Slaughter in the synagogue is just politics as usual


There is a perception, if not a widespread understanding, that anything to do with Jews and everything to do with Israel is acutely political. Throughout its recorded history and deeply divided textual historicity, questions of critical substance, reliability, ideology and theology abound. They may be reviewed, redacted, reformed or reaffirmed, but whichever way the Chosen People and the Promised Land are configured, theology becomes politics and politics is theological. You put a bunch of Jews in a synagogue in Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel, and the business of shul becomes a political process because Israel’s existence and Jerusalem’s status are problems awaiting international resolution. Their slaughter is tragic, but it may be construed as a justifiable political act by the oppressed people of Palestine because Israel cannot be conceived apart from its self-belief: there is no Israeli politics apart from its defining theological self-presentation.

Hence the tweets from Liberal Democrat MP David Ward and, for the Conservatives, Baroness Warsi. “Attack by #Palestinians in Jerusalem sickening madness – driven to madness by failure of international community to deal with Israel,” says Ward. “Israeli extremists storm Al Aqsa & intimidate worshippers Palestinian extremists storm synagogue & kill 4 worshippers #Tragic #peacenotwar,” says Warsi, then taking a swipe at Tory Chairman Grant Shapps for his hypocrisy.

It is quite astonishing moral turpitude to equate a blatant act of terrorism against worshipping Jews with Israeli national self-preservation. It is sickening indeed that the Palestinian “madness” is excused on the grounds of international indifference and the “failure..to deal with Israel”. Deal how? Do what? On what legal basis? With what equitable moral justification?

The God of Israel is the God of the whole world. The Jews were chosen, but the Church has been grafted into the vine of salvation. Israeli power, policies and practices may no longer conform to the theological precepts of the Torah, but they remain the things of God because He remains the God of Israel. Power is polluted, politics is partial and policy is provisional. They err because we see in mirrors dimly. But the theology is absolute, and it demands justice and freedom. The political context changes, but the songs of lament and metaphors of opposition remain. Pharaoh vs YHWH has become Hamas vs Netanyahu: it is Israel vs Absolutism, Totalism and Tyranny.

Israel’s political life is in tension with its religious expression: the Covenant of YHWH is a relationship which might be used righteously or exploited. But the existential life-and death decisions routinely made by the Israeli government may not be ascribed or apportioned to every Israeli. To slaughter praying Jews in their shul for no other reason than that they are Jews praying in their shul is not a madness which can be blamed on the indolence of the international community. Nor is it equivalent to any protest made on Temple Mount. It is an insufferable act of evil of the subversive sort to which Israel has long been accustomed, and Jews have chronically endured. Slaughter in the synagogue is just politics as usual. That is the characteristic deficiency and true failure of the international community.

  • Martin

    Isn’t it strange how politics is used to justify murder. Indeed, is it ever justifiable to kill someone because you can’t get what you want?

    • sarky

      Absolutely not. But for politics also read religion.

      • Martin


        You mean like your religion, Atheism.

        • sarky

          Last time I checked atheism wasn’t a religion. I have no god, no church and no holy book. I dont pray or sing hymns and I dont have a representative whom I look to for guidance. My life is not guided by religion or god but by my own values and morality. I have not rejected mainstream religion just to become involved in religion in another form. My views are my own and I will express them, but I will not preach them or indoctrinate others into them. My atheism is mine and mine alone.

          • Martin


            Yeh, Atheists like to say that, but then you have a strange idea of what a religion is.

            Fact is, you do have a god, your own will, which you place above every authority there might be. What ever you will, you do. As your last two sentences express.

      • carl jacobs


        So what is your point? That anything can be used to justify murder? That’s hardly original.

        Or are you saying something like “Religion is uniquely capable of justifying murder?” Perhaps “Religion, like politics, is uniquely capable of justifying murder.” Of course, virtually all murders are motivated by the mundane. The desire for money. The desire for revenge. The desire for respect. The desire for power. Murder very rarely has an ideological end.

        So perhaps you are saying “Religion like politics is uniquely capable of justifying ideological murder.” Well of course that’s true. Where do you think ideologies come from? And people will kill for any ideology in order to enforce the worldview behind the ideology. Officially atheist ideology was responsible for… what … 100 million deaths in the 20th century? 150 million?

        There are as many reason to kill as there are men, and there are seven times as many justifications. Motivations and passions and ideas don’t kill. Men kill. The common denominator in murder is a man who wants but does not possess, and so he kills to get. Everything else is just rationalization.

        Or perhaps what you are really saying is this. “I don’t like religion very much and I would like to see it go away. And so I’ll say ‘Religion leads men to kill.’ If only men would become atheists, then there would be peace among men.” Am I finally getting close?

        • CliveM

          Succinct and rational.

        • sarky

          In a way yes, if there was no religion there would be one less reason to kill. I am not that naive to think that killing would disappear with religion, but the biggest threat to the world comes from religion. The middle east is on a knife edge that could explode with catastrophic consequences for us all and this does not have an atheistic cause. I would argue that atheism wasnt the cause of 150 million deaths, power and greed maybe, but not atheism, and I would rather face an atheist who is protective of their one life, than a religious nutter who believes their Martyrdom leads to a glorious afterlife.

          • CliveM

            It’s interesting, when an atheist murders a few million, it’s about power, but when a religious person murders it is always about faith!!

            Actually what is happening in the ME is very much about politics and power.
            Most conflicts are.

          • avi barzel

            Sarky, even for an atheist, you have an astonishingly naïve understanding of human nature and human thought.

            Let’s try this in “a-religious” parlance. Look at “religion” as the universal evolutionary default condition arising from our comparatively huge and complex neo-cortex. Magical thinking ,we’re talking about in secular terminology, and it appears in all forms, including supposedly totally secular ideologies, philosophies and ethics. Your objection to killing, for example, has no material, rational or evidence-based value. Yes, helping one’s group is beneficial, but so is wiping out all actual and potential competition, even in the most inhumane manner possible. So is killing old people and even eating them…especially once they lose their value as contributors of proteins and labour or transmitters of information and useful skills.

            You are engaging in religious/magical thinking no less than the guy who prays all day. Theoretically splitting modes of thinking into “religious” and “secular” conceptual constructs is entertaining from a phenomenological perspective, but utterly useless from a purely materialism-based one.

          • sarky

            Avi, I am fully aware that”religous” and “secular” constructs are not seperate but fully intertwined. Yes killing for advantage is an evolutionary trait and does make sense from a strictly biological point of view. However, as human beings we have evolved a moral framework to counter this, because how is it an evolutionary advantage to fight each other to extinction?

          • avi barzel

            Examine your own claims, Sarky. A moral framework that evolved to stop us from fighting each other to extinction? Or vestigial “phantom limbs” of religious mores reaching you and others of the last of the moral generations?

            To wit, Meso-American civilizations and a number of other cultures throughout history developed complex moral frameworks to justify, indeed to sanctify, capture of enemies and cannibalism. Had they not done this, they would have perished from exhausted resources and lack of proteins in the long term. And that’s in fact what happened when Conquistadores and Christian missionaries intervened.

            The point is, that if you look through the dispassionate, cultural-materialistic lens at human history, you will not find many examples of survival strategies that are universal, or ones that lead to a universal moral framework. You violate the laws of evolution and natural selection. And as an evolutionist, I’m neither being cute or mendacious about it; diversity and divergence at all stages of biological or social organization will guarantee that no evolved moral framework will survive a sudden absence of tomorrow’s supper.

          • avi barzel

            Sarky, being from a former communist country, I have had first-hand experience in seeing what my cohort, most of whom…unlike me… grew up without a smidgen of religious ethics. Raised as atheists from birth, the idea of killing one person or a thousand, or a million, did not phase them. The all-powerful state became their all-powerful and infinitely good god, its functionaries their priests and gurus and the propaganda their holy scripture. You don’t need a religion or a belief in an after-life to sacrifice others’ life…or your own.

          • sarky

            Avi, if that is true how come we in the west still exist? If life is that cheap to atheists (whom I think you confuse with communists, the two are not mutually inclusive) then the communists would have nuked us off the face of the planet without second thought of retaliation and their own demise. Or, could it be they developed morals away from god?

          • avi barzel

            I don’t believe that all atheists are evil. Atheism, can be a developed philosophy (e.g., Greeks and medieval Arabs like Averroes and Avicenna)…but as a minority and in the context of a larger moral, religious (or supernatural-believing) society. Just as absolute theologies are a bad idea, so are absolute atheistic dictatorships. Atheism, as you imagine it…as an ultra-rationalist absence of illusions…simply doesn’t exist.

  • carl jacobs

    All politics is local. When a politician makes a statement, he is speaking to a local community. In this case, he is reassuring a constituency that its perceptions of reality are not affected by the killing. He is saying “The Israelis have not because of this event acquired the enviable status of ‘victim’ relative to the Palestinians.”

    What should be noticed however is the local impact on Israel. The real political loser would be the idiot peace movement among Israelis. For here you have the heart of the Palestinian enemy revealed in one action – if you choose.to see this killing as representative. And why should you not? You have the future painted in blood on a canvas for all to see. Every such action hardens the Israelis just a little bit more.

    Every time this happens, the “International Community” becomes that much less capable of “dealing with” Israel, because the Israelis know the end game they are trying to prevent. They know who will be there in the end, and who will be speaking to a local constituency. And they see the blood spatter on the wall.

    • CliveM

      “All politics is local”

      Certainly true in Mr Wards case. Defending a 360 majority with a large Muslim vote. This individual has a history with regards Israel.

  • Busy Mum

    ‘deal’ with Israel = get rid of Israel.

    Politicians never say exactly what they mean – they are even better at taqiyya than the professionals.

    We have a choice; either willfully choose to believe what is said or join the Jews in understanding what is meant.

  • Uncle Brian

    One of the lying propagandists whose tweets show up on Your Grace’s link says this: Natural reaction of what they have been doing with Holy Al-Quds.
    When he says “they” he means, of course, the Israelis, and when he says “Holy Al Quds” what he means, of course, is the Temple Mount. Rightly or wrongly, in the wake of the recovery of Jerusalem in the Six Day War the Israeli government, in the person of Moshe Dayan, decided to leave the Temple Mount under Muslim control. That is what “they” did with it.

    • avi barzel

      A grand-cousin of mine was there, by the Western Wall, when Dayan magnanimously ordered that the Israeli flag be taken down from the dome and that the Temple complex be given to the Waqf as a gesture of good will and peace…one in the long line of many pointless ones. My uncle, an atheistic communist labour-Zionist, who couldn’t give a green fig for the religious significance to the Temple Mound, was livid and thought that this was one of the stupidest decisions ever. In fact he, as well others, believed that with all the artillery barrages between Israeli and Jordanian forces, and the Jordanians’ record of massacres and destruction of Jewish sites and cemeteries, the opportunity and the moral momentum was there for Israel to blow the mosque to rubble, chase off the Jordanians and their settlers from the eastern parts of the Old City they illegally occupied, and end the nonsense once and for all. No, it wouldn’t have brought peace, but neither did any of the concessions then and since and such an act of Israeli resolution might, justy might, have prevented the Arabs from embarking on their triumphalist fantasies.

      • carl jacobs


        There is a part of me the agrees with you – the same part that would demolish the Dome of the Rock today. It was put there for triumphalist reasons in the first place. Its construction on top of the Old Temple was not an accident. This BTW is the same part of me that regrets the US stopping Sharon on the drive to Cairo in 1973. The Arabs in general and the Egyptians in particular deserved the humilation of Israeli tanks in their capital. Demolishing the Dome of the Rock would likewise be a well-deserved humiliation for the whole Muslim world. “You put this here to demonstrate your power. We will remove it to demonstrate your weakness.”

        And yet, I can’t shake Kissinger’s logic for stopping Sharon. It would have guaranteed perpetual war. There would have been no Begin/Sadat at Camp David without Sharon being denied his revenge. Some piece of Egyptian pride had to be preserved. I think destroying the Dome would be similar in consequence to not stopping Sharon ex eat the consequences would be magnified seventy times seven. It might be deserved, and it might be satisfying, but would it be wise? Either then or now?

        • avi barzel

          And part of me agrees, or more exactly once agreed with your final assessment, Carl.

          But two things. One, it is pointless to attempt to guess alternate futures, such as a Begin/Sadat agreement. A defeat of the leading Arab state of the day may have also changed conditions to even better arrangements. And two, same with the destruction of the Dome back in 1967, before the West knuckled under them in the face of terrorism threats and oil blackmail in full gear. We can speculate ’til the cows come home, but it seems that clear victories, especially where Islam is concerned…as borne by history again and again….are preferable and less damaging to all sides than drawn-out conflicts.

          Satisfying? God forbid, no; no one should feel satisfaction from harsh measures, even over the destruction of an enemy’s sacred symbol.

        • CliveM


          Towards the end of the Great War, as the armistice was being negotiated, the British General Haig pushed for the armistice, wanting to save as many of his Soldiers lives as possible. The German army whilst in retreat was still in good order. We were suffering 20k casualties each week.
          The American General Pershing opposed the armistice. He was of the opinion that to avoid a future conflict the German army needed to be finally defeated in battle, otherwise their was a risk that the Germans would feel betrayed by politicians and undefeated in battle and thirst for revenge.

          I know you know this.

          Thing is he was right. To learn a lesson properly sometimes the enemy needs to be humiliated and their noses rubbed in it.

  • IanCad

    Let’s face it; “Dealing” with Israel means Davy Jones.

  • dannybhoy

    There is a madness that appears in some religions, resulting in the most horrific exploitation, subjugation, and slaughter of those who disagree with our point of view.
    That’s a historical fact.
    Atheistic totalitarian regimes are capable of similar acts, although it doesn’t appear at first sight to be madness; it is rationalised as a necessary evil in order to secure the “cooperation” of the present generation and improve the lot of future generations…

    Israel exists today largely because (imv) God used the British Empire in exactly the same way He used Nebuchadnezzar to take the Jews into captivity in Babylon, and their subsequent return under the protection and patronage of Cyrus the Great..

    If we as Christians believe in God has an overall plan for this world, we also believe He intervenes at the behest of the penitent supplications of His Chosen people and we who are grafted in by the grace and salvation brought by Yeshua HaMeshiach our Lord Jesus Christ.

    After the horrors of the Holocaust
    (and I urge all Christians to read at least one book written by a survivor or the children of survivors to understand how traumatic that time of hell was for ordinary people whose only “crime” was being Jewish)
    the existence of Jewish settlements (built on land bought and paid for by wealthy Jews from Arab landowners) was God’s provision for the eventual founding of the nation of Israel. That the Middle East was mainly under the control of the British Empire and there were those professing Christians in Britain who supported Israel was most fortuitous in this regard.

    Now as to the politics of the democratic State of Israel, she must accept that as a democratic state she will be questioned as to her policies and attitudes to the Palestinians. Israel is not always right in what she does, and I fear some of her policies are indeed counterproductive, even if we understand the rationale.

    We also have the right to question what sort of peace is being talked about by Islam when it describes itself as “the religion of peace” and what kind of morality justifies two Muslims entering a Jewish synagogue armed with knives and an axe and setting about the slaughter of four mature/elderly men going about their peaceful devotions.
    This could be excused by some on the grounds of the perceived unfair treatment suffered by Palestinians under Israeli control.
    But let’s look at the wider picture in the Middle East. How does the religion of peace explain the murder, rape, mutilation and decapitation of men women and children whether they be Christian, Yazidi, Kurds or even Muslims??
    There IS no excuse.

  • len

    ‘Deal with Israel’.
    So whatever happens the Jews are to blame .
    Where have I heard this before?

  • Royinsouthwest

    David Ward and “Baroness” Warsi would evidently rather “deal” with Israel than with ISIS, Hamas, or any other bunch of Islamic terrorists.

  • The Rabbis died with Torah on their lips and God in their hearts. The policeman died as a result of his duty. This to my mind is Kiddush Hashem and Kedoshim.To the families of the bereaved: “Hamakom Yenachem Etchem Betoch Shar Avalei Tzion B’Yerushalaim” (may God comfort you and all the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem).

    Warsi and Ward should be ashamed at themselves do their remarks.

    To Warsi: There’s been no attempt to “storm” a mosque, merely a desire among some Jews to peacefully pray on the Temple Mount. Not even these Jews would dare set foot into the mosque because it is held that this is the place where the Holy of Holies (and the Ark of the Covenant at one time) is deemed to be. To compare this to the tragic slaughter of Orthodox Rabbis whilst in prayer -one of which is always for peace-who probably wouldn’t have approved of Jews praying on the Mount anyway- is just disgusting.

    To Ward: the madness is in making cheap political points out of a terrorist attack and ipso facto blaming Israel for it, rather than the perpetrators themselves.

    • Stephen Raftery

      6 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!
      “May they be secure who love you!
      7 Peace be within your walls
      and security within your towers!”
      8 For my brothers and companions’ sake
      I will say, “Peace be within you!”
      9 For the sake of the house of the LORD our God,
      I will seek your good.
      Ps 122:6–9

  • Shadrach Fire

    Your Grace,
    Deal with Israel? Does Warsi and Ward also want to deal with The Falklands and with Gibraltar. Each have people who have homes and families and livelihoods.
    Hands off and get on with life.

    • Hi shadrach,

      Just love the Falklands, even the penguins are clearly British, in account of their accents(:

      Interestingly enough I’m going to Gibraltar sometime in December. Apparently one of the reasons Spain later attacked and tried to get back Gibraltar was because they there was a stipulation in the initial treaty in 1704 that no Jews were allowed into the colony*, which isn’t surprising given Spain’s treatment of Sephardic Jews in 1492 or fascist Franco’s ludicrous claims to British territory . Hum ho, Gibraltar is full of “illegal”colonists, but then it’s not as if Spain has colonies in Morocco or anything , but then it’s good to know that Britain is on a par with Israel when it comes to disputed territories…..

      *which was ignored by the British and rightly so.

      • CliveM

        One of the differences however is Israel is trying to hold onto hers, the Foreign Office however is desperate to find a way of dumping ours.

        It isn’t just our political class who are cowards.

        • Merchantman

          Much of our political class is simply self serving and decadent and can’t relate anymore to what God’s purpose for Britain is.

          • CliveM

            Agreed. They believe the States only purpose is to pay them their pensions.

        • Hi Clive

          I agree and if I were prime minister of the UK, I’d have not slashed the defence forces, but expanded them. And if the Argies or Spanish wanted a fight I’d send a taskforce to defend British soil. Both the Falklands and Gibraltar are overwhelming in wanting to be British and therefore they shouldn’t be sold down the river, but defended and supported.

          • CliveM


            You are a wise and perceptive woman. I agree with your whole post. A British Governments 1st duty is to protect Her Majesties subjects!

          • Oops like avi I responded to the wrong person. My reply is above!

          • Hi Clive,

            My historical political heros would probably be:

            Golda Meir
            Lord Palmerston
            Winston Churchill
            Harry S Truman
            Benjamin Disraeli
            Margaret Thatcher
            Ronald Reagan

          • CliveM

            Hmm Pitt the Younger should be on that list.

          • Hi Clive,

            Honestly men! There’s .no pleasing you guys sometimes. Alright already I’ve added Mr Pitt to the list.

          • CliveM

            Hmmm, I hope they aren’t in order!!!!

            Pitt the Younger above Palmerston I think.

            Ok so I have a bit of a cheek.

            I did say you were wise and perceptive!

          • dannybhoy

            And why haven’t you included Oliver Cromwell?
            And what about Moshe Rosen??

          • CliveM

            Oliver Cromwell, she said statesmen not mass murderers!

          • dannybhoy

            Hannah and Clive,

            Oliver was England’s reluctant Lord Protector, creator of the New Model Army and most importantly delivered this great country from a dastardly king who believed in the Divine Right of Kings meaning he could do whatever he wanted..

            He was also a friend to the Jewish people…

            Yes, he did some bad and harsh things, I don’t deny, but he was still a great statesman and loved his country.

            I chose this version of events as it seemed apt…


          • CliveM

            See quotes below, can’t remember from where:

            “The Physician-General of the Army of Cromwell, Dr. William Petty, estimated that about 504,000 of the Irish perished and were wasted by sword, plague, famine, hardship and banishment between 23rd October 1641 and the same day in 1652. Put another way, the population of Ireland in 1641 was 1,448,000 and by 1652, 616,000 perished of which 504,000 were natives and 112,000 colonists.”

            “Mammon, too, might be a motivating force in Cromwell’s zeal in Ireland . In 1642, a group of businessmen offered to finance a war against Ireland . These investors, called the Adventurers, were to be repaid with Irish land. Oliver Cromwell was one of the investors, purchasing 2000 pounds worth of debentures in this scheme. When Ireland was conquered, the Adventurers were rewarded when Ireland was “settled.””

            Their is a fair bit of controversy surrounding the actual numbers killed and displaced, but this is the NMO own estimates, so I can’t be accused of being biased.

            A lot of people have loved their country, even Charles I.

          • Busy Mum

            Unfortunately, the Stuart kings loved the Papacy even more.

          • CliveM


          • Busy Mum

            Do you?

          • CliveM

            I’ve been a member of the Church of Scotland my whole adult life.

            Personally I view becoming a RC as less of a crime then killing etc 504000 Irish.

          • Busy Mum

            I think the 504000 includes all the victims of that period i.e. the victims of the massacre as well as of the retribution.

            Schools do not teach it at all – it’s just that even they have a tiny bit of conscience left which means they dare not portray Cromwell as some bloodthirsty warmonger who went into Ireland for no reason. The school textbooks tend to treat it as an English/Irish conflict rather than a Protestant/RC one.

            I quoted Hume rather than a historian who could be accused of being biased; if people are now totally rejecting the massacre (which has been called Ireland’s St Bartholomew’s) the Jesuits have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in disseminating their propaganda.

            Of course, we have to make allowance for the inherent Jacobite tendencies of the Scots……:)

            I recall that the Scottish protestants paid very heavily for their animosity towards Cromwell and their blind attachment to the Stuart monarchy ( I am a monarchist!) with years of persecution from 1660-1668. The Scotch Covenanters is one group of Christians that has been totally written out of the school history books!

          • CliveM

            I think we have veered wildly of topic!

            So a couple of quick points. The 504000 was the estimate of “rebel” deaths. Loyalist deaths are on top of this.

            If schools teach this as simply political, those involved would be very confused! Yes it was political, but their was a religious element as well, as Oliver Cromwell would confirm.

            I am unable (although willing to proven wrong) to find any current historian who would confirm the massacre of Protestants. Killing did take place as previously described.

            Yes Oliver Cromwell is unpopular in Scotland as well. Although I wouldn’t say they where enthusiastic with regards the Stuarts, indeed the future Charles II felt vary badly treated! When King he never set foot in Scotland.
            What you need to remember is Scotland and England where separate nations still and Charles I, independent of his status in England was also King of Scotland.

          • CliveM

            There is so much Historically wrong with your post it is hard to know where to start! 🙂

            The 504,000 estimate was based on Irish dead, displaced etc. and does not include Protestant Loyalists. All these figures come with a big health warning, but it is interesting that this is the NMA’s estimate. Clearly at the least, it was figure they were proud of.

            The Scottish Parliament was not enamoured of the Stuarts. Firstly they didn’t like their politics or religious sympathies either. Secondly they had to be persuaded to side with the Stuarts and extracted a high price for it. It is why Scotland is a Presbyterian Country, not an Episcopal one. The future Charles II felt humiliated by their demands and refused to visit Scotland when King (He particularly hated the Sermons he had to endure!!).

            If Schools are only teaching the political aspect and not the religious aspect as well, clearly the teaching of the period is badly wrong (I think we would both agree on this). Indeed the leading personalities of the period wouldn’t have understood why anyone would question this:

            “I shall not, where I have power, and the Lord is pleased to bless me, suffer the exercise of the Mass…. nor suffer you that are Papists…. “ Oliver Cromwell

            One final point Jacobism in Scotland was always a minority. The infamous 3rd verse and the ‘rebellious Scots to crush’ refers to the Jacobites and was as keenly sung in the salons of Edinburgh and Glasgow as it was in London.

            P.s I will ignore your ‘Scotch’ faux pas!

          • CliveM

            P.p.s do you think we have gone off topic!!

          • Busy Mum

            Definitely – busy at being a mum today – will have to resume this on a more suitable thread another day!!

          • Busy Mum

            Definitely! We will have to resume this discussion another day on a more suitable thread. Let’s hope it’s not in the school hols!

          • Busy Mum

            mass murderer or executor of justice?
            Hume’s account of the massacre of Irish Protestants in 1641.
            “….death was the lightest punishment inflicted by these rebels. All the tortures which wanton cruelty could devise, all the lingering pains of body, the anguish of mind, the agonies of despair, could not satiate revenge excited without injury, and cruelty derived from no cause. To enter into the particulars would shock the least delicate humanity. Such enormities, though attested by undoubted evidence, appear almost incredible. Amidst all these enormities the sacred name of RELIGION resounded on every side, not to stop the hands of these murderers, but to enforce their blows, and to steel their hearts against every movement of human or social sympathy.”

            ‘Oliver Cromwell, the great man who in 1649 meted out well-deserved punishment to the authors and abettors of these crimes.’ Sir Robert Anderson, 1841-1918

          • CliveM

            You do know there is no evidence this massacre actually happened?

            Of the 504,000 who died etc how many of them were woman, children and babies?

          • Busy Mum

            What motive would Hume have for making it up?

            I have never in my life come across a total rejection of the event – even the school textbooks, notoriously anti-Protestant, include it.

          • CliveM

            Hume didn’t make it up, he simply believed the propoganda.

            Firstly at the time it was claimed 200000 Protestants where massacred by the Catholic Irish. It is now commonly accepted that the uprising in 1641 led to between 2000 and an upper figure of 12000 deaths, with 4000 being the most probable. Typically these deaths were at the hands of neighbours or the previous owners illegally dispossed, they were not general massacres.
            The leaders of the rebellion made significant efforts to avoid and stop this, including hanging the perpetrators.

            The fact that schools still teach this doesn’t surprise me. My sons school still teaches that Collumbus discovered that the world was round!

          • Hi Danny

            See Clive’s response below (which is mild compared to what inspector, happy Jack and the cyber Swiss guards would say)….

        • avi barzel

          Clive, as a Canadian, I never understood why Canada, a Commonwealth nation, with the Crown at the head of our government and a member of NATO, sat out the Falklands War. Perhaps there is a “good” reason, some sort of a political formality, but it whatever it is, for me and to a tiny minority of Canadians, it’s an idelible stain of shame. Instead, we went on “nation building” missions to hopeless Muslim shite-holes, Afghanistan and Iraq, and wasted good men and women in the process.

          • CliveM


            Anyone with even an ounce of knowledge about WWI, know that the Canadian Battalions were the best troops the Allies had.

            It is a pity our two countries a pulling apart.

          • avi barzel

            Yes, it is a pity, Clive. Ask most Canadians today, and they would tell you that we don’t need such silly things like a monarchy. Of course, no one has thought it through, such as what happens to the legitimacy of our Common Law system, what happens to our Parliament, Crown lands, Native treaties, borders and provinces and such, and when the ultimate head of our government is a politician with no one above him but his party and the special interest groups and cronies who put him up there.

          • CliveM

            I havre the same argument with Republicans here. Typically we are told our future is in Europe. We need to ‘modernise’!!

            Typically from people without an ounce of history or understanding of what it is they want us to ape.

  • Sam

    Your Grace

    I would also suggest that Warsi and Ward should note that the 5th victim was a traffic cop from Galilee& he wasn’t a Jew. Master Sergeant Zidan Saif, age 30, an Arab Muslim Druze who was shot and killed during an exchange of fire with the terrorist savages who committed those atrocities. He died later of those wounds – leaving behind a wife and 4 month old daughter.

    Unlike many religions, Judaism does have a place in Heaven for non Jews. Judaism does not require conversion as a prerequisite for Heaven. Ours is a religion of merit. Anyone who merits it in the eyes of God will receive an eternal heavenly reward. In the case of one particular Arab, there is not a doubt in my mind that he has earned it, albeit at a very high cost. The cost of his life.

    Not all Arabs hate us. Not all Arabs act the way those 2 terrorists acted yesterday. There are some who act the way Sergeant Saif acted… risking life and limb to protect Jews and the state of Israel,including Muslims and Christians where else is there a state in the middle east where this also happens? But the apartheid smear lives on. Why does the world fall for the anti Israeli propaganda?

    • Shadrach Fire

      In a way, someone is not required to convert to Christianity to get to heaven either. They are simply required to acknowledge their sinful state and repent. God does the rest.

      • Sam


        Fair enough. I guess all those missionary guys who’ve tried to convert me & others have been wrong, then ?

    • dannybhoy

      “Why does the world fall for the anti Israeli propaganda?”
      Might have something to do with latent anti-(Jewish) semitism and what Clive posted 4 hours ago…

      • Sam

        The question, Danny, was somewhat rhetorical….

        • dannybhoy

          Mine was rhetorical too… 🙂

    • Busy Mum

      The world falls for anti-Israeli propaganda because anti-Israel = anti-God. The world hates it that there is a God sufficiently sovereign Who chose a ‘peculiar people’. (Deuteronomy 14 v 2 and various others).
      The existence of the Jews and Israel is the thorn in the world’s conscience, a constant nagging reminder that there is a God.
      The world wants to destroy Israel because success would mean the world has outwitted the God it doesn’t want to acknowledge.

      • Sam

        Busy Mum

        … Kol HaKavod !

        You’re not Jewish per chance? , because you remind me of my sister Esther (6 children and possibly another on the way).

        From the hymn Bendigamos :

        Alabado sea su Santo Nombre,
        Porque siempre nos apiadó.
        Load al Señor que es bueno,
        Que para siempre su merced.
        .הוֹדוּ לַיָי כִּי־טוֹב. כּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ

        Praised be his Holy Name,
        Because he always took pity on us.
        Praise the Lord, for he is good,
        For his mercy is everlasting.
        Give thanks to the L-rd, for He is good.
        …. His love is eternal

        • Busy Mum

          Not Jewish but a thoroughbred English Gentile, who understands that national and global history can only be explained in the light of yours.
          ‘God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.'(Genesis 9 v 27).

          If your sister keeps going, she’ll catch up with me!

  • And so the cycle of hatred and violence goes on.
    Unfortunately the Israeli government doesn’t seem to understand that Hamas just love it when Israel blocks up or destroys another house or when it bombs Gaza. It feeds the feeling of hopelessness and injustice among the Palestinians upon which Hamas feeds and depends.
    If Israelis are happy with the status quo, then by all means let them carry on killing 20 Palestinians for every Israeli, but if that strategy was going to work (i.e. bring peace) it would surely have done so by now. The fact is that such a policy just produces more and more Palestinian youths with such hatred in their hearts for Israel that they can easily be persuaded by the evil men in Hamas to seek paradise by killing the enemies of Allah.
    The first step to peace, humanly speaking, needs to be for Netanyahu to proclaim a permanent end to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. There will be many more steps that will need to be taken, but that would be a start.
    But what both Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab countries really need is the Prince of Peace. ‘In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria- a blessing in the midst of the land, whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance’ (Isaiah 19:24-25. It is worth reading from verse 18).
    I’ve got a feeling that this isn’t going to be a very popular post.

    • dannybhoy

      That’s a good article MM, and I agree that the settlement programme is extremely contentious and ill advised.
      The western world condemns and censures China in similar fashion over its invasion and subjugation of Tibet…
      I would like to see Israel stop and even reverse its settlement building, but only a fool would believe that this would bring peace. Israel is an interloper, a blight on the face of the Islamic Middle East. She must be resisted, she must be wiped out in the same way those Crusaders were.

      • Sam

        I thought it was a rubbish post myself, full of b.s.

        • dannybhoy

          Full of b.ible s.tuff??

  • CliveM

    The reason why idiots like David Ward talk about the Israel problem is fear. They look at the Middle East and what is going on there (ISIS, Hamas, Iran, Palestine, etc) and the possible implications for the West with regards our own immigrant Muslim communities and their potential for violence (another 9/11) and they can’t control their bowels. So they wish that if only Israel hadn’t happened, if only it would do the decent thing and commit national suicide, all these nasty things, all this potential for violence would disappear.
    Of course no one likes to admit cowardice, so a scapegoat has to be found, and that is why any mistake or over over reaction by Israel (real or imagined) are leapt upon with glee and relief.

    Of course, not only is this position cowardly, it is stupid. If Israel was defeated, ISIS and the like wouldn’t lay down their arms, they would be re-invigorated, encouraged and they would look westward for the next victim.

    Not only is it right that Israel is supported, it is in our best interests.

    • dannybhoy

      Excellent observations Clive. Cowardice and compromise is rampant amongst our political/religious leaders.
      Just one example;
      “Troops commemorate final day at Camp Bastion as last 300 soldiers are airlifted out of base as 13-year war ends”

      Our government spent 13 years in that country, lost 453 British servicemen, multiple young amputees, all to help Afghanistan’s government, and stop the training of terrorists by extremist groups.
      Essetially it achieved nothing, the Afghani government being so grateful it advises us to take our memorial to those British sacrifices back home with us..
      Israel cannot afford compromise or appeasement when it comes to their security and continued existence. Neither can western governments.
      They just don’t know it yet..

    • avi barzel

      Yup, your feeling’s dead-on Martin Marprelate, at least regarding me.

      And so the cycle of hatred and violence goes on…

      O, please, not the stupid “cycle of violence” trope again.

      Unfortunately the Israeli government doesn’t seem to understand that Hamas just love it when Israel blocks up or destroys another house or when it bombs Gaza.

      No, Hamas doesn’t love it, because this measure, started by the British, actually works to discourage.

      The fact is that such a policy just produces more and more Palestinian youths with such hatred in their hearts for Israel that they can easily be persuaded by the evil men in Hamas to seek paradise by killing the enemies of Allah.

      You have no idea what you’re talking about; you’re just repeating tired old memes. Arab terrorism exists because of 1) stupendous amounts of money which fuel it; 2) legitimization of terrorist leaders and fascistic Arab regimes; UN, EU and Western policies of showering billions to the self-imagined “Palestinians” and 3) UN and EU complicity with Arab regimes in the attempt at the slow destruction of the Jewish State.

      The first step to peace, humanly speaking, needs to be for Netanyahu to proclaim a permanent end to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.
      Begging to differ as someone with bias and vested interests. The first step to peace is for Israel would be to defeat the PLO and Hamas and to roll-back the suicidal Oslo agreements. Yehudah and Shomron are not “Palestinian territories,” nor West Bank, not once did the settler Arabs there proclaim it as “Palestare they the “West Bank” appendage of Jordan. They are inseparable part of the Jewish state, as still confirmed by the international legitimacy of the San Remo convention. The “West Bank” was illegally occupied and settled by an artificial entity, the Kingdom of Jordan,” while its Jewish population was massacred and ethnically cleansed. For the 19 years Jordan occupied the so-called West Bank” it was never referred to as “Palestine” by anyone, nor did the Syrian Arabs there see themselves as “Palestinians.” The territory was won back by Israel in 1967 and should remain with Israel for legal, morally just and existentially vital reasons.

      • CliveM


        Did you intend this as a reply to me? Or Martin? It came to me.

        • carl jacobs


          We have to make allowances for Avi. He’s Canadian, after all. Like all Canadians, he shuns conflict. He might have put the post here just because he thought it would be less confrontational. Canadians do that sort of thing, you know. It’s just part of their ‘fluffy bunny’ niceness.

          • CliveM


            Oh well, if that’s why I understand!

            Always liked Canadians. Even ones that mistake me for Martin!

        • avi barzel

          Martin, of course. I hate Disqus. And writing on mobiles. And please ignore CArl.

      • Avi

        And East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount?

        • avi barzel

          What about them? Jerusalem is Jerusalem, there is no “East Jerusalem” as the armistice line of an occupying power, Jordan, has no significance. The Temple Mount is in and part of Israel. Israel has graciously (and wrongly, IMHO) allowed Jordanian authorities and the Waqf to manage and administer it and that needs to end. The willful destruction of all Jewish archeological evidence by the Waqf and the violent behaviour of the Muslim visitors provide exhibits A and B.

          • *gasp*

            So Israel has no intention of ever permitting East Jerusalem to be a part of a future Palestinian State. Or, it seems, from your other comment, of any Palestinian State at all.

          • carl jacobs

            There is no future Palestinian state.

          • avi barzel

            I hate it when you say the same thing I say, but in six words or so.

          • CliveM

            Avi, ah but you said it with such literary style!

          • avi barzel

            Yeah, and nearly went blind on this @#$& phone screen.

          • CliveM


            I never get to use the IT in my house. ALL my posts are on &£@? Smart phones with a small screen. Your getting no sympathy from me!!

          • Well that is rather obvious. So why all this pretence about it?

          • carl jacobs


            Pretense about what? And by whom?

          • About a two-state solution, Carl.

            If Israel are not committed to it – for whatever reasons – this places them at odds with the international community.

            Why the charade?

          • carl jacobs


            this places them at odds with the international community.

            I tell you what. Have the “International Community” send me its business card, and I will call it when I care about its opinion.

            I don’t agree that there has been a charade. I think there have been lots of people in the “International Community” who 1) won’t listen or 2) won’t face reality or 3) are proposing “solutions” that are intended to satisfy local constituencies. When the Israelis say ‘Palestinian state’ they mean that the Palestinians will get to decide where to put stop signs. They are not referring to an actual sovereign state. The later outcome is not going to happen in any time frame I can forsee unless it is brought into being by the slaughter of every Jew on the land. That’s reality.

          • And yet it was the League of Nations with the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 who paved the way for the Israeli State and then it was the United Nations who recognised the State of Israel.

            If what you say about Israeli intentions is correct, then it is all a charade.

          • carl jacobs


            It wasn’t the League of Nations. It was the victorious powers from World War I. Whose interests were being served when the Ottoman Empire was carved up? And the only reason the UN got involved with the founding of Israel was because the British Foreign Office was convinced the UN would punt the issue. It was a too-clever-by-half strategy to free the British Gov’t to handle Palestine as it saw fit. You constantly mistake instrument for power.

            But it’s irrelevant, anyways. That was 70 years ago. The “International Community” then is not the “International Community” today. What is important today is Israeli security, and not some legalistic motion of the “International Community.” Would you trust said “International Community” to not throw the Israelis to the wolves?

          • Jack just sees a pointless and dishonest process going on which could continue for generations. He sees injustice, dishonesty and double-dealing on all sides.

            And why would the world’s nation states, through the UN, want to undermine Israeli security and eliminate the Jews? How does that serve anyone’s national interest?

          • avi barzel

            Avi agrees with you, Jack. He would prefer that Israel defeat the Arabs, throw a billion or two at the “Palestinian” international mendicants and squatters in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and have them happily dance away with the oodles of cash to the new Islamic Caliphate, Argentina or the Devil, for all Avi cares. No double-dealing there, I assure you.

          • Hi

            I think there’s another group that deserves recognition above and beyond the Palestinians . A group called the Kurds.

          • CliveM

            Interesting thing about the Kurds, I read somewhere that in the Arab world, that if someone’s Islamic zeal is somewhat lacking, they are described as being like Kurds!

            They truly have a lot to fear from the likes of ISIS.

          • Hi Clive

            I agree and that’s why the Iraqi Kurds need to be armed, supported and recognised as a people. They are fighting against the barbarism of IS and for that reason alone deserve western support.

            The Kurds aren’t Arabs, but (like Jews) another old and ancient middle eastern minority. Whilst most are Muslims, they are moderate, have women serving in their army(at least the Iraqi Kurds do). Kurds and Iraqi Jews got on well together and shared culture, if not religion(the language spoken by Kurdish Jews was Aramaic). Before the creation of Iraq the Jews of the north of the country were often described as Kurdish Jews.

          • CliveM

            The Middle East would be stronger and safer (I think) with both a Kurdish and a Christian State. The Kurds certainly deserve their own State, the Christians now need it.

            But the world will continue to faff on about a Palestinian State instead.

          • Hi Clive

            I agree. But that would mean more minorities throwing off the shackles of dhimmi status, which would be unacceptable to the current regimes….

          • CliveM

            Their is so much that is unacceptable to these States, I’m not sure if anyone should care.
            If it wasn’t for an accident of geology these s£@t hole countries, with their psychopathic rulers would have been left to implode a long time ago. And good riddance it would have been to.

          • Now, now Avi. The Balfour Agreement and San Remo viewed the inhabitants of the Palestinian region as more than
            “international mendicants and squatters”. What will Israel do with the Palestinians in the Gaza, Samaria and Judea if they are not to have a separate state? Evict them? Continually occupy the land where they live? What?

          • avi barzel

            Maintain the status quo and deal with it later when conditions change. And conditions will change, as the Muslim world implodes and the EU loses steam and need for Arab/Iranian oil with conditions attached. The situation is very artificial at this time; only the group designated as “Palestinians”…under very loose and generous definitions… retains multi-generational refugee status, has its own designated and “inmate run” refugee agency which has become an extension of the terror business, and soaks up more aid than anyone else. Who said they identify as people, need to have a state…smack in the middle if Israel and bordering its enemies… or be evicted? Lose the old “narratives.”

          • “Maintain the status quo and deal with it later when conditions change.”

            This does appear to be Israeli term policy which is why Jack called it the so called peace road-map a charade.

            “Who said they identify as people, need to have a state…smack in the middle if Israel and bordering its enemies… or be evicted?”

            Jack understood Israel has always publically accepted ‘they’ are a people with a right to a state in exchange for peace. Certainly the Balfour Agreement saw the inhabitants of Palestine that way, as did San Remo.

            Are you saying the ‘new narrative’ is these people don’t self-identify, have no rights of self determination and are actually refugees in a foreign land and will treated as such, and as hostile, until they decide to leave voluntarily?

          • avi barzel

            No, that is not Israel’s policy, it genuinely brlieved and tried…that would be my preference and recent realizations and changes in public attitude.

            There is no “new narrative”…the fake secular nationalism card by Arafat was played out and flopped. Its just that the EU still buys it. It’s back to Islam again. What hsppens is largely upto the Arabs. If they are hostile, their situation will and should degrade, assuming an Israeli government with guts. The EU and UN want the reverse, where bad behaviour is rewarded with more money and promises for Pals and more pressure and threats on Israel. It’s because all parties have realized that a Pal state in Israel is a long shot and Obama will be out in 2 years.

          • So, if by some miracle (within the natural laws) the Palestinians in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank

          • carl jacobs


            And why would the world’s nation states, through the UN, want to undermine Israeli security and eliminate the Jews? How does that serve anyone’s national interest?


            [stares in disbelief]

          • Carl, that’s not an answer ……….

          • carl jacobs

            To the contrary, Jack. It is the most definitive answer I could possibly give.

          • Well then could it explain it to Jack as he fails to understand what you are saying? Are you accusing the world of being consciously or unconsciously anti-Semitic?

          • Hi happy Jack

            There’s 56 Islamic states in the world, but only 1Jewish state. In that state 20%are non Jews, but still have the full rights as citizens (despite the fact they’re not expected to serve in the IDF) and frankly have a better standard of living than any Arab state can provide. Let’s just say that hypothetically there’s a Palestinian state carved out of the west bank. The Jewish population will either be forced out by Israel or by the Palestinians. Another Jew free Arab state! While no one in the west would care about this, imagine the outcry if Israeli Arabs were told-as the west bank Jews would be -because of a peace treaty -to relocate, once it is up and running…. this is an example of the double standards people apply to this situation. I wonder if zoabi and her ilk would want to live in the Palestinian bit or Israel.

          • avi barzel

            Purely on a point of cosmetic presentation, Carl, replacing that silly grey puppet thing that is your current avatar with your old S.A.C. crest might add some gravitas to your posts.

          • carl jacobs


            Yeah, I know. I have just been lazy about it.

          • avi barzel

            A united Jerusalem has consistently been Israel’s policy, Jack. And a “Palestinian” state was an idea contingent on a whole bunch of things that never happenned and never will happen. Oslo is effectively dead. Deceased. Gone. The body is cold and reeks, and everyone needs to cope with that reality….Israelis many Isrelis. Israelis finally understand….after example upon banal example… that to allow another Muslim terror state within its own nation would be certain, guaranteed suicide. Feel free to send flowers to Ramalah as the embodiment of the idea of the Glorious Palestinian State. ..if anyone will dare to deliver to that hole.

      • OK, don’t mind me. You just carry on.
        We can chat about it in another ten years when the situation will be just the same except for a few thousand more people killed and the hatred even more extreme.
        If it was that easy to defeat Hamas, it strikes me that it would have been done a long time ago.

        • avi barzel

          The situation is the same Martin, because the world and especially, the supposedly enlightened West, maintains the status quo by appeasing Muslim states for a variety of reasons and by propping up a fake nationality, the “Palestinians” with unprecedented quantities of money and political support.

          Are you saying that Israel could not defeat Hamas if it wasn’t forced into another “cycle” of damaging cease-fires and “peace talks”? And are you saying that regardless of the Gaza example, this time around …if only Israel takes yet another “chance for peace,” gives up even more land, lays itself vulnerable and allows ISIS, Hamas and Iran to struggle over this new state of “Palestine”… things are going to turn out for the best?

          Think carefully now…but keep in mind, it’s no skin off your butt if you’re wrong, but that Israel can only lose once. What’ll you say then? “Ok, don’t mind me. You just carry on?”

          • Far from defeating Hamas, Israel couldn’t even stop them firing their rockets over. Nor could she defeat Hezbollah over in Lebanon. All you can do is kill loads of Arabs. Well that’s no good! They’re doing it to each other all the time and it doesn’t seem to worry them.
            Nor am I suggesting that Israel ‘gives up even more land.’ Where has that come from? I am only suggesting at this stage that she stops taking even more land.
            However, you have confirmed me in my understanding that the one thing that both Jew and Arab need is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing else is going to stop the hatred.

          • avi barzel

            Israel has the military capability to roll over, fully retake Gaza and stop Hamas from firing rockets. For ever. Israel also has the military capability to destroy Hezbollah, clear it of Muslims and let Maronite Christians into the zone as was originally intended. The cost in Israeli casualties and Arab civilian deaths would be significant if Israel were to do this, a cost which neither the international community, nor Israelis are willing to accept. At the present time and under current circumstances.

            Without wishing to engage in a religious debate with you, or trying to change your understanding, I will only point out, with all due respect, that if your Gospels were not able to stop Christians killing each other for nearly two millennia, the probability of Jews and Arabs doing so under its umbrella is close to zero.

            PS (edit) As for “taking more land,” I see it as reclaiming Israel, specifically its historic heartland and its strategically existential highlands.

          • “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:43-45).
            As someone or other has said, real Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and seldom tried.
            But don’t you worry about it. You go and ‘reclaim’ your ‘historic heartland’ and never you mind about all the folk you dispossess. Just don’t be surprised if they hate you enough to blow themselves up in your synagogues.

          • avi barzel

            As someone or other has said, real Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and seldom tried.

            I thought that someone said this about Communism…I must be confusing things. Never mind. The point is that expecting Jews and Arabs to turn Christian and then to turn Christianity into whatever you call real Christianity is a bit of a stretch, no?

            Anyhow, Israel’s very existence “dispossesses” Arabs and insults Islam. Giving them Gaza only made them angrier…and the grand gesture Israel was forced into, and the promises of a new Singapore-upon-the-Mediterranean was quickly replaced by the lovely folks in black balaclavas and green head-bands. Imagine what they will do to “East” Jerusalem if the get it…never mind, look at what they are doing to the city right now! Areas in Judea and Samaria in which Israel is building have either been purchased from Arabs, reclaimed if previously owned by Jews (e.g., synagogues and houses and neighbourhoods Jews had been expelled from by Jordan), or empty land, such as the rocky hilltops and dry valleys Arabs never settled in or wanted. A things are, the Israeli government is strict with Israelis even if they have legally bought land from Arabs, while it turns a blind eye to the tens of thousands of illegal Arab squatters. Not that such facts may matter to you, but someone else here might be inclined to look into them.

          • This is the letter that has become known as the ‘Balfour Declaration:
            His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours 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
            I only mention it to show that the British Government was under the impression that there was such a place as Palestine in 1917, and that there were ‘non-Jewish’ people living there, in other words, Palestinians.

          • avi barzel

            So? Nothing about recognizing a concocted peoplehood or setting up another nation state. Civil and religious rights of all have been and are protected in Israel…not in the Arab dominated and self-governed entities in the Yesha and ‘Aza, though. Maybe you should complain about that.

          • Sam

            The “Palestinians” are an invented tactical tool used by the Arabs to destroy the one and only Jewish homeland of Israel by any means possible : there is not such thing as palestine, a terminology invented by the Roman Empire to try to break the Jewish identity from their land, brought back by the British Empire to define the people living in Galilee, Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias, Samaria, Judea, etc . For 600 years under Ottoman rule it was not Palestine. It was the vilayets of Beirut and Damascus and the sanjak of Jerusalem.

            The early Jewish pioneering Zionists, who joined pre-existing Jewish communities in ‘Palestine’, came to the holy land,clearing the malaria infested swamps, working like slaves without complaining and without outside help turned the place somewhat liveable (a bit like Jewish “settlers” do today).It was then that the Arabs saw the miracle,began to come & settle among the Jews.While the country flourished beautifully.

            So where are the Palestinians from? Arafat.. Egypt… Every single Palestinian in Judea and Samaria was a citizen of Jordan before 1967. Palestinians are a mish mash of immigrants from the Levant, arabia, ottoman controlled areas. Mainly imported by the ottomans since the mid to late 1800’s, at the time when Jews increased from the largest single group to the majority in Jerusalem… 105 years before the current invention of Palestinians and any so-called ‘occupation.’Jews began building in the 1800s,long before the British Mandate.

          • dannybhoy

            I agree with what you’re saying and also with Martin.
            True Christians believe as he says that there will always be wars and strife in this world, and like our Jewish brethren true Christians must play their part in trying to improve society.
            To work for a more just and caring society. Sometimes they must choose to fight for their country against an enemy because it accepts them and allows them to practice their faith.
            But we also believe that our country or kingdom is not of or in this world. Our willing to die for allegiance is to our Lord Jesus our Saviour, who will one day (as Meshiach) establish His rule and reign on this earth. But even that won’t be the end of it.
            There will be a final judgment of all men, living and dead, and God will make His judgments and there will be a new creation, a shamiim v’adamah hadasha.

          • Sam


            That’s incredibly patronising, not to mention hypocritical. Mass conversion to Christianity of Europe NEVER stopped wars there. How long were the religious wars of the 16th century? Christians take up arms like anyone else. Especially when there is something vital and important at stake, e.g. survival, . That’s all Israel is doing.

          • I did not speak of stopping wars. The New Testament is very clear that wars will continue until the return of Christ, and indeed that they are likely to increase as that time approaches.
            I spoke of ending hatred.
            Nor did I speak of Christendom, which, as you rightly say has rarely ended wars and has often been the cause of them.
            I spoke of the Gospel, which has often transformed nations and communities, never by force. Examples on request. Currently, thousands of Iranians are being saved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let’s wait and see if that changes that nation.
            I pray regularly for Jews and Moslems in the Middle East, that they will find the Saviour and thereby find peace. I have previously quoted the passage from the Jewish Scriptures which I believe promises this (Isaiah 19:18-25), so I am praying with confidence.

          • Sam


            Whatever floats your boat.

            PS -I don’t “hate” Arabs or Muslims.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Chamberlain and Daladier (the French Prime Minister) “dealt with” Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938. Ward and Warsi know perfectly well how that turned out.

  • Busy Mum

    Warsi’s greatest contribution to Britain may just turn out to be opening the public’s eyes to the betrayal that was sold to them as removing privilege from the House of Lords.

  • avi barzel

    A morally clear, hard-hitting, to the point post Your Grace. I never take these for granted. You will no doubt hear about it from the hand-wringers.

  • Happy Jack can’t see an end in sight to this insanity and carnage unless one side decisively defeats the other – or one side voluntarily surrenders deeply held religious convictions for the sake of peace.

    Isn’t it all really about the future of the Old City of Jerusalem? Is it to be a future capital city of some hoped for and increasingly unlikely Palestinian State? Or will it be recognised as the capital city of Israel? And is it the Muslim God or the God of the Jews who is to be worshipped on the Temple Mount? Is it possible for both to be?

    For Sunni Muslims, ‘The Noble Sanctuary’ has on it ‘The Dome of the Rock’, ‘The Dome of the Chain’ and ‘al-Aqsa Mosque’. All have great significance in Islam. According to the Bible, the Temple Mount is where it is believed God manifested His presence and this sacred spot should be the center of Jewish national life – governmental, judicial and religious.

    What position should a Christian hold? Some believe that a Third Temple will be built before the Second Coming of Christ. Other Christians believe Jesus dispensed with any physical location for worship of God and that ritual sacrifice and a physical building on the Temple Mount is unnecessary.

    Jack can’t see any body resolving all of this.

    • avi barzel

      Hello, Jack. Fair points and one understands your confusion and frustration. Still, it looks like political and demographic changes in Israel might straighten things out a bit more once everyone internalizes reality, namely that Oslo is as dead as a doornail, that British-created Jordan which sits on internationally designated Jewish lands is the answer to the “two state solution” and that a “Palestinian” state is a joke everyone will get tired of laughing at.

      One minor quibble, over the “great significance” of the Dome of the Rock to Islam. The significance is over the triumphalism of yet another mosque appropriating yet another religion’s holy place. In this case, they converted a Byzantine church on top of the Jewish Temple into a mosque …two birds with one stone… and the idea of another “roll-back” of glorious Islam drives them to a frenzy. The mosque there held very little significance in Ottoman times and would have turned to rubble due to the forces of neglect and gravity had not the British forked-out the funds for its restoration.

      • dannybhoy

        Shalom, Shalom Avi Barzel!
        I was wondering this morning what had happened to you.
        I agree about Jordan, it was originally set aside for the Palestinians.
        There is no human solution to this problem.
        The Almighty I believe, brought about the re-establishment of Israel and His hand will surely protect her. G-d is in control of the affairs of men. He will allow us to exercise our free will and use those decisions to accomplish His plans, and HaMesshiach will appear at the appointed time..

        • avi barzel

          And shalom to you as well, dannybhoy. Things got busy again and then most of my devices, the PC, the two laptops and even the &#$*! cell phone crashed on me, wasting more of my life on maintaining technology.

          I don’t do theology too well…to the dismay of many of my coreligionists even…but it seems to me that if we’ve been given a little nudge here and there by the Almighty, it’s still our responsibility to try and make things work by the proverbial sweat of our brows.

          • dannybhoy

            Sorry for your cyber loss. It’s a real pain when computers crash..
            When I say that God does these things (and I believe with all my heart that He will eventually wrap things come and call “Time!”)
            he uses human agencies to accomplish them. Sometimes they are working with Him, sometimes not (freewill), but he uses them anyway. However He does it and whoever He uses, it’s still a miracle.
            You don’t think God used Pharoah, and Moses and Shmu’el and Shlomo haMelekh, and Esther and Ruth??
            What kind of a good Jewish boy are you? 😉

          • avi barzel

            Actually, I do think God acts in history…according to His inscrutable wisdom and according to the laws of nature to which he has bound our relationship with Him. And I also think that we are not to second-guess his involvement, but are expected to act independently with the gifts of wisdom and freedom He has bestowed upon us.

          • dannybhoy

            But Avi, all those people I mentioned were involved to a greater or lesser extent in the birth and development of Israel
            But it wasn’t their idea!
            It was God’s guidance and revelation to them in achieving what He had promised to Abraham,the Law He gave through Moses and so on and so on.
            Otherwise the whole history of the Jews is down to men bumbling about in the dark, and Israel is not truly the Chosen people through which my own faith comes.

          • avi barzel

            But it was their idea…an idea founded on the loyalty to the Torah and the Covenant with the Almighty. They did not bumble in the dark, but correctly interpreted their Torah, their relationship with God and amongst themselves, Jews with Jews. From secular Zionists to Cabbalistic mystics and millenialists, a sufficient number of Jews committed to a return to Zion. An equal, if not greater number in the religious and secular sectors objected to the notion or laughed at it. For the religious anti-Zionist, it was the messiah who would end the punishment of the galut, the Exile, and for the secularists it was an impractical, if not impossible, atavistic wish from another era.

            The meaning of the word “miracle” in classical Jewish usage is a fortuitous natural event engineered by God at the right time and to the right people. But the people must be there, and they must make the time right. Why would that challenge your faith in God? Forgive my ignorance, and no intent to disrespect or challenge, but is not Christianity in a way founded on the idea that the Jews…as authentic Jews, not Christians-in-waiting…are no longer chosen?

          • dannybhoy

            I think my friend Avi we’re talking semantics..
            What I am getting at is
            a) there is only one Creator God (although as a Christian I believe of course in Father, Son and Ruach haKodesh).

            b)HaShem created man, revealed Himself to Abraham, gave the Law through Moses and made Israel His own people through a Covenant.

            c) Salvation is of the Jews. The Lord Jesus Christ is the promised Meshiach
            (but lets not get into an argument over that, I know what most Jewish people believe.)
            and will return one day to bring judgment, peace and salvation to the nations and will reign from Jerusalem,

            d) The Jewish people REMAIN God’s ancient people, the apple of His eye, His promises to His people remain. e) We gentiles who come to salvation through the life, atoning death and resurrection of Yeshua haMeshiach are grafted into God’s holy nation of Israel.

            So what I was trying to get over to you was that God has REVEALED Himself and His holy, righteous and compassionate nature through the Jewish people. He used the prophets to communicate His judgments and warnings to the people when they were going astray, urging them to turn away from unrighteousness.

            Now the fact that Israel exists is theologically unacceptable to devout Jews because Meshiach was supposed to come first, yet interestingly increasing numbers of ‘datiim’ choose to live there..
            (We won’t get into that one right now either…)
            The Zionist movement essentially recognised that the only way the Jewish people could really be safe and Jewish would be in their own land, (although there were and still are, many Jews who looked to America for a future)
            The Zionists who initiated the return to Palestine and built the settlements and eventually established the State of Israel were mainly socialists, anti religious. They wer not exactly embraced by the devout Jews who had either never left the land or had been living there for a long long time under the various (Islamic) administrations.


            Apart from the various tensions resulting from the presence of increasing numbers of Jewish (independent) settlements in Palestine, the real turning point leading to the State of Israel was the persecution suffered by Jewish people in Christian Europe culminating in the horrors of the Holocaust initiated by the Nazis of Germany.
            It was a turning point religiously (many many Jews lost faith in God -and who could blame them?) and politically/militarily. The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto rose up against their murderers, and from being a people who had mostly submitted to persecution the Jewish people re-discovered the courage and fighting spirit of their ancestors typified by the Maccabees

            So to sum up a very bare bones outline
            (you can pick it to pieces later!)
            Israel exists: a sometimes uneasy mix of (Jewish) cultures, political and religious ideologies side by side in a democratic nation hedged by seaside on one side and mainly hostile neighbours to the North, South and East..

            Now I believe that in and through all of these political/religious movements and influences our great God is still working out His purposes for His Creation.

            “but is not Christianity in a way founded on the idea that the Jews…as
            authentic Jews, not Christians-in-waiting…are no longer chosen?”
            So no, I don’t believe that and I don’t accept Replacement Theology.
            The Jewish people are still central to this, His promises remain valid, and we as true (not nominal) Christians owe the knowledge of our salvation to our Jewish brethren.

            עַל־בֵּ֨ית דָּוִ֜יד וְעַ֣ל ׀ יֹושֵׁ֣ב יְרוּשָׁלִַ֗ם ר֤וּחַ חֵן֙
            וְתַ֣חֲנוּנִ֔ים וְהִבִּ֥יטוּ אֵלַ֖י אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֑רוּ וְסָפְד֣וּ
            עָלָ֗יו כְּמִסְפֵּד֙ עַל־הַיָּחִ֔יד וְהָמֵ֥ר עָלָ֖יו כְּהָמֵ֥ר
            Zechariah 12:10

          • You’re a strange one, Martin. You can see God’s hand at work in reconstruction of a secular Jewish State but not in the spread and building up of Christendom. God permits evil that good can come from it. All we can do is establish what we believe to be moral and right in our time and age and seek to do that. To try and understand what God wants through interpreting the biblical prophesies is a fool’s game. The life, passion and resurrection of Christ tells us this.

          • dannybhoy

            You lump me in with Martin?!

            “but not in the spread and building up of Christendom. God permits evil that good can come from it.”

            My major problem with what you are saying is that the Catholic Church has appropriated to its self an authority and infallibility which it manifestly does not have, and which you yourself have admitted to by saying that Popes are/were men of their times.
            I agree with that.
            The problem for me is that the Catholic Church has done a lot of baaaaad things in the Name of God, and I don’t see a good rationalisation (God permits evil that good can come from it.) for that.
            What you are saying is that God used all the weaknesses and wilfulness of the leaders of the Church to spread Christianity, and I am not sure that the kind of Christianity which was spread was a blessing….

          • That’s actually not what Jack was saying. He’s repeatedly advised the Church is only infallible in matters of dogma and morals – not in temporal, secular affairs.

            Viewed from today’s vantage point, one could say, and some do, that Israel did ‘bad’ things under the direct command of God. We only understand this because we have the theological explanations provided by inspired scripture.

            “What you are saying is that God used all the weaknesses and wilfulness of the leaders of the Church to spread Christianity … “

            Jack has no idea how God has actually acted in history. For sure God uses men and women, good, bad and mistaken, to achieve His purposes. How else? He sees the chaos and disorder in Europe emerging into a civilisation, with a moral underpinning, through temporal means greatly assisted by a unified Christianity. All the doctrinal disputes the Church resolved had serious political and social implications at the time.

            ” … and I am not sure that the kind of Christianity which was spread was a blessing….”

            No? It’s doubtful you’d be able to pose that question but for all the achievements of the Church, secular and spiritual, which has brought you the Gospel.

          • dannybhoy

            ” No? It’s doubtful you’d be able to pose that question but for all the
            achievements of the Church, secular and spiritual, which has brought you
            the Gospel.”
            A kinda Christian pragmatism, huh?

            I believe God moves through spiritual men and women who are so yielded to Him that they are/have been prepared to sacrifice their lives in His service. They have come from all denominations.
            In that sense they are prophets and visionaries, evangelists, teachers and shepherds and ultimately saints.
            In matters temporal, God uses the free will decisions of unregenerate men (and sometimes women) and uses them to achieve his purposes in human history.
            (Incidentally there is an interesting book on this subject by a man named Roger Forster called “God’s Strategy in human History.” It’s still available on Amazon.

          • God also uses the ‘average’ bod too – not just spiritual people, prophets, visionaries and saints. You know, those ordinary men and women who do good and bad just because … well …. they’re human and flawed. And, the evil men do is permitted and is also used by God.

          • dannybhoy

            Saints are flawed people Jack.

          • Ummmm … isn’t the Christian understanding that Jesus is the Messiah and the Old Covenants with the Jews through Abraham and Moses have been fulfilled? Christians are now living under a New Covenant with God.

          • dannybhoy

            The promises of God’s provision for sin and salvation have been fulfilled through Our Lord, but where is it written that God’s Covenant with the Jewish people been revoked?
            “He came to His own, but His own received Him not.”
            The New Testament nowhere says that God has abandoned His ancient people.
            Romans 11
            1. I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,a a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
            2God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew…”

          • Jack said “fulfilled”, not revoked. The promise to Abraham is fulfilled in Christ and the Mosaic Law has been replaced. Along with St. Paul, Jack believes God is waiting on the Jewish people to accept His Son.

          • dannybhoy

            I think we agree then Jack, but obviously if the Jewish people rejected Him whom true Christians accepted and acknowledge as Lord and Saviour, then they would continue in their various interpretations of Judaism.
            What binds Christians together including you and I, is our fundamental acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Saviour, and when we come before Him to give an account of ourselves we will indeed be lost in wonder, love and praise.
            All else is peripheral.
            Israel the State is the current manifestation of God’s continuing direction of human history towards its culmination and renewal.
            How that works out with Israel and the Jewish people and God’s unfailing love for them remains to be seen.
            What we do know is that not everyone will be saved, neither Jew nor Gentile.

          • Well then let’s comment and consider the Middle East according to what we perceive to be justice for the peoples involved – including Israel’s right to peace and security as a secular nation – without projecting a future possible eschatological outcome on to it.

          • dannybhoy

            But then Jack, what is the ultimate purpose of it all?
            Is history to continue for ever with political/religious wranglings for ever bringing us to the edge of annihaltion, endless slaughters and cauldrons of human misery?
            Is that God’s eternal plan?

          • History will end when God determines it should end. Time and history is finite. Even atheists understand the universe cannot exist forever – naturally.

            Until the end of time comes, we do our best and, as man is sinful, this will always involve human misery and wars. The ultimate purpose is that we who are born are given a chance to come to know and love God, strive to make the world a better place, and be received by Him into Heaven when our time comes.

          • dannybhoy

            Right, so what is wrong with accepting that God’s ultimate plan is revealed prophetically through the Scriptures? We obviously don’t know the timing or actual sequence of events, but we do Know that when our Lord Jesus returns it will be to Israel which will be in Jewish hands.
            Not Canterbury or Rome…

          • “but we do Know that when our Lord Jesus returns it will be to Israel which will be in Jewish hands.
            Not Canterbury or Rome…”

            Do we?

          • dannybhoy

            Here’s an interesting link Jack, covers most views.
            My personal belief is that I accept the Jewish faithful/devout view anticipating Meshiach coming to their deliverance as King and Saviour, He will be coming to Israel, Jerusalem specifically.
            That is the significance of the rebirth of Israel. Just because the Church Universal got its fingers burnt with the Crusader Kingdom does not mean that prophecy is wrong. 😉

          • So from your individual prophetic understanding you have formed an eschatology that understands Israel’s reestablishment in 1948 as Divine and as an essential fore runner to Christ’s return. This is precisely what Jack believes should be avoided in reading and influencing international affairs.

            And btw, the Messiah has already been to Israel and to Jerusalem. Based on St. Paul, the Second Coming cannot occur until the full number of the Gentiles are converted and this is then followed by “all Israel.”

          • dannybhoy

            “So from your individual prophetic understanding you have formed an
            eschatology that understands Israel’s reestablishment in 1948 as Divine
            and as an essential fore runner to Christ’s return”

            “And btw, the Messiah has already been to Israel and to Jerusalem. Based
            on St. Paul, the Second Coming cannot occur until the full number of the
            Gentiles are converted and this is then followed by “all Israel.”

            And I didn’t know that? It doesn’t negate that God will set things up for the final curtain Jack.

            As I see it God has given man free will to make decisions that will influence his own life and those around him.
            God knows our hearts, nothing escapes His attention.
            BUT He has made it clear that He has an endtime game plan and one day known only to Himself He will say

            “Game over” and the programme of final reckoning will begin.
            We don’t have to know all the details, we just have abide in the Lord, be attentive to the Holy Spirit and be a blessing and a voice in our congregations, reaching out with the Gospel of Salvation.

          • Your final paragraph is a meaningless truism – really, it is. And of course God has what you call an “endgame” and all history moves towards this. It’s the return of Christ and the final elimination of evil. What you cannot demonstrate from scripture is your private believe that God wanted, rather than permitted, Israel’s re-established in 1948 and all the jiggery-pokery before and since.

          • dannybhoy

            “What you cannot demonstrate from scripture is your private believe that
            God wanted, rather than permitted, Israel’s re-established in 1948 and
            all the jiggery-pokery before and since.”

      • Okay – two out of three of the Muslim structures have “great significance” to Islam.

        • avi barzel

          I’m saying that given its history and demographic make-up, Jordan IS the Palestinian state. It was even carved out of what was to be the Jewish homeland as decided by the League of Nations and ratified by the still-valid San Reno agreement.

          I cant speak for Israel, but if I had it my way, there would be no chance of yet another “Palestinian” state.

          • Is this Wiki entry inaccurate then?

            “At the 1920 San Remo conference, the victorious Allied powers (France, UK, USA, etc.) allocated the area to the British Mandate of Palestine (1920–47). The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the British Mandate for Palestine was constructed.

            In 1947, it (the West Bank) was subsequently designated as part of a proposed Arab state by the United Nations (UN) partition plan for Palestine. The resolution recommended partition of the British Mandate into a Jewish State, an Arab State, and an internationally administered enclave of Jerusalem, a more broad region of the modern-day West Bank was assigned to the Arab State. The resolution designated the territory described as “the hill country of Samaria and Judea” (including what is now known as the “West Bank”) as part of the proposed Arab state, but following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War this area was captured by Transjordan (renamed Jordan two years after independence in 1946). “West Bank” or “Cisjordan” became the name for the area west of the Jordan River, as “East Bank” or “Transjordan” designated the area east of the river.

            In the 1949 Armistice Agreements, the West Bank was declared part of Jordanian territory and defined the interim boundary between Israel and Jordan. Jordan ruled over the West Bank from 1948 until 1967, annexing it in 1950. Jordan’s annexation was never formally recognized by the international community, with the exception of the United Kingdom.”

          • avi barzel

            Broadly speaking, yes. However neither the British nor the UN had a legal or moral right to change or propose changes without first abrogating San Remo.

          • Wasn’t San Remo general and non-specific in nature? There were no borders defined, just broad principles. It incorporated the Balfour Agreement and Article 22 and passed responsibility to Britain to sort it all out. Britain couldn’t get agreement and the 1948 war scuppered this. The 1949 Armistice Agreement was the agreed position and was signed by Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria.

            Then there was the war in 1967 and the political stalemate of the “land for peace” resolution with Israel expected by the UN to return control of land taken during this war. Such land was seen as including both East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel disputes the legitimacy of this and is now claiming East Jerusalem as its own and looks less and less likely to relinquish the West Bank.

          • avi barzel

            You are skipping a whole lot of attempts by Arabs to annihilate the Jews and betrayals by Britain and the UN, there Jack. And who was Israel supposed to “return control of the land taken during the war (of ’67)”? Jordan’s acquisition was never recognized and Jordan didn’t want it. Oh, wait, let’s think….yes, let’s make a new people from the Arab occupiers, the “Palestinians” ! After the entire Arab world got its arse handed over on a tray several times, creating a fake people who are smaller (wink, wink) than Israel fit the ticket. Whatever.

            The bottom line, Jack, is that only an idiotic, suicidal Israeli government or a genocidal enemy would force or counsel Israel to ignore the failure that a “Palestinian” government in the “West Bank” and Gaza is. That in spite of the billions showered on them, they are still hate-filled losers who proclaim again and again and prove on a daily basis that they want Jews out from all of Israel. This nonsense and pretense of should have stopped decades ago. How it is to be resolved, assuming it can be resolved is still to be discussed, but splitting up Jerusalem and creating yet another Islamic terror state should never, ever be entertained as an option, even as a joke.

          • As Jack understands it, the international position has always been that an Arab State, separate from Jordan and formed by people living there, would be formed in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

            If this is unrealistic and unsafe for Israel, then Jack agrees with you. Let’s stop all the political dancing and charades. All it does is prolong the suffering. Mind you, it also prevents a more general uprising by Arab States against Israel. The world surely knows Israel’s position? In the middle between the extremists and terrorists and the Israeli State, that is protecting its citizens, are the people living in these areas – we’ll call them Palestinians. Where are they to go?

          • avi barzel

            How about the status quo…minus the illegitimate, corrupt and autocratic Palestinian Authority pseudo-government or Hamas terror gangs, which the world and Israel must stop legitimizing? As we saw in the 80’s and even now in many never-reported business ventures in the Yesha, Israelis are ready to do business with the Arabs. As long as they stop that killing thing.

          • dannybhoy

            With the caveat Avi, that Israel cannot afford to incorporate more Palestiunians into greater Israel , even if the Palestinians wanted to.
            The bigger picture is the unwillingness of Islamic nations to accept the re-establishment of a (succesful) Jewish State in what they consider as the Islamic world..

          • avi barzel

            Alas, your caveat rests on the assumption that the Arabs actually want an independent state. Everything they have done so far is to prevent one and to maintain the current situation of cleptocracies subsisting on international aid.

          • dannybhoy

            “Alas, your caveat rests on the assumption that the Arabs actually want an independent state”

            Alright, I’ll add a caveat to my caveat:
            (You can see the Jewish influence seeping through already..)
            “The Palestinians say they want a State, but actually they really want the removal of a state.
            Which happens to be Israel..
            but will God allow that to happen?
            Dannybhoy thinks not.

          • avi barzel

            Ha! Now you’re arguing like a Religious Zionist…like Rabbis Goren, Kook and others…that the current State is a phase in the Redemption and will be protected. I’m more inclined to take the rationalist approach of minimal involvement by God, as per contract, and maximal responsibility by Jews.

          • dannybhoy

            ” I’m more inclined to take the rationalist approach of minimal
            involvement by God, as per contract, and maximal responsibility by Jews.”

            Which strengthens what I already suspected.

            That your sense of Jewishness and belonging is more a rational/agnostic/probably evolutionary/humanistic/cultural thing than a clear sense of divine calling and covenental relationship to the Almighty!!

            Personally were I Jewish and believed that stuff and looking at the suffering of my people over the last 2000 years, I would probably convert.

          • avi barzel

            Orthodox Rationalism goes back to Maimonides. It is not agnostic, it just rejects extremes of mysticism and acknowledges that natural laws which are evident are part of the creation process. Definitely evolutionary in the sense that evolution is a mechanism of Creation, an idea, along with that of an old universe, that goes back a ways and was never problematic. If evidence supports scientific observations and claims, we accept them as God’s mechanisms of running the world.The principles of divine calling, covenant, strict observance of halakha and Jewish and universal mission are not compromised…in fact I’ll argue they are stronger and more authentic among rationalists and”Rambamists.” It’s the hashkafa..the philosophy and explanations that differ, but halakha allows for differences in that. Do I understand you correctly; you want to convert? More than welcome..anything I can help with? :p

          • dannybhoy

            “Definitely evolutionary in the sense that evolution is a mechanism of
            Creation, an idea, along with that of an old universe, that goes back a
            ways and was never problematic”

            I don’t accept evolution, I accept Creationism, although I would not describe myself as a fundamentalist, because I am not sure that I believe in a literal six day Creation or that the world is only roughly six thousand years old. Like you I accept that the laws of physics, reproduction and adaptation and a necessarily unstable physical world are a part of that Creation.
            I think evolution as such is actually insulting to the Almighty, and is at distinct odds with the Scriptures’ account of God’s interaction with the creatures He created and endowed with free will.
            If the Scriptural accounts are only stories, then like I said I would probably opt for agnosticism, but not atheism, as the world is too incredibly complex and wonderful to be the result of “a cosmic accident”, abiogenesis.

            If the Scriptural accounts are only primitive or ancient man’s attempts to make sense of nonsense
            (i.e. a cosmic meaningless accident)
            I could then seek to find meaning -or even comfort- by immersing myself in rituals, or mysticism, or formulae, or theological arguments.
            But if that position only led to me being persecuted as a heretic or a pagan I would seriously question whether it was really worth holding on to.

            There can be no ultimate conflict between true science and faith, and the undeniable conflicts if handled with honesty can be given to God, wrestled with God and discussed with fellow believers or debated with unbelievers.
            Regarding conversion, there were a number of times during my life in Israel and my interaction with Jewish in-laws and organisations, that I have been greatly drawn to a Jewish conversion, but my stumbling block has always been that I could never deny that Yeshua is not only the Meshiach, He is God. He lived as a devout Jew in obedience to the Laws,
            He knew He was sent by the Father in fulfilment of the Messianic prophesies, He allowed Himself to be put to death for the sake of all mankind and gives salvation to those who accept their inner sinfulness despite even their outward righteousness. Because He was both God and man death could not hold Him.
            He is the Evidence of a Holy and Righteous God’s love for fallen man.
            He died for me and He gave me new life and made me a part of His family of faith.
            I could never deny that.

          • Avi, Jack thinks Danny is suggesting you convert to what he understands is religious Judaism. He clearly doesn’t know you too well.

            And of course God works miracles – supernaturally – when He choses. Sometimes He intervenes through the laws of nature and the operation of ‘coincidence’. And sometimes through direct intervention and the setting aside of these laws. They’re His laws, after all. In your scripture, its recorded He brought people back from the dead and even took a prophet straight to Heaven. The ‘Angel of Death’ passing over the homes of the Israelites also takes some explaining (a mystery virus that only killed the first born of the Egyptians and those Jews without blood on their doors, perhaps?) as does Manna in the desert.

          • avi barzel

            Ah, ok, he probably thinks I’m in the…God-forbid…Reform or Reconstructionist stream. No, those groups have relaxed, redifined and secularized to the point where they have largely abandoned not only ritual and religious laws, but custom and tradition, deciding with the mores of modern society which things are important and which not. Emulating Christianity and the secular public, they don’t think they need to keep the Shabbath and its proscriptions, wear tzitzit, lay-on tefillin, cover their heads at all times, keep kosher, pray daily, study the Talmud and so on. That may look like hollow ritualistic performances and simple “works” to some, but they are part of the very fabric of the Covenant by virtue of the fact that…God told us to do them! But not all who do keep the mitzvoth necessarily ascribe intrinsic and mystical values to each and every one of them, nor are they required to do so. That’s all.

            Jack, we’ve covered miracles before. First of all, while even the ones listed in the five books of Moses are mostly comprehensible rationally, it’s after the age of prophesy that miracles take on exclusively “materialistic” aspects, appearing “hidden” in a manner of speaking. It’s not that they don’t comprise of extraordinary events which signify the Almighty’s involvement in history, but that they are delivered under the rules of natural laws. You seem to be bothered by this attitude, but several rulings over the ages have confirmed that one can reject mystical notions not specifically mentioned in the five books.

          • “It’s not that they don’t comprise of extraordinary events which signify the Almighty’s involvement in history, but that they are delivered under the rules of natural laws.”

            Ha … we have discussed this before and we’ll have to agree to disagree. Jack doesn’t see resurrecting the dead, pregnancies for barren women, ‘Angels of Death’, Manna, and taking prophets straight to Heaven, as “extraordinary events”. They were supernatural events because they were not delivered under natural laws. Jack’s not being “mystical”. He’s just reading what scripture says.

            “You seem to be bothered by this attitude, but several rulings over the ages have confirmed that one can reject mystical notions not specifically mentioned in the five books.”
            Not bothered. As Jack said, these events are recorded in sacred scripture. Accepting God acts supernaturally is not the same as mysticism.

          • dannybhoy

            “Avi, Jack thinks Danny is suggesting you convert to what he understands is religious Judaism.He clearly doesn’t know you too well.

            Methinks Jack doesn’t know Danny too well like Danny not knowing Avi too well…

            I was suggesting he convert NOT to religious Judaism, but to some form of acceptable agnosticism or inoffensive faith.

            Like maybe Buddhism?

            No scrap that. The Chinese don’t much like Buddhists..

            Danny’s Jewish sister’s in laws are either totally irreligious, or in one or two cases into Eastern mysticism or even the teachings of Gurdjieff…
            Why I ask would it be acceptable to be any of those or even an Atheistic Jew, but not a Messianic Jew??

            Danny’s inlaws tell him that as Reform Jews they see the whole thing in much the same way as Avi; an evolutionary, mythical, kind of cultural thing in which you carry out certain rituals not because you believe in them, but because it’s your cultural heritage.

          • Ummm … not sure Avi views following halakha in quite the same way as your sisters in law.

          • dannybhoy

            No I’m sure he doesn’t from what he has written before, and I totally respect his views and have no wish to be offensive. As I have said before I think we can share our understandings without falling out, and in the process developing a friendship and unity that gives joy to both sides.

          • dannybhoy

            My sister (converted), sister in law non practicing kibbutznik vatikah, rationalist and evolutionist, in her immediate family assorted versions as described above.

          • Hi Danny

            Avi likes the herring and whiskey, a clear indication of orthodoxy. No Avi is clearly within orthodoxy in his post, which as he explained above is reasonably broad when it comes to hashkafa.Avi isn’t denying the Torah or suggesting that we abrogate the following of the 613 miztvot. What he is explaining is the different understandings of why Jews commit to the mitzvah, as he gave in his example of the muzuzah. A Reform Jew, at the more liberal end, would probably suggest that the muzuzah is put up for cultural reasons, not because of God. I trust you can see the differences here.

            Also it isn’t acceptable for a Jew to follow Buddhism or Christianity or any other God save the God of Israel. Messianic Judaism falls within this, because as an evangelical Christian denomination with bits of Judaism tacked onto it: it is -for a Jew- idolatry to worship Jesus or Yeshua as they call him (among other reasons). Therefore the messianics are apostates and heretics&no longer part of the Jewish community [although there are far more gentiles in the messianic movement than Jews by birth, so how Jewish they are according to halaknah is a matter of opinion].

            As for secular Jews, who simply don’t practice their Judaism or for that matter messianic Jews who wish to tesuvah( repent or more literally return) to their people and God , it is the up to fellow Jews to help facilitate their coming home, for we don’t want it said of us ‘Those who went astray you did not return and the lost you did not seek’ (Ezekiel 34:4).

          • dannybhoy

            You know that who “i am” is tied up/ influenced, in some cases determined by the expectations of parents, siblings, friends and community.
            From a Christian pov, a “born again” Christian pov; the Gentile individual who comes to (the Jewish) Jesus Christ may face hostility/opposition even sometimes rejection from family and friends.
            Parents may be embarrassed or feel betrayed, even angry. They may give their own flesh and blood a hard time because of their new found faith.
            You know that, don’t you. You know that there is a difference between a Gentile and a Christian?

            “What he is explaining is the different understandings of why Jews commit to the mitzvah, as he gave in his example of the muzuzah. A Reform Jew, at the more liberal end, would probably suggest that the muzuzah is put
            up for cultural reasons, not because of God.”

            So what he is saying is exactly the same as we would say about someone who goes to church, observes all the rituals, is maybe involved in all the running of the church.
            They do it but they are embarrassed by or even angry with the person who actually
            lives it daily to the best of their ability and prays and seeks God’s will in their daily lives.
            Which is where I think you are, even if we have different understandings.

            So the reason we “bacs” read Tenach is because we recognise and are inspired by the stories of the men and women of faith (and weaknesses) who walked with HaShem and were faithful and obedient to Him.

            They didn’t often meet with the approval of their fellow men, or even have great lives (especially the prophets!) It was the signs of God’s anointing upon them and the truth of their prophecies which earned them respect.

            So what Avi is saying is what I recognise in my own church and in my close (Reform Jewish) relatives/in laws.

            “Also it isn’t acceptable for a Jew to follow Buddhism or Christianity or any other God save the God of Israel. Messianic Judaism falls within this, because as an evangelical Christian denomination with bits of
            Judaism tacked onto it: it is -for a Jew- idolatry to worship Jesus or Yeshua as they call him (among other reasons).”

            I can tell you here and now I have met Jewish people in Israel who followed Buddhism, Bahai or were in some sort of cultish thing. I have met Jews in England who believe in nothing, or even were involved in stuff easily as unkosher as any Gentile!
            Those in Israel were still accepted as Jews because they were Israeli citizens and did their ‘meluim’ or kept quiet on the Sabbath.
            I remember a shop in Tiberias that sold “bassar lavan”, and other places where they raised hazirim (but on platforms so that they weren’t in touch with the ground….!
            I actually pretended to be outraged that they were selling pig meat, but no one else was bothered..

            “Therefore the messianics are apostates and heretics & no longer part of the Jewish community.”

            That could just easily have been written by a Catholic or a devout Muslim!

            So really, the objections to Messianic Judaism is not because they are sincere, or devoted to their understanding of God and their relationship to Him. It isn’t that they might pray every day or do good works or have joyful hearts and so on;
            it’s because they are seen as traitors to Judaism, Quislings even, because they believe in who whilst not being accepted as Meshiach was nevertheless acknowledged as a good, pious Jew, a Rabbi even.

            Far more acceptable and worthy of encouragement to return is a Jew who is as worldly or evil as any Gentile.
            Is that not so?
            If a man is convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, and is further convinced against his religious upbringing that this Messiah is more than just a man, He is indeed Divine, it does not/ should not make them any more apostate Jews than atheistic Jews who believe in no god or Jews who follow Buddha -or even Gurdjieff!

          • Hi Danny

            If you read Avi’s post to happy Jack, below, I believe he gives a basic explanation of rational Judaism & orthodoxy, which isn’t anything like reform Judaism.

            The other stuff:

            A gentile (or goy) is simply a term for someone who is a non Jew, which would include Christians and any Jew I know will tell you this is the case.

            The objections that Jews have to messianic Judaism ( strange that one never hears of Buddhist Judaism or Islamic Judaism) are many, but as I said above the key reason is that it is basically Christian in its worship of Jesus of Nazareth. For a Jew to engage in Jesus worship is idolatry, as I said above. There are other reasons for Jews to reject messianic Judaism but I have no desire to drag this thread into a detailed discussion of that movement.

          • dannybhoy

            “A gentile (or goy) is simply a term for someone who is a non Jew, which would include Christians and any Jew I know will tell you this is the case.”

            True of course, but that’s not what I was pointing out. I was making a distinction between various interpretations of (in this case Juadaism), and gentiles who come from no faith or nominal faith to full blooded, 100% born again faith in the Lord Jesus. Nominally Gentiles could be described as pagans believing in false gods and idols!
            We say that salvation is of the Jews… Isaiah 49:6

            God’s Instrument…

            “Writing probably between 547 and 539 BCE, Second Isaiah describes Israel as God’s instrument to accomplish His great revelation. As witness to God’s reality and law to other nations of the earth, Israel would help bring the rest of the human race to salvation. From Second Isaiah’s poetic language emerged the idea of Judaism’s world mission on God’s behalf. But the Israelites had believed in an entirely different form of chosenness before the teachings of the prophets.”

            So that’s that bit!

            Last bit:
            (and I do agree we should stop after this!)

            “( strange that one never hears of Buddhist Judaism or Islamic Judaism)”
            Well of course not, because there’s no such a thing.
            (although, consider…. http://joi.org/blog/?p=192 and many like it))
            What I was pointing out as I think you know, is that there are Jews who in their personal philosophies and practices are as far away from any interpretation of Judaism as it is possible to be. Those examples I gave you are true examples of Jewish folk who actually identify themselves more as Israelis than as Jews.

            That is not a criticism by the way, it’s an observation. I discuss Israel and Judaism and politics often with my sister and her family. (We are also a very loud, argumentative, opinionated but ultimately united lot.)

          • dannybhoy

            The Palestinians have mainly themselves to blame for this sItuation Jack.
            Historically they were offered their own State twice -some say three times.
            They refused.
            They were not a sovereign nation, so were not technically invaded. The original Jewish settlements were bought legitimately from Arab landowners during Ottoman rule. The Palestinians themselves see their origins as being in part Egypt, and Greater Syria.
            I think they would be described as fellaheen and tenant farmers

            They certainly were not a recognised sovereign state during the rule of the Ottomans.

            That is not to say we should not recognize the utter despair, depression and suicidal mindset which is eating away at the Palestinians. None of us wants to see children, families, mothers suffer. No one wants to see men lose hope and dignity and a reasonable future.
            We have to recognise the role that religious indoctrination plays in all this, and the fact that Islam itself is facing a crisis which finds its focus on Israel and the West, but is in reality a failure of Islam to reform.

          • Pubcrawler

            “As Jack understands it, the international position has always been that
            an Arab State, separate from Jordan and formed by people living there,
            would be formed in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank.”

            Maps here suggest otherwise:


          • Ummm … the article is written by a group who has as one of its declared objectives:

            “4. To expose and amplify the rules and principles of international law as it relates to the inalienable rights and exclusive sovereignty of the Jewish People and its agent or trustee, the State of Israel, over the entire Land of Israel, which was recognised and confirmed first when the Principal Allied Powers (Britain, France, Italy and Japan) of World War I adopted the Balfour Declaration at the San Remo Conference, then by the signing of the Treaty of Sevres and subsequently by the international approval given for the implementation of the Mandate for Palestine, whose original and chief purpose was to create a Jewish State in all of the historical Land of Israel.”

            This is a misrepresentation of the Balfour Declaration which was incorporated into the Treaty of Sèvres:

            “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours 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.”
            Britain from San Remo had a remit to achieve this and also to protect the rights of other groups and create various states within the mandated area.

            As it happened, Britain failed.

          • dannybhoy

            Us Brits mucked up again!

            (But God used it anyway..)
            During and after World War I, Britain made conflicting and shifting commitments regarding the future division and governance of the region, including those announced in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, and the Churchill White Paper of 1922. At the San Remo conference, the boundaries of the mandated territories were not precisely defined.[19][20]


          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Us Brits? Do you mean the political class of the time? Can’t imagine anybody else was consulted…

  • len

    There seems to be a false hope about a ‘two state solution resolving the Arab /Israeli conflict (which will be no solution at all)
    The Arabs claim the total land of Israel is theirs and they want to remove the Jews from the land in total.
    Land given as a concession to Arabs has made not the slightest difference to the position held by Arabs…… they want it all!.
    The Arabs tried to take the land of israel by force and as they couldn`t do that (despite repeated attempts) they now seem to want to claim the land by increments. So a two state solution is just another Arab move towards totally reclaiming the Land which they consider as theirs.
    Israel cannot compromise with those who have affirmed their desire to totally destroy the Jewish Nation and to take their land.
    ‘The solution’ is totally in the Hands of God and no one else.

  • Avi is right. The obviously correct solution would be for the Arab and Muslim world to recognise Israel’s right to exist and re-settle the Palestinians in Arab lands particularly Jordan. And vacate the Dome of the rock, taken by conquest. Oh and while they are at it, stop following a mass murdering psychopathic Antichrist and stop murdering each other and everyone else.

    Admittedly this is unlikely to happen.

    Israel is a sign for the nations and for the end times. So I fear is Islam. It is instructive to take note of the poisonous mutterings of the liberal left like Ward. Don’t they realise that after the Umma swallows Israel they are next?

    • dannybhoy

      “Don’t they realise that after the Umma swallows Israel they are next?”


    • carl jacobs

      Stephen Hayes

      Not “unlikely to happen.” It’s absolutely inconceivable. Israel’s existence is an enduring humiliation that must be expunged. It is an offense to the House of Islam that Israel even exists on territory claim by Islam. They will never come to terms with it.

      That’s the problem.

      • Yes Carl, quite so. One was being ironic/sarcastic/using understatement to make a point etc.