‘judaism’?
No, obviously not.

Same applies to Christianity. Just because a few ex Jews are now Christians, this does not make Christianity somehow ‘jewish’.

Be aware: members of ‘jews4jesus’ are slick, quick and very practised at answering Jews who are trying to expose their lies.


One of the group’s favourite claims is:
”The original followers of Jesus were ‘messianic jews’. We’re no different’.


FACT:

Only a tiny sect of Jews ever followed Jesus. And the minute they affirmed belief in the ‘resurrection’ and in the notion that Jesus was anything but a normal mortal man, they were effectively *leaving* Judaism.

And the original followers of Jesus never practised Christianity because it did not exist until long after Jesus died. The rituals and beliefs of ‘jews4jesus’ has little in common with those who were part of the sect headed up by Jesus.

You might also like to point out that even if Jews were the first disciples of Jesus, it’s irrelevant. 


Consider: The first Australians were Brits. Does that mean that today’s Aussies get to REdefine British identity, customs and laws?

The Public Pay For Hate Preacher's House

Britain -

Hate preacher Abu Hamza is about to present taxpayers with a whopping £800,000 bill for legal fees he was meant to cover. Two years ago, Hamza was ordered by the courts to pay the £1,000,000 defence costs in his trial – but what has he actually paid?


Nothing.

The judge recommended that one of Hamza’s houses should be sold as a contribution. But it looks like Hamza has managed to wriggle out of that one, by claiming the house belongs to his sister – who lives in Egypt.

And property experts note that even if the 1930s property in Greenford, West London, is grabbed it will probably fetch only £200,000 instead of its original £235,000 valuation.



A Whitehall source said last night:

“If nothing else is found it means the taxpayer will have to pay £800,000 for the shortfall.”

A spokesman for the Legal Services Commission, which oversees the legal aid system, said:

“We will go to court to apply for the seizure of the property. We are waiting for a date.”

Conservative MP Patrick Mercer is more candid:

“This is Abu Hamza continuing to thumb his nose.”

Hamza was jailed for seven years, in 2006, on a charge of soliciting murder.

Let's Blame The Jews

This would be laughable if not for the fact that millions of Muslims will believe it. A new edict just published in Egypt has announced that the source of all the world’s pigs is – get this – Jews.


Yep. I kid you not. Jews – the very people who don’t consume pork – are the cause of the world’s pig population.

Well, glad we cleared that up…

The new edict was issued by Sheikh Ali Osman, a religious scholar from the Egyptian Waqf ministry, who stated that Jews are ‘cursed by Allah’, hence the appearance of all the pigs.

Due to their ‘jewish roots’, pigs are fair game and can be slaughtered, according to Sheikh Osman. Oh, and he adds that this accounts for why Islam bans pork, as well.

Some scholar. Judaism was, as most folk know, the first faith to declare that pork must not be eaten. The same prohibition is present in Islam purely because old Mohammed nicked a fair few things from Judaism!


There have already been claims from some Muslims that Jews are the ’cause’ of Swine Flu. But then, are any of us surprised at this lunacy?

After all, Let’s Blame The Jews has been a favoured Muslim game throughout history.

The Delightful Mr Anjem Choudary

(originally posted April 5th on old blog site)





Has Britain become an outpost of the Islamic world without our actually realising it…?

I ask because not only are British Muslims free to stand and hurl abuse at returning soldiers, they are apparently also now at liberty to fundraise for Islamic terrorism.

Anjem Choudary, a Muslim cleric and ’sharia judge’ has publicly urged his followers to give money to mujaheddin fighters. It was Choudary who organised last week’s hijacking of the homecoming parade for the troops.

Now a tape has come to light of him ordering British Muslims to stop giving money to their families, and instead, give it to ‘muslim soldiers’ involved in Jihad.

Choudary is a founder member of banned Islamic extremist group Al-Muhajiroun.

All of which begs the question: why are the police not investigating Choudary…?

Choudary has also recently demanded that all British women be made to wear bhurqas. Oh, and he thinks adulterers should be killed…


Patrick Mercer, who chairs the Commons sub committee on counterterrorism, states:

‘It is crucial that Choudary is investigated by the police and if the evidence stacks up, he must be charged.’

It’s not as if Britain lacks the appropriate legislation. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, it is an offence to ‘invite another person to provide money or other property for the purposes of terrorism’.

And although Al-Muhajiroun was banned, it spawned two other groups: Al Ghuraaba and the Saviour Sect. Both are led by Choudary. They too were banned by Tony Blair following the July 2005 London bombings. But they have apparently reappeared, under the names Islam4UK and Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaah.

So what are we waiting for?

Wasn’t one terrorist attack on Britain enough…?







source of news: Sunday Times, March 15th 2009

Messianics 1: The Missionary Position

Something strange is happening in London.



Especially in areas with large Jewish communities. Take 14 year old Rachel, whose family lives in a north London suburb. Last month, she opened the front door to find three Orthodox Jews standing there. Greeting her warmly, they explained they were from the Beth Shalom Synagogue, and were in her area, doing ‘outreach work’. Specifically, they wanted to learn how to make Synagogue ‘more relevant’ for teenagers.

Might Rachel spare them ten minutes of her time…?

Feeling perfectly safe, Rachel invited them in, and made some tea. And for the next forty minutes,she enjoyed a lively conversation with her fellow Jews, about religion, and life in London, and sundry other topics.

And then one of these Orthodox Jews asked Rachel what she thought about Hell. Which was kind of strange – since Rachel knew that in Jewish belief there is NO ‘hell’.

Baffled, she asked ‘Chaim’ to elaborate. Leaning forward with a look of great concern, Chaim asked Rachel if she was worried about her parents, and her six year old sister. After all, surely she didn’t want them to ’spend eternity in hell?’ Chaim then explained this was just what would happen – if Rachel’s family ‘failed to find Jesus’. So Rachel now found herself, bizarrely, with three Orthodox Jews who were preaching Christianity!

Uneasy, she asked Chaim which specific Jewish sect he represented.

‘Messianic’, came the beaming response, a ‘new group in which you can remain Jewish AND still know Jesus.’

And while this did not enlighten Rachel, her mother knew precisely what it meant when she arrived home ten minutes later and threw ‘Chaim’ and his friends out.

You see, these ‘orthodox jews’ were not Jews at all.

They were Christian Missionaries.

Or, as they prefer to be known, ‘messianic jews’.

Confused? That’s what Messianics count upon.



The “messianic jewish” movement has been steadily expanding across North America over the past decade. Despite claiming to be ‘jewish’, it is a purely Christian movement.

It was founded by Evangelical Christians, and it is funded 100% by Evangelical Churches. In short, the Messianic movement is about as ‘jewish’ as a plate of pork chops.

It’s estimated that 95% of Messianics were never Jewish to start with.


To be clear: the Messianic movement is a very specific, Evangelical Christian group. It does not represent all Christians.


Indeed, many Christian movements have publicly condemned Messianics, for the lies they tell.

But don’t dismiss Messianics as some fringe cult. While it may have started that way, Messianics are managing to convert thousands of naive young Jews every year from Judaism to Christianity. The most aggressive and infamous Messianic group is ‘jews4jesus’, but this is just one group among many.

What is it that Messianics want?


Simple. The same thing that Christian Evangelicals have wanted for some 2000 years. Namely, for Jews to accept Jesus as ’son of god’, as ‘messiah’ and as ’saviour’.

And when all their previous efforts to convert Jews failed, American Evangelists rebranded. Now they call their Churches ’synagogues’, they address their preachers as ‘rabbi’, and they themselves are not ‘Christians’ but rather ‘messianic jews’.

Their target audience? Naive young Jews, who fall for the line that Messianics represent a ‘new jewish group which recognises Jesus.’

And right now in the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia, Messianics are doing a hell of a lot more than just knocking on the doors of Jewish homes.

For they are also very busy convincing the entire non Jewish world that they, the Messianics, are in fact the ‘real jews’.


Rachel was lucky. The approach made to her was clumsy and pretty much destined to fail. But numerous young Jewish students away from home for the first time have been lured into embracing Christianity without even realising it.

Take Jonathan. He was away at University, in his first year, studying Politics. When a fellow student, Suzanne, befriended him, he was delighted. She was obviously Jewish – she was wearing a Magen David.

After a few weeks, Suzanne invited Jonathan to go with her to ’synagogue’. Not the one that most Jewish students at that University preferred but another, ‘more friendly’ synagogue. Jonathan said yes, and didn’t give it another thought.

And the following Friday night, he was impressed by the warm reception he got at this ‘temple’. Everyone was smiling. Welcoming. The synagogue looked like every other synagogue he’d ever attended. The ‘Rabbi’ was charismatic, and gave an interesting service. The kiddush was lovely. Jonathan went home feeling great.

And so when, a few weeks later, Suzanne and some of the other members of the temple suggested to Jonathan that he take a look at a ‘wonderful Hebrew scripture’, he shrugged and figured, ‘Where’s the harm?’.

Suzanne explained that the scripture was called the ‘Brit Chadasha’.

She gave Jonathan some photocopied pages; an ‘English translation’. He glanced through them. They were fairly interesting. Prettily written. Jonathan had never been very into religion – sure, he was Jewish, but he wasn’t ‘observant’.

But Suzanne was keen to discuss the scriptures and Jonathan soon found himself enjoying their chats. When the name ‘Yeshua’ came up, Jonathan didn’t make the connection. He liked this new form of “messianic judaism”.


The problem? ‘Brit Chadasha’ is Hebrew for New Testament.

Jonathan had been studying the Christian bible without even knowing it!


All choice had been taken away from him, as he’d been convinced that he was simply following an authentic Jewish text, as part of an authentic Jewish group.

In reality, Jonathan was not now a ‘messianic jew’. He was now on his way out of Judaism – because for a Jew to affirm belief in Jesus or any other human as ‘divine’ is blasphemy.

Now of course, people switch faiths.

Christians become Jews. Jews become Christians. But they do it consciously.

Jonathan was troubled once he discovered that he’d been so thoroughly hoodwinked. And when he confronted his Messianic ‘friends’, their response was to turn on him and issue dire warnings about his ‘fate’ if he now ‘rejected jesus’.

Messianics are also busy in cyberspace. In debate forums that discuss and debate religion, they are busy representing ‘judaism’ and convincing millions of well meaning non Jews that ‘real jews DO embrace Jesus!’

Fortunately in some forums there are genuine Jews who are countering this deception. Even then, they come under attack from the Messianics who accuse the Jews of ‘discrimination’.


In other words: Jews are being told they have to accept a Christian Evangelical group as part OF Judaism – or be guilty of ‘discrimination’!

Messianics are also busy hijacking Jewish festivals. At Pesach, hundreds of thousands of Messianics celebrate ‘the real passover’, in which Jesus is the ’sacrificial lamb’. They have also inserted Jesus into other sacred Jewish rituals and festivals, in a way that is offensive in the extreme.

In short: Messianics are slowly but surely taking everything that Judaism holds as sacred, and Christianising it.


And in doing so, they are twisting both Judaism and Christianity.


In America, Jews are actively addressing this new threat from Christian missionaries, and have organised some great resources, primarily in the form of ‘Jews For Judaism’, which aims to counter, specifically but not exclusively, ‘jews4jesus’.


But here in the UK, while Messianics are becoming more proactive, the Jewish community remains silent. Recently, ‘jews4jesus’ yet again took to the streets and started bombarding the public with leaflets and books in central London.

Yet not a single Jewish newspaper so much as mentioned this.

And let’s all be crystal clear: these evangelists have one basic goal: they wish to eradicate us.

Oh sure – they’ll do it with smiles, and they’ll claim to ‘love’ us, but make no mistake.
The Messianic movement aims to convert as many Jews as humanly possible, to its own peculiar, confused brand of evangelical Christianity.

Only now, Messianics are that much cleverer. And if they have to steal our very identity in order to succeed, so be it.

Perhaps the most worrying comment comes from a 30-something Jewish man who, having battled Messianics in ‘real life’ and internet forums for several years now, concludes:

‘Within another ten years, nobody out there will even understand that these Messianics are not Jewish. For some bizarre reason, the world thinks that this group within Evangelical Christianity gets to REdefine Judaism, and just accepts whatever Messianics claim. Never mind that we genuine Jews are trying desperately to counter these evangelical lies. Nobody gives a damn.’

The Mainstream Media, And Its Selective Attention Disorder

An interesting post over at Honest Reporting:

Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh wonders why the MSM isn’t interested in media repression and torture when the perpetrators are the Palestinian Authority.


In June, an Al-Jazeera crew investigating the death of a Palestinian prisoner apparently tortured was stopped at a PA (Palestinian Authority) checkpoint where a videotape was confiscated and erased.


Yet foreign journalists and human rights activists working in Israel and the Palestinian territories either chose to ignore the story or never heard about it simply because it was lacking in an anti-Israel angle. One can also imagine how the media and human rights organizations would have reacted had a Palestinian died in Israeli prison after allegedly being tortured.

It’s up to those of us who want a fairer approach to Israel in the media to spread word of incidents like this.

British Police Flee Pro Gaza Mob

(originally posted on February 1, 2009)




Once upon a time, the boys in blue were a force to be reckoned with. Not any more. New video footage has been released showing Police fleeing from screaming demonstrators during a pro Palestine rally in London last month.

The ten-minute amateur film shows 30 officers being chased by a crowd of up to 3,000 people.

The video, posted on YouTube, shows protesters chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ (god is Greatest) and ‘Fatwa’, which is a death threat under Islamic law.

As they walk past St James’s Palace, demonstrators threw traffic cones and stones at the police, who are seen running away from the threat.

One demonstrator shouts: ‘Run, run, you cowards. Allahu Akbar.’

A female steward tries to calm down the protesters, insisting: ‘Back, back’ as the crowd advances on the police. But she is ignored as one male protester shouts: ‘They’re going to get it.’

After coming into Piccadilly, near the five-star Ritz Hotel, demonstrators continued chanting and screaming at the Police, who then drew their batons.

Despite pleas from another officer asking the crowd to ‘calm down’, the protesters laughed at him and threw more traffic cones. One shouted: ‘You swine.’

The rally featured was one of several that grew violent, with pro Palestine supporters smashing the windows of nearby shops, and hurling things at the Police. Even after the London rallies ended, the aggression did not stop, with several Orthodox Jews in north west London being physically assaulted by men shrieking anti Israel and anti Jewish abuse.

Check out the footage and see what's become of the British bobby:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133120/Police-ran-away-jeering-Gaza-demonstrators.html

Operation Cast Lead: Setting The Record Straight

Here's another superb piece on Operation Cast Lead that may prove useful to those of you who are either seeking the facts, or trying to counter the lies being told about Israel's actions in Gaza.

The article is an adapted and abbreviated version of the one that appears in FrontPage magazine. To read the original, go here




"From the very second that Israel started responding to eight years of Hamas terrorism, the world screamed in protest. The media did not seem to give a damn that often, their 'facts' were nothing more than rumour and misinformation.

So let's set the record straight. It's interesting to look at reports by journalists who investigated properly. Those who actually spoke with Gazans.

The media said: "Israel deliberately killed Palestinian civilians."


FACT: Israel exerted more care than any other country in history to avoid inflicting casualties on civilians, even when that meant risking the lives of Israeli soldiers.

Israel’s Minister of Welfare and Social Services Isaac Herzog notes:

"The IDF made 250,000 phone calls, it has sent text messages and delivered leaflets by air. It made broadcasts on television and on radio and asked people to move away. It did whatever it could to prevent human suffering'

Go on, read that bit again. 250,000 phone calls. That's almost every home in Gaza. There is no precedent in history for any army phoning each household in enemy territory to warn them in advance to take shelter.

The Israelis even called up major Hamas terrorists 45 minutes in advance of bombing their houses, which were used for storing weapons and ammunition and for concealing terrorist tunnels and bunkers in their basements, in order to give the terrorists and their innocent families time to escape unharmed.

When Israeli planes tracked trucks carrying weapons and ammunition to Hamas, they sometimes deflected the missiles in mid-flight, causing them to fall harmlessly in open spaces, if the trucks happened to pass by civilians on a crowded street.

In deflecting their own missiles by remote control, the Israeli pilots and ground controllers lost chances to destroy enemy weapons and ammunition, solely in order to protect Palestinian civilians.

These humanitarian measures by the Israeli forces have been abundantly documented by “live” video cameras, and the resulting video records have been broadcast by the IDF on YouTube.

Can you find any evidence of any other army behaving with such restraint and care, in order to help civilians on the enemy side?



The Media: Israel killed 1300 civilians in Gaza. More than half of those killed by Israel were innocent civilians.


FACT: In fact, relatively few civilians actually were killed or injured. The Italian 'newspaper of record', Corriere della Serra, reporting from Gaza, stated:

." . .there is fact coming to light ever more obviously, visiting the hospitals, clinics and families of the victims of Israeli fire: In reality their numbers appear much lower than 1300 dead and another 5000 injured, as reported by the men of Hamas and repeated by the UN officials and the local Red Cross.

"The dead can’t be more than 500 or 600. There are many youths between 17 and 23, recruited by Hamas, who sent them quite literally to the slaughter," said a doctor from the Shifah hospital who under no circumstances wanted to be quoted for he risked his life.

This data has been confirmed by a local journalist:

“We already pointed this out to the heads of Hamas. Why do they insist on inflating the number of victims? It’s strange on the other hand that the NGOs, also the western ones, report them without any verification. In the end the truth may come to light. It could be like Jenin in 2002. Initially we spoke about 1500 dead. Then it came out that there were only 54, of whom at least 45 were militants who died in battle. ”

It’s sufficient to visit a few hospitals to understand that the numbers don’t add up. There are many empty beds in the European Hospital in Rafah, one of the [hospitals] that should be most involved with the victims of the Israeli “war of the tunnels.” The same goes for the “Nasser” of Khan Yunis. Only 5 out of the 150 beds in the private hospital of Al-Amal are occupied.


Analysts monitoring the Palestinian Arab media have come upon much information that supports this. They have found that over 75% of the individuals whom the Arab media have identified as having been killed in the fighting were males between the ages of 15 and 50—the ages, and gender, of the overwhelming majority of Hamas and other Palestinian fighters.


They have also found that the names of many Palestinians who turn up on lists of “civilians” killed in the Gaza war published by Palestinian “human rights” organizations are identified as Hamas fighters by other Palestinian news publications.

The “human rights” organizations also omitted from its casualty reports the names of Hamas fighters who are known from other sources to have been killed in the fighting. This misreporting and selective reporting result in a sizable overstatement of the percentage of civilians killed in the fighting.

Yet much of the news media relies on these organizations, such as the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), for their data on civilian casualties in Gaza.

We must also note that Hamas deliberately forced Gazan civilians to serve as “human shields,” behind which the terrorists conducted their assault. Indeed, this is official Hamas policy, and the group openly boasts about it.


Hamas regularly sent its troops to occupy schools, hospitals, mosques and office buildings, their grounds and adjacent streets, as well as many private Palestinian houses and business, and used them to fire at Israeli soldiers and to launch rockets against Israeli civilians.

The Hamas men used mosques as weapons and ammunition storage facilities, and fired anti-aircraft guns from them The Israelis have even caught on camera, and have subsequently broadcast on YouTube, videos of Hamas fighters launching rockets and mortars from the courtyards of schools, or streets directly adjoining them.

On at least one occasion, Hamas operatives even launched a rocket from a building used by foreign journalists; a reporter from an Arab television and radio station reported on the incident “live” as she viewed the rocket launching from her office window, in a bizarre sequence that has subsequently been broadcast on youtube.

Hamas gunmen also hijacked ambulances, and sometimes even fired at Israeli soldiers from them.

These Hamas ‘tactics” put Israeli soldiers in the impossible position of having either to allow the Hamas terrorists to keep firing at them and/or at the Israeli civilian population - or to return fire, and risking killing or injuring civilians.

Israel sometimes has had no choice but to permit its soldiers to return fire in self-defense. This return of fire has sometimes resulted in civilian casualties and/or damage to civilian buildings; but in view of Hamas’ of use of civilians as human shields, blaming Israel for these casualties and calling them Israeli “war crimes,” seems utterly unfair. The actual war crimes were perpetrated by Hamas.



Apropos this situation, Italian journalist in Gaza, Mr Cremonesi, states that Gazans themselves desperately begged Hamas to stop endangering their families, saying:

“Get away! Get away from here! Do you want our children to die under the bombs? Take your missiles and weapons away,” the inhabitants of the Gaza strip yelled at the Hamas militants and their allies in Islamic Jihad.

But for all of that the guerrillas didn’t listen to anyone. “Traitors, spies of Fatah, cowards! The soldiers of the holy war will punish you. And in any case you will all die, like us. Fighting Jews we are all destined for paradise. Do you not wish to die with us?” This is what they yelled furiously as they broke down doors and windows, hiding themselves on high floors, gardens, using ambulances and barricading themselves near the hospitals, schools and buildings of the UN.

In extreme cases Hamas shot those who sought to block them from their streets and houses to save their own families, or they beat them savagely. “The Hamas Militants looked for good places to provoke the Israelis. They were usually youths, 16 or 17 years old, armed with submachine guns. They couldn’t do anything against a tank or jet. They knew they were much weaker. But they wanted the Israelis to shoot at the the civilians’ houses so they could accuse them of more war crimes” asserted Abu Issa, 42, resident of the Tel Awa neighborhood.

Another Gaza civilian, calling herself Umm Abdallah, told Mr.Cremonesi:

“Practically all of the tallest buildings in Gaza that were hit by Israeli bombs, like the Dogmoush, Andalous, Jawarah, Siussi, and many others, had rocket launching pads on their roofs, or were observation decks for the Hamas. They had also put them near the big UN warehouse, which went up in flames.

 Hamas terrorists may have directly caused some of the civilian casualties themselves. Numerous Gaza residents and foreign reporters confirm that Hamas took the occasion of Israel’s Gaza operation to kill Palestinians whom it claimed were collaborators with Israel.

Many, although not all of these alleged collaborators were actually members of the rival Palestinian terrorist group Fatah, with whom Hamas has long been at loggerheads.


We have already seen the Corriere della Serra report that Hamas sometimes killed Gazan civilians who tried to refuse to allow themselves and their families to be used as human shields, declaring them to be “collaborators” worthy of death.


Gazan ambulance drivers told a reporter for the Sydney Morning Herald of similar experiences with Hamas gunmen: these sometimes attempted to hijack ambulances for their own use, and threatened the drivers with their guns if they resisted surrendering them.

While the particular ambulance drivers interviewed by Sydney Morning Herald’s reporter Jack Koutsoukis survived their ordeal, others may not have been so lucky.



Then there is the question of “work accidents.” The Israel defense and intelligence forces have documented numerous cases in which explosives that Hamas was storing or that its operatives were manufacturing exploded accidentally, inflicting deaths and injuries on nearby civilians.

In nearly all such cases, Hamas first tried to blame Israel for the civilian casualties, although it sometimes eventually admitted to the truth. How many of the civilian casualties reported during the Gaza operation were similar “work accidents?”
                                                                       


So we have to wonder: How many civilian deaths and injuries inflicted by Hamas gunmen, one wonders, found their way into the civilian casualty statistics released by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), various NGOs, and the media?


Yet the press and the “humanitarian” agencies have attributed all of the civilian casualties to Israel.



The Media: Gaza has been utterly devastated and left in ruins by the Israeli “assault.”



FACT: The Israelis targeted buildings very carefully and selectively, aiming at buildings used for military purposes by Hamas, and rarely hitting other buildings.


Journalists who were on the scene have admitted that Israel’s air and ground forces in Gaza were almost incredibly precise and careful in their selection of targets, and that as little damage as possible was caused to civilian buildings. Tim Butcher, in a report on the war for London’s Daily Telegraph, wrote that:

One thing was clear. Gaza City 2009 is not Stalingrad 1944. There had been no carpet bombing of large areas, no firebombing of complete suburbs. Targets had been selected and then hit, often several times, but almost always with precision munitions. Buildings nearby had been damaged and there had been some clear mistakes, like the firebombing of the UN aid headquarters. But, in most the cases, I saw the primary target had borne the brunt. . .

But, for the most part, I was struck by how cosmetically unchanged Gaza appeared to be. It has been a tatty, poorly-maintained mess for decades and the presence of fresh bombsites on streets already lined with broken curbstones and jerry-built buildings did not make any great difference.

And the same can be said for the mindset of many of Gaza’s 1.5 million residents. Outsiders might have expected some sort of collective anger at the loss of life, or mass outrage at the Hamas authorities whose policy of firing rockets against Israel had brought down the wrath of the Israeli armed forces

.



The media: Israel has been blockading Gaza for years and denying its people access to vital humanitarian supplies.. This blockade was intensified during the recent Gaza war.


THE FACT: There has never been an Israeli blockade of Gaza.


Israel has allowed thousands of truckloads of supplies into Gaza in the past eight years, despite the almost continuous armed attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers originating in Gaza.


It continued to supply Gaza with food, medicine and all other needed civilian goods even during the three weeks of intense fighting during the recent war (December 27, 2008 - January 19, 2009).

It has supplied Gaza with electricity, fuel, and water and even money to pay its officials, (who of course work for Hamas) throughout the long years of Gazan aggression against Israel.

Israel continued to supply all of these things to Gaza, except the money, even during the three weeks of intense fighting during its Operation Cast Lead.



Since the “cease fire” on January 19 of this year and even at the height of the fighting in January, Israel observed three a hour truce daily to allow supplies to get through to the Gazan civilian population (Hamas violated even these brief truces by using them to fire rockets at Israeli civilians).



Israel has continued to send massive humanitarian supplies to Gaza and to allow the UN relief organizations to do so as well, even though Hamas has been hijacking the relief shipments for its own fighters—which is a serious war crime. It has even resumed its money payments to the Hamas government, despite Hamas’ daily violations of the cease-fire with rocket attacks on, and terrorist raids into, Israel.


No other nation in history has treated the people of a country that was committing armed aggression against their own with the kindness, compassion, humanity and forbearance that Israel has shown towards the Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel Indicted For Self Defence

(originally published February 19 at old blog site)



Excellent article here, courtesy of FrontPage magazine:




Indicting Israel for Self-Defense

By P. David Hornik FrontPageMagazine.com
Wednesday, February 04, 2009


The ceasefire announced by Hamas on January 18, never a sterling example of the genre, further deteriorated on Sunday as over 15 rockets and mortar shells were fired at Israel from Gaza. That night, when Israeli planes struck back at Hamas targets, many Palestinians reported that Israel had telephoned them warnings to evacuate. There were no casualties in the strike.


Again on Tuesday evening, after a Grad rocket hit the Israeli city of Ashkelon during the day, Palestinians in the town of Rafah on the Gaza-Egypt border received recorded telephone messages from Israel stating that “people who work in tunnels, live near them or are giving logistical help to terrorists should evacuate the area immediately.”


Israeli air strikes on the tunnels followed, again with no reports of casualties. During Operation Cast Lead, Israel reduced Palestinian casualties with such measures as disseminating warnings in leaflets or SMS messages and dropping small, harmless bombs on rooftops before attacks.


It prompted former British colonel Richard Kemp to say that

“I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.”

Nevertheless, it was reported on Monday that a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague had announced plans to investigate claims by Palestinian groups that Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza by using phosphorus shells in populated areas.

In 2004 the ICC condemned Israel for building its security fence—believed by  security officials to have saved hundreds of lives—after waves of terror from the West Bank.

And the news about the ICC came hard on the heels of Thursday’s announcement that a Spanish court, after granting a petition by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, was planning to try seven Israeli security officials for “crimes against humanity” in the 2002 assassination of Hamas kingpin Salah Shehadeh.

Fourteen civilians were also killed in the strike. Shehadeh had masterminded the killings of hundreds of Israelis and was preparing a mega-attack at the time. The seven Israeli officials include a former defense minister and two former chiefs of staff.

Israel, then, is between a rock and a hard place.


From its complete disengagement from Gaza in August 2005 till Operation Cast Lead was launched in late December 2008, 6500 rockets and mortars were fired from Gaza at predominantly civilian Israeli targets with only small, tactical Israeli responses.

Yet the world went along its way. There were no Security Council sessions, ICC investigations, or threats by European countries to put Hamas leaders on trial.

The suffering of Sderot residents never became a chic cause on campuses where “the Palestinians” continued to be lionized.

Then came Operation Cast Lead, and all hell broke loose. To even mention Israel’s extraordinary measures to avoid harming civilians was to be an embattled polemicist citing esoteric facts.

But when some unclear number of Palestinian civilians—inevitably, given Hamas’s use of them—were nonetheless killed or wounded, it was Israel that was in the hot seat. Although some European leaders like German chancellor Angela Merkel and Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg showed Israel some degree of understanding, by the time Israel ended the operation on January 17 its diplomatic support had dwindled to zero.


And the ICC announcement is only the most dramatic instance so far of legal fallout from the operation. The expected wave of “lawfare” against Israeli soldiers and officers prompted Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to set up a special team to defend them headed by the justice minister, with legal and intelligence experts already gathering evidence related to the fighting in Gaza.


In 2005 Israeli general Doron Almog barely escaped arrest on war-crime charges in Britain when he was warned by the Israeli embassy not to disembark from his plane at Heathrow Airport. And just last week Israeli colonel Geva Rapp had to flee Britain for fear of an arrest warrant for defending his country.


With the war also having sparked fierce anti-Semitic eruptions particularly in Venezuela and Turkey, the worldview of Israel’s outgoing government—one of the factors behind the seemingly inhuman “restraint” in the face of the rockets—appears more wobbly than ever.

It was a worldview in which Israel could expect reason and understanding from the nations in light of such facts as: Israel had withdrawn from Gaza and it was no longer occupied; Hamas is a terrorist organization that specifically targets civilians while using its own civilians for cover; and any country—yes, even Israel—has the right to self-defense.


The fact that, notwithstanding all that, the war has galvanized both heightened anti-Israeli lawfare and heightened anti-Semitic agitation has not been lost on the Israeli populace—which has, for instance, drastically cut back on tourism to once-popular Turkey. And as the rockets continue to fall, the need for a more sober outlook—one perhaps closer to traditional Jewish understandings of Israel’s role in the world—is likely to prevail in the February 10 elections.

Mix Islam & Christianity And You Get... Chrislam...?

I'm all for inter-faith dialogue, but this is absurd. Why do some people think you can take two faiths, swap a few concepts, then combine them to create an entirely 'new' third faith which inevitably, dishonours the original two...?




We've seen it, for decades, with the specific set of Evangelical Christians who remain Christians, but chuck in a few Jewish ideas and rituals, then alter them, before declaring they are now practising "messianic judaism". It's not Judaism, of course.




Now we have some people trying to do it with Christianity, and Islam. Here, noting this mad new trend and decrying it with a passion, is Bill Muehlenberg:

Sorry, But I am Not Buying Into Chrislam


Chrislam, as the name suggests, is a growing movement wherein some Christians are seeking to find common ground with Muslims. Indeed, it actually seeks to combine Christianity with Islam. It is a syncretistic movement that speaks about “spirituality without boundaries”. Whenever you hear that sort of talk, you should start heading for the hills.


Yet that is what we find in some leftist evangelical Christian circles today. Incredibly, it took place last year at the National Prayer Breakfast in Canberra. I wrote that episode up in several articles at the time:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/11/10/islam-and-fifth-columns/

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/11/04/truth-and-tolerance-christianity-and-islam/


But a number of leading American religious leftists are also pushing this cause in varying degrees. For example, Tony Campolo has argued that “interfaith prayers and even mystical unions are critical for all true peacemakers”. And given that a leftist vision of “social justice” seems to be the most important agenda item for Campolo, it is not surprising that he can praise Islam in these terms: “When it comes to what is ultimately important, the Muslim community’s sense of commitment to the poor is exactly in tune with where Jesus is in the 25th chapter of Matthew.”


More recently emerging church movement leader Brian McLaren has written a five-part blog entry on why Christians should join with Muslims in celebrating Ramadan. In it he said, “We, as Christians, humbly seek to join Muslims in this observance of Ramadan as a God-honouring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighbourliness.”


Once again the emphasis is on getting along, harmony and unity. Fine – to a point. But both these faiths are ultimately evangelistic, exclusive, and mutually incompatible. The heart of the Christian truth claim is that Jesus is G-d’s son, and he has come to save us from our sins. Islam claims that it is blasphemous to say G-d has a son.


So how far can two faiths get along when they are at heart directly opposed to each other? And the worrying thing about the McLaren posts is nowhere does he once mention that we in fact should be evangelising our Muslim friends, or praying for their conversion. This is really quite bizarre and worrying.


Of course all Christians should be in favour of making friends with Muslims, building bridges with them, and seeking to get close to them – but for the purpose of sharing with them the good news of Jesus Christ. If we simply aim for a warm and fuzzy ecumenical unity, where biblical truth is watered down or ignored all together, then we are doing no one a favour, whether ourselves or Muslims.


Joel Richardson has recently written up this story, and is worth quoting from here. He rightly notes that Christians often are involved in concentrated campaigns of prayer for Muslims during their holy month. Many have joined in on these 30-days of prayer and fasting for their Muslim friends.


But what about this interfaith initiative? Is it really what Christians should be involved in? Asks Richardson, “But does such an interreligious observance go beyond mere ‘neighborliness’ and cross the line of religious compromise and syncretism? Does observing the religious holy month of Ramadan create the impression of an endorsement of Islam?”


He continues, “McLaren, a leading voice in the growing left-wing Christian movement, wants everyone to know that he has not converted to Islam, but is a ‘deeply committed Christian.’ But McLaren is not fasting for the salvation of his Muslim friends. Instead he is seeking through the practice of this Islamic ritual to promote ‘the common good, together with people of other faith traditions’.”


While the motivations of McLaren and other might be good, we need to ask some hard questions: “Although McLaren has said that he and his followers ‘will seek to avoid being disrespectful or unfaithful to our own faith tradition in our desire to be respectful to the faith tradition of our friends,’ some have expressed that the very act of observing a Muslim religious season is itself highly unorthodox and contrary to historical Christian practice. While loving and befriending others is paramount to the Christian faith, the Bible is clear that Christians are to avoid actually participating in their religious ceremonies: ‘Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?’ (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)”


Indeed, just how does the Christian gospel fare in all of this? “What is also so concerning to observers of the growing emergent Christian movement is its tendencies to rarely express the Christian gospel while loudly and often proclaiming either a classic humanist message or outright religious pluralism. McLaren and other emergent leaders are often heard expressing the need to de-emphasize ‘doctrinal barriers’ between various religions including Christianity and Islam.”


And Chrislam is not mere theory. It is a burgeoning movement in various places around the world, and liberal denominations are already starting to lap it up. Richardson mentiones the story of Episcopal priestess Rev. Anne Holmes who announced in 2007 that she had become a Christian-Muslim. The story back then was reported this way:


“A Seattle priest has become a Muslim while also retaining her clergy status in the Episcopal Church. Her local bishop has described the development as ‘exciting.’ ‘I look through Jesus and I see Allah,’ explained the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding to the ‘Seattle Times,’ which reported that Redding puts on her Islamic headscarf on Fridays and her clerical collar on Sundays. … she still sees Jesus as her Savior, even if not divine, and plans to remain both a priest and an Episcopalian. Bishop Vincent Warner of the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia told the Seattle Times that Redding’s embrace of Islam has not been controversial in his diocese.”


That is as good of a summation of where theological liberalism and the interfaith movement are taking us as you will find. In the end it is really an anti-Christ activity, despite any benign motivations. Any movement that takes people away from Christ as Lord and Saviour is a movement which is not coming from G-d. Christians need to be very careful indeed about getting on board such initiatives.


As I wrote in a comment last year, “Christians in the interfaith movement tend to engage in at least three unhelpful activities. One, they tend to downplay and minimise the exclusive truth claims of Biblical Christianity. Two, they tend to downplay and minimise the horrendous Muslim persecution and dhimmitude of Christians all around the world (while there is no equivalent Christian persecution and dhimmitude of Muslims). Three, they tend to fail in the most important calling of Christians: to evangelise and disciple all nations.


For all the talk of harmony, unity and friendship, the Chrislam movement is a move in the wrong direction. I for one will have nothing to do with it, and I hope that all serious followers of Jesus Christ avoid it like the plague as well.

Source:rCulture Watch)

Noted the part about the Christian priest who is now, apparently, also a practising Muslim...?

This makes no sense. Islam does not agree with the core Christian belief that Jesus was the 'son of god'. How on earth can anyone adhere to two, contradictory faiths?


'Chrislam'?






G-d forbid.

Ahmadinejad Cohen...?!

Another week, another bizarre story.  Right now, British newspapers are jumping onto the ‘Mahmoud is Jewish!’ bandwagon with such indecent haste, it’s really something to behold. Yep, the notion of this four foot three, jumped up little Hitler Wannabe actually being Jewish? It was apparently just too delicious a story to turn down for the Daily Telegraph.

The Telegraph ‘broke’ the story and in doing so, displayed a combination of naivete and lack of journalistic integrity that puts it on a par with the Guardian’s smear campaign against Israel.

So let’s put this mad story into perspective. The ‘evidence’ for Mahmoud’s ‘jewish roots’ is that in pictures, his identity papers apparently reveal a ‘jewish surname’.

Right…

Well, if that was ‘proof’ of Jewishness, there’d be a lot more Jews in the world! There are numerous people out there with ‘jewish surnames’, but they aren’t Jewish!

I mean, come on people. Does anyone truly think that Mad Mahmoud would brandish ‘proof’ of being Jewish so openly, right in front of the cameras? Of course he blinking well wouldn’t!

Over at Elder Of Ziyon is this interesting post on the topic:


From Karmel Melamed, an Iranian Journalist, at the (LA) Jewish Journal blog:

This reporter and blog were bombarded with e-mails and questions since last night from readers of this blog asking me whether the story published in Britain’s Daily Telegraph’s that Ahmadinejad was born a Jew had any validity.

After reading the Telegraph’s original story published yesterday and consulting with a number of local Iranian Jewish scholars with regards to the story’s claims of Ahmadinejad’s supposed Jewish identity, as an Iranian Jewish journalist I cannot verify a single shred of evidence that would suggest this story is accurate in any way.

The article lacks any real or credible sources cited that can unequivocally prove that Ahmadinejad had any Jewish roots and it seems as if the story was just leaked to the Telegraph by “reformist” leaders in Iran as a part of a larger smear campaign against the newly “re-elected” hardliner president of Iran.

The article’s authors, Damien McElroy and Ahmad Vahdat claim that “Iranian experts” they consulted with have seen the supposed “Jewish name of Sabourjian –meaning cloth weaver” in a photo of Ahmadinejad’s identity papers from March of 2009. My main problem with this claim about the “Sabourjian” name is that the Iranian Jewish experts, scholars and religious leaders in L.A. I have interviewed today, have never heard of any Jewish family in Iran with such a name.


Likewise the handful of English to Farsi dictionaries authored by Solomon Haim (a 20th century Iranian Jewish scholar of Persian language) found at UCLA’s library I have research through today do not identify the word “sabour” as “the name for the Jewish tallit shawl” as both McElroy and Vahdat claim in their article! For that matter, none of the English to Farsi dictionaries I came across even had the word “sabour” nor a definition listed for it!


Where these journalists came up with this nonsense about the word “sabour” having a Jewish meaning is beyond me! As an Iranian Jewish journalist fluent in the Persian language for the last 31 years, I have never heard of the word “sabour” uttered by members of my community and the Iranian Jewish community has never used this word as a reference to the Jewish prayer shawl. We Iranian Jews refer to the Jewish prayer shawl by it’s Hebrew name of “seat-seat” (the Hebrew word for the fringes of the prayer shawl) or we use the Hebrew word of “tallit” just like the millions of other Jews living on this planet.


Likewise I also have a problem with McElroy and Vahdat’s supposed expert sources they used in their article who are not even Iranian Jews nor credible scholars with any real familiarity with the subject of Iranian Jewry! The authors of the article list “Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies” in London and some Iranian internet blogger “Mehdi Khazali” as their experts who back the unproven claim that Ahmadinejad was supposedly born a Jew.

Both Nourizadeh and Khazali are clearly NOT Jewish and my question as a reader of the article (and not as an Iranian Jewish journalist) is a simple one; why would anyone cite non-Jewish experts unfamiliar with Iranian Jewry as supposed accurate sources on a story about the Jewish origins of a country’s leader?


You’d think these journalists would go through some effort to find some sort of a Jewish scholar or expert familiar with Iran to substantiate their claims—but no, McElroy and Vahdat instead rely on Iranian Muslims with no real knowledge of Iranian Jewry to prove their allegations of Ahmadinejad supposed Jewish roots. Therefore the articles authors’ use of these non-Jewish experts who lack any real credibility or knowledge of this topic clearly places the entire accuracy of their overall story on Ahmadinejad into question for me.

Iranian Jewish experts I consulted with also said they were unable to read the unclear photo of the Ahmadinejad’s identity papers to properly verify the Telegraph’s story.


Another serious question I have with the accuracy of McElroy and Vahdat’s story is their claim that Ahmadinejad’s alleged Jewish name “is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran’s Ministry of the Interior”. Again I am perplexed at why these seasoned journalists would place any kind of credibility on an official Iranian government document when most experts familiar with the current Iranian regime know very well that any time lists of names are “complied by the Iranian government” they are used by different forces in the regime for nothing more than to attack another official, party or faction in the country.


The most classic and detrimental way Iranian government officials have attacked one another is to claim that the “such and such official was born a Jew, or was once a Jew who converted to Islam, or his family was Jewish a generation ago and then converted”. The “Jewish identity label” is your classic textbook example of anti-Semitism at its prime that is thrown around as a type of public insult or verbal assault officials in Iran and in most Islamic nations used against one another in smear campaigns.

The Iranian Jewish experts I interviewed this morning in L.A. informed me that for one Iranian government official to call or accuse another government official of being Jewish is the equivalent to individuals or groups in the U.S. to accuse an elected official in America of being a child molester or pedophiliac! This is the sad and unfortunately reality that being a Jew in Iran has a very derogatory meaning.


The negative connotation of claiming that someone Muslim in Iran is Jewish or has Jewish roots brings me to my final analysis of the true origins of this entire Ahmadinejad-Jewish story. Iran experts here in L.A. I recently interviewed said that even before Ahmadinejad, various “reformist” leaders during the “open era” of the past Iranian President Mohammad Khatami during the 1990s and early 2000s were using “Jewishness” as a verbal assault against other rival officials they hated or against other Iranian officials who presumably had Jewish blood.

Frank Nikbakht, an L.A.-based Iranian Jewish activist and director of the Committee for Minority Rights in Iran, said the accusations Iranian officials make of each other being Jewish is nothing new for Iran’s current regime.


“I remember in early 2000 when members of Khatami’s reformist party in Iran accused one of their hardliner rivals, a man named Habibollah Ashkaroladi Mosalman, of having Jewish roots,” said Nikbakht in a telephone interview today. “What we are seeing today with this story of Ahmadinejad being supposedly Jewish is the same smear tactics the reformists have used in the past against their hardliner opponents”. It seems as if even the supposed “reformists” in Iran, who Obama administration officials and other Western leaders have long hail as being supposedly “open-minded”, are also now showing their true anti-Semitic tendencies by vilifying Ahmadinejad with disgusting anti-Semitic rhetoric!


Why else would Ahmadinejad be such an evil and horrible dictator trying to take over the world and kill people? He must no doubt be a Jew. Sounds like garbage you might read in the classic anti-Semitic book the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”! (By the way, the Persian language copies of the Protocols have long been best sellers in Iran with more than 400 pages added to the original Russian version published in the 1880s).

As an journalist I am shocked at the lack of accurate reporting and very poor journalism in McElroy and Vahdat’s story regarding Ahmadinejad in this instance. Shame on the Daily Telegraph’s editors for publishing such inaccurate claims with no real experts familiar with Iranian Jewry cited. The reporters and editors at this paper are either completely brainless or stooges and mouth-pieces for “reformists” officials in Iran who have begun this smear campaign against Ahmadinejad.


It’s poor journalism like this story that fan the fires of anti-Semitism and hate around the world. Readers and bloggers worldwide should condemn this story published by the Telegraph, call for McElroy and Vahdat’s resignation and write letters to the newspaper about their poor journalism in this instance.


Lastly, even if this story is true (which I highly doubt) it is well known in Iran that those who have converted to Islam over the years have done so because of different family disputes including inheritance rights.

According to Iran’s radical Shiite Islamic laws, new converts to Islam who came from a non-Muslim family, can automatically inherit all of their dead non-Muslim relative’s assets without the need to go to probate court and their non-Muslim family members are entitled to none of the inheritances. These new Muslim converts from Judaism (also known as “jadid-ol-eslam” or new to Islam) today and in the past have typically been the most anti-Semitic of Muslims living in Iran.

2000 Years + Later

If there is one question that Jews get asked ad infinitum, it’s: why don’t you worship Jesus?



There are so many answers to this, though none satisfy of course. Many Christians believe with a passion that we Jews have somehow managed to misunderstand and misinterpet our own religious texts, the Tanakh.


Perhaps one way of answering the age-old Jesus question, though, is to remind our Christian friends that in fact, Jesus was nothing unique at that time. He was one of many young Jewish blokes wandering around Judea, proclaiming himself ‘maschiach’.


Many other men did exactly the same and just like Jesus, they too failed to fulfill the 23 Jewish messianic prophecies before they died. There is no ’second coming’ in Judaism.


Take a look at these other aspiring maschiachs. Some fulfilled more of the prophecies than Jesus – he, after all, only fulfilled one, namely that he was born to a Jewish mother.


Note also how many of these other claimants were also executed by the Romans.


Judah Maccabee – delivered the Jews from oppression by leading rebellion against Syria. The Maccabee familes ruled over Israel for over 250 years – and there was peace. Maccabee priests were all anointed. Judah Maccabe qualifies as a would-be Maschiach.


Theudas: claimed to be a prophet and a would-be maschiach. He is mentioned in Josephus (Antiquities, 20:97).
In 44 C.E. he was crucified by the Romans.



Judas of Galilee: led Jewish uprising against Rome, 6.C.E. Mentioned in Josephus (Wars, 2:118). He tried to liberate the Jews from Roman rule – his followers called him the Saviour, and the Messiah.
He was crucified by the Romans.



Benjamin the Egyptian: Mentioned in Josephus (War 2.261263). He claimed to be the Maschiach, and he inspired rebellion against Rome.
He too was crucified by the Romans.



Menachem: grandson of Judas the Galilean, 67.C.E. Outspoken, zealot, leader, claimed to be the Maschiach.
He was crucified by the Romans.


Cyrus, King of Persia: called lthe ‘mash’aka’ (anointed) according to Isaiah (Isaiah 45:1)


King David &
King Hezekiah:

- both were anointed, both ruled and brought peace. Both named the ‘king of the Jews’.



And there were many others, including:


Menahem ben Judah.

Moses of Crete.Serene.

David Alroy.

Abraham Abulafia.

Asher Lemmlein.

Reubeni and Solomon Molko.

Isaac Luria.

Moses Luzzatto.

Britain: Democracy:0, Neo Nazis:1

Let’s get one thing straight: it is the fault of Labour that the vile BNP is enjoying more success than ever before. It is not because Britain is a land of neo Nazis and racists. Far from it: Brits are a tolerant and amiable lot, far too tolerant, if anything.




Labour is determined to ignore the huge pink elephants in the room; namely, immigration, and islamification. Never mind that the majority of Brits are worried about these issues. Never mind that we have been beseeching our MPs to tackle them. Labour doesn’t give a damn. Enter the BNP – which does address these issues, albeit from awful motives.



You don’t have to be a Hitler wannabe to worry about immigration. We have a tiny country, with a national health service that is on its knees, and schools where entire classes don’t speak English. The Labour immigration policy is a disgrace; we all know full well that thousands of illegal immigrants have vanished into the ether, never to be seen again, let alone be made to contribute anything to the country they now call ‘home’. The benefits system is an equal sham and frankly, if I read one more story about how a Muslim immigrant is getting benefits for each of his five wives, I think I’ll scream.



Nor do you have to be a racist to worry about the gradual islamification of Europe – and how Britain is leading the trend. There are now books we can’t read or buy, because Muslims didn’t like the topic. There are restaurants that have ceased providing non halal meat – meaning customers can’t get ham on their pizzas. There are entire areas of this country that are no-go for non Muslims. Public swimming pools insist that all women wear ‘burkinis’. Churches are being torn down, to make way for Mosques. Muslim protestors insult and bully and take photographs of returning British troops out on parade.



And we don’t like it. We wouldn’t like it if it was Hindus, or Jews, or Sikhs behaving in this manner either. It happens to be Muslims. Acknowledging this does not make one a racist any more than it’s ‘racist’ to note that most serial killers are white males.



But Labour doesn’t care. And so in saunters the BNP. Watching the party leader on Question Time recently was a highly unpleasant experience. You just knew, watching Nick Griffin’s face, that he’s waited years to appear on a mainstream – in fact, a flagship – political programme. When his name was called, along with the ‘other’ politicians, you could just see him inwardly preening.



As for the pathetic BBC argument that it was a matter of ‘free speech’ to allow him onto the show – rubbish. Free speech means you can hold and express your own opinions and no matter how much others might disagree, they can’t prosecute you for them. Free speech does not mean there is any duty to invite known racists such as Griffin onto popular programmes where they get a chance to woo potential supporters.



I guarantee that – given the atrocious performance by Labour in the shape of Jack Straw on Question time - some viewers would have finished watching and then quietly gone to their computers, and paid a visit to the BNP website. And we can thank the BBC for that. The show was a chance for our government to really show its metal – and it failed. Miserably.



Instead, we were treated to the sight of Jack Straw, stammering and stumbling over his words, before finally boasting of his own immigrant credentials by suddenly announcing that he was the grandson of a Jewish immigrant to Britain.



Funny. Mr Straw didn’t seem to give a damn about his ‘jewish roots’ last year when he took every opportunity to stick the boot in and bash Israel for trying to end eight years of Hamas terrorism.



The rest of the panel didn’t fare any better. Bonnie Greer lounged at the end of the table, occasionally half turning to bait Nick Griffin in the manner of a 12 year old schoolgirl taking on a nervous supply teacher.



In fact, the entire thing resembled nothing so much as playground antics. Hardly the way to combat the lure presented by the BNP to a population so desperate to have its concerns heard that it will even embrace the toad-like, Holocaust denying, repulsive little man that is Nick Griffin.



I pray that Labour fails at the next election. I don’t suppose the Tories will be much better, but I’m not sure they could be much worse for the country than the lacklustre Brown and devious Mandelson. Labour’s legacy? Among other things, it may well be a more popular, more powerful BNP, for which we’ll all pray a price.



Here’s Melanie Phillips:


The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us.



So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.



Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?



The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate.



There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.


This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.



And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.


In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised ‘firm control over immigration’ and in 2005 it promised a ‘crackdown on abuse’. In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages.


But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote that until ‘at least February last year’, when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.



This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year.


Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some seven million more will be added to Britain’s population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the Eighties.


Such an increase is simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government’s ‘driving political purpose’, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’.


It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.



It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.



Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.


Even Neather found that particular element of gratuitous Left-wing bullying to be ‘a manoeuvre too far’.


Yet apart from this, Neather sees nothing wrong in the policy he has described. Indeed, the reason for his astonishing candour is he thinks it’s something to boast about. Mass immigration, he wrote, had provided the ‘foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners’ without whom London could hardly function.


What elitist arrogance! As if most people employ nannies, cleaners and gardeners. And what ignorance. The argument that Britain is better off with this level of immigration has been conclusively shown to be economically illiterate.


Neather gave the impression that most immigrants are Eastern Europeans. But these form fewer than a quarter of all immigrants.


And the fact is that, despite his blithe assertions to the contrary, schools in areas of very high immigration find it desperately difficult to cope with so many children who don’t even have basic English. Other services, such as health or housing, are similarly being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers.



But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain’s identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country’s.


A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.


It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.


In Neather’s hermetically sealed bubble, the benefits of mass immigration were so overwhelming he couldn’t understand why ministers had been so nervous about it.



They were, he wrote, reluctant to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all to Labour’s core white working class vote. So they deliberately kept it secret.


They knew that if they told the truth about what they were doing, voters would rise up in protest. So they kept it out of their election manifestos.




It was indeed a conspiracy to deceive the electorate into voting for them. And yet it is these very people who have the gall to puff themselves up in self-righteous astonishment at the rise of the BNP.


No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty on last week’s Question Time when he was asked whether it was the Government’s failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP.


‘No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty… when he was asked whether it was the Government’s failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP’


Now we know it was no such failure of policy. It was deliberate. For the government of which Straw is such a long- standing member had secretly plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity.




This more than any other reason is why Nick Griffin has gained so much support. According to a YouGov poll taken after Question Time, no fewer than 22 per cent of British voters would ’seriously consider’ voting for the BNP.


That nearly one quarter of British people might vote for a neo-Nazi party with views inimical to democracy, human rights and common decency is truly appalling.


The core reason is that for years they have watched as their country’s landscape has been transformed out of all recognition – and that politicians from all mainstream parties have told them first that it isn’t happening and second, that they are racist bigots to object even if it is.


Now the political picture has been transformed overnight by the unguarded candour of Andrew Neather’s eye-opening superciliousness. For now we know that Labour politicians actually caused this to happen – and did so out of total contempt for their own core voters.


As Neather sneered, the jobs filled by immigrant workers ‘certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley – fascist au pair, anyone?’




So that’s how New Labour views the white working class, supposedly the very people it is in politics to champion. Who can wonder that its core vote is now decamping in such large numbers to the BNP when Labour treats them like this?




Condemned out of its own mouth, it is New Labour that is responsible for the rise of the BNP – by an act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation.