Cambridge, November 19 - An innovative approach to analysis of ancient documents has led at least one researcher to the hypothesis that numerous deviations in Scripture from the expected forms of words stem not from copyist errors, as commonly assumed, but from software similar in function to modern text media that automatically changes words or phrases to match its preconceived idea of the writer's intent, using an algorithm that on occasion results not in the intended words, but a distortion of them.
Oxford University Professor of Semitic Languages Edward Hargreaves suggests in a forthcoming article that various Biblical textual phenomena fit neatly into a framework that parallels the "Autocorrect" function of numerous text-based communication platforms, and that ages of scholarship and polemics on the subject of Biblical textual integrity have therefore largely been a waste of time.
"Our team looked at thousands of so-called textual anomalies in the Hebrew Scriptures," the professor explained in an interview. "The most common of these were the k'ri vs. k'tiv variety, in which the traditional enunciation of a word differs from its spelling in the text; others involve the 'hapax legomenon,' a word or root that appears only once in the entire corpus, and which, quite often, leaves the reader at a loss regarding its true meaning, because of a lack of comparative instances from which to understand it. Still others involve apparent discrepancies between manuscripts of the same text, or between different occurrences of the same phrases or verses in disparate parts of the Bible."
"We've found that upwards of 95% of these occurrences can be explained by Autocorrect," he continued. "The does not mean that many indeed occurred through that phenomenon, but that they are consistent with such a process. Among the exceptions, for example, are terms that various traditions have of specifically reading a word differently from its appearance, for purposes of euphemism, but with acknowledgement that the actual text is different. A good instance of this is the Jewish practice of refraining from the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, one of the most common names for the divinity, instead using a less-common one. That one alone accounts for the bulk of the exceptions to what I've taken to calling the 'Autocorrect Hypothesis.' But for the most part Autocorrect helps to explain anomalies that scholars have debated basically forever."
As for the few cases that do not fit into the hypothesis, Professor Hargreaves insisted he does not give a flying duck.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The director of the Ibrahimi Mosque, Hafzi Abu Sneina, stated that settlers placed the candlestick on the roof of the Temple Mount to mark one of the Jewish holidays, stressing that this act is a blatant assault, a serious transgression, and a provocation to the feelings of Muslims, as the Ibrahimi Mosque is an Islamic mosque for Muslims.
Come on, we can do better than just calling a Chanukiya a "blatant assault."
For his part, the Chief Judge of Palestine, the President's Advisor for Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations, Mahmoud al-Habbash, condemned the fact that groups of Israeli settlers - with protection from the occupation forces - put the so-called Jewish religious "menorah" on the roof of the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, describing this step as a new war crime committed by the occupation authority and a blatant attack on our holy sites and mosques.
There we go! If it isn't a "war crime" then it is hardly worth mentioning.
Here's a photo of what the menorah looked like last year:
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Today, the Department of State is initiating new guidelines to ensure that country of origin markings for Israeli and Palestinian goods are consistent with our reality-based foreign policy approach. In accordance with this announcement, all producers within areas where Israel exercises the relevant authorities – most notably Area C under the Oslo Accords - will be required to mark goods as “Israel”, “Product of Israel”, or “Made in Israel” when exporting to the United States. This approach recognizes that Area C producers operate within the economic and administrative framework of Israel and their goods should be treated accordingly. This update will also eliminate confusion by recognizing that producers in other parts of the West Bank are for all practical purposes administratively separate and that their goods should be marked accordingly.
This all makes perfect sense. The purpose of marking country of origin is not the physical location but for consumers to know which national regulations and policies were enforced in the production of the goods.
The next part of Pompeo's press release didn't get noticed as much, but it is just as important:
Goods in areas of the West Bank where the Palestinian Authority maintains relevant authorities shall be marked as products of “West Bank” and goods produced in Gaza will be marked as products of “Gaza.” Under the new approach, we will no longer accept “West Bank/Gaza” or similar markings, in recognition that Gaza and the West Bank are politically and administratively separate and should be treated accordingly.
This is a huge deal. The UN and Europe throw the West Bank and Gaza under the umbrella of "Occupied Palestinian Territories" (even though no one can credibly claim Gaza is occupied) and still pretend that they are one unit, even though they have different leaders, different policies, different geography, even different histories.
Treating them as separate units means that the US could, for example, loosen up rules for the West Bank while keeping stricter policies for Hamas-run Gaza. People could buy West Bank olive oil knowing that the profits probably don't go to Hamas.
This is a major change in policy, and it could lead to other countries doing the same. And if everyone would do that, it would benefit the West Bank Palestinians by not tying them to Hamas decisions and Hamas terror.
(h/t Irene)
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The United States government will formally designate the anti-Israel boycott movement “anti-Semitic” and immediately start cracking down on groups affiliated with it, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Thursday during a visit to Israel, calling BDS a “cancer.”
“Today I want to make one announcement with respect to a decision by the State Department that we will regard the global anti-Israel BDS campaign as anti-Semitic,” he said, standing next to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a joint statement to the press.
“I know this may sound simple to you, Mr. Prime Minister, it seems like a statement of fact, but I want you to know that we will immediately take steps to identify organizations that engage in hateful BDS conduct and withdraw US government support for such groups. The time is right,” Pompeo declared.
At that point, Netanyahu interrupted the US top diplomat’s comments, saying, “It doesn’t sound simple, it sounds simply wonderful.”
“Look,” Pompeo went on, “we want to stand with all other nations that recognize the BDS movement for the cancer that it is. And we’re committed to combating it. Our record speaks for itself. During the Trump administration, America stands with Israel like never before.”
BDS, which stands for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, is not a registered organization but rather a term for a worldwide movement of pro-Palestinian activists who embrace economic sanctions against Israel as the best nonviolent means to fight what they consider unjust policies of the government in Jerusalem.
Leading European politicians have rejected the BDS movement on ideological grounds but have stopped short of banning it due to free speech laws.
Proud to support American policy and stand with our great ally Israel. New guidelines outlined today protect Israeli producers and put the United States, and the world, on track towards recognizing reality. https://t.co/AlMHGPY7WF
The US will allow goods produced in West Bank settlements to be labeled products of Israel as opposed to the West Bank, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Thursday, during the first-ever visit by someone in his position to an Israeli entity in Judea and Samaria.
The new guidelines "ensure that country of origin markings for Israeli and Palestinian good are consistent with our reality-based foreign policy approach," Pompeo said.
He added: "This approach recognizes that Area C producers operate within the economic and administrative framework of Israel and their goods should be treated accordingly. This update will also eliminate confusion by recognizing that producers in other parts of the West Bank are for all practical purposes administratively separate and that their goods should be marked accordingly."
The US will also no longer accept labels that say "West Bank\Gaza" for Palestinian-made goods; they must say either West Bank or Gaza because the areas are "politically and administratively separate."
Pompeo reversed 25 years of policy requiring such products to be labeled as made in the West Bank. The Clinton administration required goods from settlements to be labeled as coming from the West Bank following the Oslo Accords. Those rules were not enforced, but in 2016, the Obama administration warned that labeling settlement goods as products of Israel could carry a fine.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo paid the first-ever visit by a US secretary of state to the Golan Heights on Thursday.
Standing on Mount Bental, where the borders of Israel, Lebanon and Syria intersect, Pompeo said he chose to go to there to “tell the world that the US has it right, that Israel has it right, that each nation has the right to defend its sovereignty.
“We will make sure Israel has what it needs to do just that,” he added. “We will honor the right to defend your people.”
Israel extended its law to the Golan Heights in 1981, but the US only recognized it as part of sovereign Israel in 2019 under US President Donald Trump.
The secretary of state said that, from his vantage point atop the mountain, “you cannot stand here and stare out across the border and deny the thing President Trump recognized and other presidents refused to do, that this is part of Israel – and a central part of Israel.”
Pompeo mocked the members of “the salons in Europe and elites in the US” who wanted Israel to concede the Golan to Syria.
“Imagine with [Syrian President Bashar] Assad in charge of this place, the risk to Israel and the people of Israel,” he said.
In a bold move to refurbish their sullied image in Washington, the Palestinians are laying the groundwork for an overhaul to one of their most cherished but controversial practices, officials say: compensating those who serve time in Israeli prisons, including for violent attacks.
That policy, which critics call “pay to slay,” has long been denounced by Israel and its supporters as giving an incentive to terrorism because it assures would-be attackers that their dependents will be well cared for. And because payments are based largely on the length of the prison sentence, critics say the most heinous crimes are the most rewarded.
...Palestinian officials eager to make a fresh start with the incoming Biden administration — and to have those punitive measures rolled back — are heeding the advice of sympathetic Democrats who have repeatedly warned that without an end to the payments, it would be impossible for the new administration to do any heavy lifting on their behalf.
The proposal being hammered out in Ramallah would give the families of Palestinian prisoners stipends based on their financial need instead of how long they are behind bars, said Qadri Abu Bakr, the chairman of the Palestinian Authority’s Prisoners Affairs Commission.
“Economic need must serve as the basis,” Mr. Abu Bakr said in a phone interview. “A single man should not be earning the same as someone with a family.”
The details of the proposed changes to the prisoner payment system have not been finalized, Mr. Abu Bakr said, and will require the approval of the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas.
Palestinians have long pushed the fiction that this program was a form of welfare, which was belied by the fact that payments corresponded to the severity of the terror attack, not the need of the family. But it still is a program specifically for prisoners, not the entire population, so this is mostly a fig leaf.
The article says that the payments to the families of "martyrs" and the fake jobs with real salaries for released prisoners are being reconsidered as well.
Officials said they also plan to require released prisoners to take public-sector jobs. Currently, many former prisoners are paid what amount to monthly pensions for sitting idle, Mr. Abu Bakr said.
“We shouldn’t be delivering salaries to people for doing nothing,” he said, noting that his commission had already distributed questionnaires to former prisoners about their job preferences. “They should work for them.”
Officials said they also planned to overhaul payments to families of assailants and others killed by Israelis — another extremely sensitive issue among Palestinians, who refer to them as martyrs. While officials said the Palestinians intended to start strictly tying these payments to financial need, the details of how they would do so remained unclear.
There are the life insurance and pension for anyone who decides to kill Jews.
I expect that there will be vociferous objections from not only Hamas but from Palestinian relatives of terrorists in the West Bank. As of this writing, the story has not yet been picked up in Palestinian media.
This quote in the article says is all:
“This is 100 percent unacceptable and shameful,” said Qassam Barghouti, the son of Marwan Barghouti, who was convicted by Israel of five counts of murder and is serving multiple life sentences.
“The prisoners are not a social welfare issue,” he added. “People are paid more for spending longer periods of time in prison to recognize their sacrifices: The more time you spend behind bars, the greater your value to your society is.”
Now, that is a screwed up viewpoint.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The ADL's leader Jonathan Greenblatt summarized the argument in a tweet: "The Holocaust was among the most horrific events in human history. Whether you are an elected official, news anchor or public personality, let's avoid direct comparisons to the systematic slaughter of 6M Jews & millions of others at the hands of the Nazis. "
While these manifestations of Holocaust distortion are often antisemitic, they are not necessarily so. In the cases mentioned by the ADL of Amanpour and others such as Alec Baldwin, the rhetorical device used is Holocaust Trivialization Facile Holocaust analogies are so prevalent and banal that they usually reveal that the offender is clueless as to how offensive they are, rather than a conscious attempt to minimize the Holocaust.
The popular far-Left cartoonist Eli Valley responded to Greenblatt's tweet with this grotesque cartoon that has received hundreds of "Likes":
Valley's response isn't mere Holocaust Trivialization - it is Holocaust Inversion.
Holocaust inversion, the portrayal of Israel and Jews as Nazis, is always antisemitic.
There have been a number of papers published on the phenomenon. Wikipedia claims that the assertion that Holocaust inversion is antisemitic is contested among scholars, quoting only one:
Professor David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism argues that Holocaust inversion is often not antisemitic, because it is a commonly used rhetorical device “used in many arguments about many subjects, often light-mindedly, lacking any specifically antisemitic content” such as Israeli politicians who refer to each other as Nazis, and because the inversion (in relation to the 2014 Gaza war) is not motivated by an anti-Jewish subjectivity but by criticism of Israeli policy.[2]
However, Feldman realized that he confused Holocaust inversion and Holocaust trivialization, and updated the paper - removing the parts where he made that mistake:
When I wrote the report I was eager, among other things, to make the point that some discourse about Jews can be factually incorrect and offensive yet not be antisemitic. This remains a useful thought, I believe. However, the way in which the original report applied this idea to analogies made by some writers and activists between Israel’s actions and those of Nazi Germany was flawed: these sentences are now omitted.
I am not aware of any serious scholar that believes that Holocaust inversion is not antisemitic.
Alan Johnson, writing in response to Feldman's original flawed paper, gives three contexts where he says Holocaust inversion is antisemitic. I can see how Leftists would dispute two of them, but the third is unassailable.
The "discursive context," he notes, "renews the core motif of antisemitism, which is that the Jews are not just ‘Other’ but also malign." Leftists would argue that in this case it is not antisemitic, because there are "righteous Jews" like Valley who are not the targets of the Holocaust analogy.
The "political context," Johnson writes, is that "an essential part of the political practice of a global social movement [is] dedicated to the destruction of only one state in the world—the Jewish one." Again, Leftists would argue that they don't conflate the Jewish state with Jews, since there are some anti-Zionist Jews.
However, no one can argue against what Johnson called "The Jewish Context:"
The inversion is obscene; it verges on the demonic in its cruelty as it implicitly demands, as a matter of ethical obligation no less—and this after the rupture in world history that was the Shoah—the destruction of the Jewish homeland as a unique evil in the world no better than the perpetrators of the Shoah. Logically, as Elhanan Yakira puts it, the discourse is ‘annihilationist.’... Iganski, McGlashan, and Sweiry point out that ‘deep wounds are scratched when the Nazi-card is played . . . in discourse against Jews.’ The inversion is ‘not simply abusive,’ they add, but ‘invokes painful collective memories for Jews and for many others’ such that ‘by using those memories against Jews it inflicts profound hurts’ and can lead to violence. In a similar vein, Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust has argued that Holocaust inversion in the United Kingdom in 2014 played on Jewish sensibilities ‘in order to provoke a reaction,’ adding, ‘another word for that is Jew-baiting.’ For the Community Security Trust, ‘incidents equating Israel to Nazi Germany would normally be recorded as antisemitic,’ because the inversion has a ‘visceral capacity to offend Jews on the basis of their Jewishness’ and ‘carries a particular meaning for Jews because of the Holocaust.’ Yakira ... points out, when it is applied to Jews, the inversion actively seeks to ‘suppress memory’ and so ‘can only mean eliminating identity.’
Almost lost in the academic-speak is that Holocaust inversion has a unique motivation: to cause specific pain to Jews. Invoking the idea that Jews are are modern-day Nazis is meant to hurt Jews. Invoking that analogy does not shed light on the Middle East; it has only a single motivation: cruelty. The hate that motivates this kind of attack is indistinguishable from the hate that motivates attacks on Blacks or gays or women. It is irrational, it is psychotic, and the perpetrators always have some sort of justification as to why their bigotry is righteous.
Valley's cartoon is meant to say that Jews - not Israelis but Jews specifically - have turned into the most monstrous people in history.
Of course, the cartoon works on multiple levels that makes it even worse. It subverts the phrase "never again" from its context of Jews no longer being helpless - the raison d'etre of Israel - into an attack on Israel. It implies that Holocaust victims themselves would agree with his monstrous idea that a state meant to protect Jews from future Holocausts is morally indistinguishable from a regime that dedicated a significant portion of its resources to murder millions of people because they were Jews.
Yet it is the Holocaust inversion itself that is definitionally antisemitic.
For the Leftists that argue that there is no such thing as Leftist antisemitism, this is proof that it exists, it is undeniable and it is widespread.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Short-lived Istanbul agreement between Hamas and the PA
Now that the PLO has caved and returned to security coordination with Israel, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are angry and upset.
The Islamic Jihad spokesperson in Lebanon (who has been very visible lately in PIJ media), Ihssan Ataya, called the announcement of the restoration of relations and security coordination between the Palestinian Authority and Israel "a disregard for the Palestinian people" and "a stab in the heart of national unity, consolidating the hegemony of the Zionist enemy over the Palestinian lands, and reviving the annexation plan in light of the increase in settlement projects."
Hamas stopped their reconciliation talks in Cairo with the PLO.
All of this puts the PLO's Catch-22 situation in focus, and it is also the reason that peace is impossible.
For there to be a chance at peace, the PLO - which would sign the accords - must represent the entire Palestinian people and it must oppose terror.
The PLO doesn't rule Gaza, so there can be no peace with a group too weak to control its own lands. If it unifies with Hamas, then it cannot pretend to be against terror.
There is no realistic solution to this at this time. No Palestinian wants to separate Gaza from the West Bank. Israel is not interested in a long, bloody war that would destroy Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. The PLO is too weak to govern Gaza. Neither the PLO nor Hamas would accept the results of elections that they lose and give up their power base.
The entire world knows this - it has been the situation for 12 years. Which is why those pushing for more negotiations are not thinking rationally: Israel cannot negotiate on final status issues with leaders who are too weak to govern their own people, and Israel cannot negotiate with terrorists.
One major reason peace is impossible is because of this dysfunctional relationship between the PLO's West Bank and Hamas' Gaza.
If you want to laugh, here is a solution: when Palestinians learn how to be as practical and accepting of Israel as a permanent part of the Middle East and Jews as natives - the way that Emiratis are - they can have a state by the week after.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
A recent IAEA report showed that Iran has considerably more low-enriched uranium than was permitted by the JCPOA and is installing advanced centrifuges at Natanz, also in contravention of the agreement, to further increase production. In addition, the uranium is being enriched to a higher degree than before. If they want to, the Iranians could have nuclear weapons sometime in 2021.
Apparently in response to the report, President Trump reportedly asked advisors for options to take action against Iran’s nuclear program. Those options could include anything from increased economic pressure, to cyber-attacks, and even military action. The NY Times said he had been “dissuaded” by advisors from a military strike because it “could easily escalate into a broader conflict in the last weeks of Mr. Trump’s presidency.” But Trump is nothing if not independent.
When Donald Trump took over from Barack Obama, one of the first things he did was reverse Obama’s disastrous Iran policy (I highly recommend this link), which was one of appeasement and acquiescence to extortion, motivated in part by Obama’s desire to see the end of the sovereign Jewish state. I’m convinced that Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy on Iran is the only approach short of war that might have any chance of modifying the behavior of the Iranian regime, which sees its nuclear program as a top priority. While the Iranian regime has responded to the pressure with increased aggressiveness, the US has – or would have, if the policy were to be continued – far more staying power.
The Iranian regime’s strategy has been to keep a low profile. It didn’t retaliate after the American killing of its most valuable terror operative, Qassem Soleimani. It didn’t construct a nuclear weapon. It has contented itself with strengthening its assets in Iraq and Syria, and gradually ramping up its nuclear program without taking any major visible steps. Despite its claims that the US is weak, the regime knows that it would be no match for what is still the world’s greatest military power. And it fears Trump because of his unpredictability.
Unsurprisingly, the major media are full of claims that “maximum pressure has failed.” That is not precisely true: it simply needs more time.
It may not get it. All the evidence seems to point to a Biden Administration returning to the Obama policy in some form, although the particular animus of Obama toward Israel seems to be lacking in Biden himself. The history of negotiations with the regime over its nuclear program shows that it will not give up anything that it is not forced to, and it will demand the relaxation of sanctions as a condition for negotiations. The regime has already indicated that it is happy with the (apparent) result of the American election, and is looking forward to dealing with a Biden Administration.
Whatever happens, Israel will be deeply involved. Part of Iran’s response to an attack, whether by Israel or the US, would be to unleash Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel’s home front. It would also attack US assets in Iraq, and American warships (and maybe commercial shipping) in the Gulf. It would probably hit Saudi Arabia too. These points were certainly made to Trump by his advisors.
While one conclusion could be that it is best not to act, there is another interpretation: rather than a minimalist operation to take out specific nuclear facilities, a larger operation that would also destroy Iran’s overall military capability is indicated. Probably an American attack on Iran would be accompanied by Israeli preemptive strikes against Hezbollah, in order to prevent the damage that would be done to Israel by the massive rocket barrage that would follow a blow against Iran.
PM Netanyahu has been averse to preemptive action against Hezbollah, partly because he wants to avoid the international condemnation that would follow. And because life is unpredictable, he will delay until the last moment; who knows what might happen to make war unnecessary? Finally, he may believe that an ultra-fast response to a Hezbollah attack plus Israel’s anti-missile systems would mitigate the disadvantages of allowing them to strike first.
On the other hand, he is a strong proponent of the Begin Doctrine, which says that Israel will not – must not – allow hostile states in the region to obtain nuclear weapons, especially Iran, which he views as having an antisemitic and genocidal regime. He knows that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will serve as an umbrella to protect Hezbollah, greatly multiplying the danger to Israel. I’m convinced he would go along with an American plan.
If Trump wants to achieve his original objective of precluding a nuclear-armed revolutionary Islamic regime in Iran, he has only about two months to act – and his ability to do so will weaken as the lame duck period progresses.
The clock is ticking.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The world will doubtless mark the 75th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials, which began in November 1945, as a model of international law. For the first Nazi executed at Nuremberg, however, the trial embodied not multilateralism but rather the revenge of the Jews. This was made clear in an eerie moment 11 months later, one whose historical and theological lessons reverberate to this day.
On October 16, 1946, Julius Streicher—the Nazi’s Nazi, publisher of Der Stürmer, the man who personally ordered the destruction of the Great Synagogue of Nuremberg on Kristallnacht—was taken to be hanged. As Newsweek reported, Streicher did not die with dignity: “He had to be pushed across the floor, wild-eyed and screaming ‘Heil Hitler!’ Mounting the steps he cried out: ‘And now I go to God.’ He stared at the witnesses facing the gallows and shouted: ‘Purimfest 1946.’”
That is a reference to the Jewish holiday of Purim, which marks the tale told in the book of Esther: the rise of Haman as vizier of Persia and his attempt to wipe out the Jews. In the end, Haman himself is hanged on the gallows, and later, following a war against his allies, Haman’s 10 sons are hanged as well. In invoking Purim, Streicher drew on an anti-Semitic trope with a long German lineage. Purim, for Martin Luther, reflected the bloodthirsty nature of the Jews, as he noted in a text called On the Jews and Their Lies:
They are real liars and bloodhounds who have not only continually perverted and falsified all of Scripture with their mendacious glosses from the beginning until the present day. Their heart’s most ardent sighing and yearning and hoping is set on the day on which they can deal with us Gentiles as they did with the Gentiles in Persia at the time of Esther. Oh, how fond they are of the book of Esther, which is so beautifully attuned to their bloodthirsty, vengeful, murderous yearning and hope.
That Streicher went to his death echoing Luther’s anti-Semitism was appropriate, for he had lived his life following Luther’s advice: “First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them…I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.”
A great gulf looms between the image of Mennonites as a peaceful Christian denomination engaged in humanitarianism and peace building around the world, including in the Middle East, and what historians have begun to reveal about the entanglement of a substantial minority of Mennonites with National Socialism during the 1930s and ’40s. So, who hid the Mennonite involvement with Nazism and how?
After World War II, the primary narrative that Mennonite leaders in Europe and North America crafted about their churches’ activities in the Third Reich emphasized repression and hardship. The denomination’s leading aid organization, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), worked during the late 1940s and early 1950s to help resettle thousands of European Mennonites who were displaced as a result of the war. MCC relied on financial and legal assistance from larger refugee agencies affiliated with the United Nations. In dealing with their United Nations colleagues, MCC officials insisted most of their wards “were brutally treated by the German occupation authorities” and “did not receive favored treatment.”
One of Mennonite Central Committee’s star witnesses was a refugee named Heinrich Hamm. Like tens of thousands of other Mennonites who had experienced the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe, Hamm was from Soviet Ukraine, and had retreated westward with German troops in 1943 to avoid again coming under communist rule. Five years later, Hamm was an MCC employee, helping to run a large refugee camp in occupied Germany. MCC’s special commissioner in Europe passed to United Nations officials Hamm’s story of evacuating from Ukraine to more western areas:
It is quite an erroneous idea to think that all Mennonites were brought to Poland to be settled on farms. I and my family came to a camp Preussisch-Stargard in the Danzig area. Immediately representatives of various works and concerns came to fetch cheap labour. I had to work in a machine factory where I remained until the end of the war. Besides the four Mennonite families many Ukrainians, Frenchmen and Poles worked there also. There was no difference in the way these various national groups were treated.
The efforts after the war by Mennonite Central Committee to portray refugees like Heinrich Hamm as victims of Nazism were largely successful. Based on statements from MCC officers and many migrants themselves, refugee agents affiliated with the United Nations believed that “the majority of those [Mennonites] who found themselves in Germany at the end of the war had not come voluntarily to that country. They were deported alongside other Russians to be used as slave labourers.” As another evaluation concluded, Mennonites were fundamentally “an un-Nazi and un-nationalistic group.” MCC ultimately succeeded in relocating most of the refugees under its care with United Nations assistance to new homes in West Germany or overseas, mostly in Canada and Paraguay.
Hamm and his colleagues at Mennonite Central Committee wanted United Nations-affiliated refugee organizations and other interested parties to think that any collaboration by members of the denomination with National Socialism was exceptional and insignificant. They implied that if some young men had perhaps gotten carried away, surely this was because they had been drawn away from their faith under Soviet rule. But wartime records do not corroborate this story.
Shannon Nuszen is coming up against Jewish opposition to her
work at Beyneynu, which is all about exposing the true nature of Christian
missionaries inside Israel. These evangelical Christians are careful not to
use overt language in describing their mission to the Jewish Israelis they meet
and work with. But Nuszen captures the truth by way of videos created by the
Christians for their supporters abroad, in which their mission is stated in
explicit terms. And the truth is that these Christians are in Israel for the
express purpose of converting Jewish Israelis to Christianity.
Why would any Jew not want this truth exposed? It’s not a
mystery: money talks, nobody walks. Evangelical Christians give a lot of money
to Israel, and they’re very nice people. No one wants to believe they have any
underlying, hidden purpose in being here. The Jews don’t want to believe these
Christians are anything other than what they purport to be: nice people who
support the Jews and the Jewish State.
Jews are tired of being hated. When someone shows them a bit
of love, they drink it up. They are like Sally Fields at the Oscars gushing, “You like me! You really like me!”
They need to believe these Christians don’t have an ulterior
motive. They need it for their self-esteem. And of course, there’s the money.
Lots and lots of it. And a lot of these Christians are working the vineyards of
Samaria, for free. Which is as good as financial support, right?
So we have a situation where Shannon Nuszen, through her
organization, Beyneynu, is distributing videos to Jewish journalists in which
Christians expose their true purpose on camera. And Jews are going around
behind the scenes and sometimes, shamelessly, right in front of Nuszen, casting
aspersions on her work.
These Jews tell the journalists and anyone else who will
listen that Shannon is disturbed, that because of her past, she has a vendetta—that
these Christians are REALLY NICE PEOPLE who have told them, the Jews, that converting the Jews is the furthest thing from
their sweet little innocent minds. These Christians LOVE the Jews, say the
Jews, and only want to help and support them.
Would that all that were true. But it’s not. And Shannon is
only curating words said by these very same Christians—words which clearly have
no other context—that is, if one is being honest about this stuff. The
Christians are in Israel for one sole purpose. They want to bring the Jews to
Jesus.
They’ll swear up and down it isn’t so. But the videos say
otherwise, if you can get past all the Jews out to destroy the messenger,
Shannon. To them I say, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”
The Jews know on which side their bread is buttered. And it’s
actually a really shameful thing to witness how they grovel to those trying to
convert them while speaking out against their own: Shannon. But you know what?
Let’s give Shannon a chance to explain it all in her own words. And then you
can decide whom to believe: Shannon, or the Jewish naysayers who benefit from
these Christians and work behind the scenes to deride their fellow Jew:
Varda Epstein: Can
you tell us a bit about your background?
Shannon Nuszen: I was born and raised in Evangelical
Christianity. My father was a minister, and for many years I was a missionary myself
with a tremendous love for Israel and a focus on the Jewish people.
In 2005 I visited Israel for the first time and returned
home more determined than ever to prove to myself and every Jew I knew that
Jesus was indeed the messiah prophesied in the bible.
However, homing in on that one issue and fully immersing
myself in learning about the fulfillment (or lack thereof) of these prophecies
did not result in any reaffirming of my faith, or in me perfecting my arguments
for bringing Jews to Jesus. The opposite happened, and through learning the
Jewish perspective, it became clear that everything I knew and believed in was
false.
Long story short, I ended up converting to Judaism and have
been living as an Orthodox Jew ever since. I now live in Israel.
Varda Epstein: Why
did you decide to focus on exposing and fighting missionaries in Israel? Is
this really a significant presence or threat to the Jews of Israel?
Shannon Nuszen: I was on the other side. I was one of those
missionaries. I understand better than most how aggressive and unyielding these
missionaries are. Most Jewish people, though they may have encountered these
missionaries, really do not understand the full scope and danger they present
to our people. We are not just dealing with Christians trying to convert Jews.
It’s worse than that and more insidious because they are playing word games.
The missionaries misappropriate Jewish symbols, icons, and
traditions in order to evangelize the Jews. They are portraying Christianity in
a Jewish way to get Jews to believe in Jesus. I know this because I was one of
those people. As a result, I feel a heavy responsibility, almost a burden, to
alert the Jewish community to the problem that confronts them.
It is shocking. It is
a stage four cancer, and there is no stage five. These missionaries have
managed to infiltrate and become a part of the highest echelons of the Israeli
government and its leadership. Because of their financial and political support
for Israel these evangelicals have managed to blind Israelis to the inherent dangers
of their mission. Evangelical support comes at an extremely high price, and I
understand why Israeli leaders and many ordinary Israelis and Israeli
businessmen turn the other way. We have many enemies, and therefore we are
willing to work with anyone, even when it comes at a very dangerous price.
Varda Epstein: Would
you tell us about some of the people and organizations you’ve worked with on
the issue of missionaries in Israel?
Shannon Nuszen: In my quest to research and supply
information about specific missionary groups that are active in Israel, I have
worked with and continue to work with every organization I know of in this
field. In an official capacity I began this work 13 years ago in Houston,
countering local missionaries in a grassroots effort with Rabbi Stuart Federow.
During this time, I also worked for Outreach Judaism for a span of a few years.
Most of my work in this field, however, has been with Jewish Israel, as their North American
liaison.
Varda Epstein: Tell
us about Beyneynu. Why did you decide to found this organization and what is
its purpose?
Shannon Nuszen: Beyneynu is a nonprofit organization that
monitors missionary activity in Israel and works with government and community
leaders to create proper boundaries in their partnerships with faith-based
organizations.
Are we against Christian support for Israel? No! We simply
draw the line at missionary efforts, and do not believe Jewish organizations should
be forming alliances or partnerships with those who have as their agenda the
desire to bring Jews to faith in Jesus.
I do not consider myself a “counter missionary,” and Beyneynu
is not another counter missionary organization. Our focus is on alerting the
Jewish community to missionary efforts, and to help the Israeli leadership to
identify those who threaten the Jewish character of the State of Israel.
Varda Epstein: You’ve
released some shocking videos of missionaries in Israel and abroad. How are
these videos created?
Shannon Nuszen: These videos are created the same way news
publications produce videos. They scour hours of videos and take the most
germane elements they find and broadcast them to the public. This is critical
to this effort.
Most videos put out by the missionaries are over an hour
long. The Jewish community needs to know about the elements in these videos
that specifically speak about their intentions in regard to the Jewish people
of Israel.
It’s important to understand that if these missionary groups—based
as they are inside of Israel—were self-sustaining, they wouldn’t take the risk
of discussing these topics in videos, but all their financial support comes
from abroad, from outside of Israel. The videos are created precisely for this audience:
evangelical Christians who live beyond the borders of Israel. Virtually nothing
comes from native Israeli missionaries, therefore they must convey to evangelical
Christians abroad the work that they are doing, and that is “winning Jewish
souls for Yeshua.”
These people all, without exception, use language that serves
as dog whistles for their followers. None of them would ever come straight out
and use the term “convert Jews to Christianity” to describe their mission. That
type of language is no longer used among the Jews because Jewish people
translate “convert to Christianity” as losing their Jewish identity (and they’re
right).
This was clear in another video Beyneynu released not long
ago where the CEO of God
TV, Ward Simpson, clearly stated “We
don’t want Jews to convert to Christianity, we simply want them to accept Jesus
as their messiah.”
Varda Epstein: There
have been some accusations that you are selectively editing these videos to
show something that isn’t really there. They say you have a vendetta, because
you were one of them, and have now converted to Judaism. What would you say to
your accusers?
Shannon Nuszen: The accusers are not bystanders. They are
the same activists who repeatedly carry water for these evangelical Christian
groups by repeating their talking points, because they work with them and
depend on them for their financial support. They have a vested interest in
protecting these missionaries.
The real question for these accusers (or perhaps “handlers”
is a better word) is: Do these Christians believe it is their obligation to carry
out “The Great Commission?” Matthew 28:19 “. . . to make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit.”
In our latest video, these Christians are clearly speaking
of this obligation to their followers, if not in so many words. If the
naysayers cannot answer to the charge or prove that it’s not the case, then the
only tactic left for them is to attack the messenger: me.
As far as having a vendetta, I would say the opposite is
true. Just as much as I feel it is an obligation to warn fellow Jews of this
danger, I would love to be able to demonstrate to Christians the pain their
actions inflict on the Jewish people in order to foster some understanding.
Varda Epstein: Why
are so many Jews against your work, and speaking out against this work and even
you, personally? What do they stand to gain by allying with Christians, and
working against you, a fellow Jew?
Shannon Nuszen: I do not think even our most fierce
opposition opposes the goal of our work. This is the one issue that Jews across
the spectrum agree on. The entire Jewish world is against efforts to convert
Jews. They just refuse to believe that the Christians who give them financial
support, and who support their programs, could possibly have any missionary
agenda. It becomes for them a very personal issue.
The information we present, however, is not our opinion. We
are not quoting out of context or interpreting what these Christians are
saying. Our only aim is to inform.
Varda Epstein: Is
there anything else you would like to say to your accusers?
Shannon Nuszen: I try
not to focus on the negative attention or answer those who are aligning
themselves with missionaries. They have their reasons for what they do, and
they will have to answer for that. My focus is on the effect of these missionaries
on Jewish communities worldwide.
Varda Epstein: Can
you give us some examples of things these missionaries have said for which the
context is undeniable, and cannot possibly be explained away by selective
editing?
Shannon Nuszen: The undeniable issue that cannot be disputed
is “The Great Commission,” which you’ll find being preached in each of the
videos we have curated, and is common to all missionaries. “The Great
Commission” is the commandment given by Jesus himself “. . . to make disciples
of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit.” Those who teach this concept are fully committed to living by
this commandment and everything they say and do is by way of fulfilling this
obligation.
The methods and language used to explain this in ways that
won’t offend Jews are many, but the bottom line is that they do not believe
they are exempt from this commandment or that they should refuse to participate
in its fulfillment. They see this commandment, “The Great Commission,” as their
primary goal, and crucial factor in the “restoration” (you’ll hear them say
that word a lot) process that in their belief, serves as preparation for the
second coming of Jesus.
Varda Epstein: Where
are you and Beyneynu going with this work? What can we expect to see coming up
next?
Shannon Nuszen: Beyneynu’s efforts are primarily behind the
scenes working with government
and Jewish leadership to understand the dangers of partnering with
missionaries. With the tremendous outpouring of love and support coming from
the Christian world, it is important that we understand who we can and cannot
trust.
Sometimes our efforts include informing the public of
problematic events or relationships that require their help to demand action.
This was the case with God TV. Even though they had already secured a contract
with the cable provider, and had been licensed by the Israeli government to
broadcast this programming, it was public outcry that brought about the
complete reversal of this state of affairs and caught the attention of the
world.
That is the message that every organization looking to
partner with us should understand. We appreciate the support for Israel, but we
must draw the line when it comes to missionary activity.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Yesterday, I was in the mood to find old, public domain comic books and change the dialogue. Romance comics work best because they are so dramatic.
Enjoy!
I also took an Ali Abunimah tweet and put the words, verbatim, in one of the romance comics where it seems to work very well!
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
The indictments of U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump are as varied as his critics. The mandarins of the foreign-policy establishment have led the charge by insisting that the norm-shattering president has weakened U.S. alliances and empowered the country’s adversaries. Overlooked is the fact that the Trump administration has pursued a successful Middle East policy. And it succeeded precisely because it challenged entrenched assumptions. In the end, Trump will hand President-elect Joe Biden a region that is more stable than it was four years ago and an alliance network that is stronger than the one Trump inherited. This is a worthy legacy that will be squandered by the Democrats if they are determined to eviscerate all things Trump.
Among the world’s revisionist powers, none has taken the battering of Iran. Trump’s successes have confounded his critics. At first, many in the commentariat insisted that if Trump were to pull the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Washington would stand alone and be incapable of maintaining multilateral economic sanctions. In the end, the European co-signatories of the deal may have complained—but more importantly, European businesses complied. The next pillar of wisdom to fall was the notion that should the United States walk away from the deal, Iran would rush to the bomb. Tehran has accelerated some parts of its nuclear activities, but the country is still years away from having a nuclear bomb. The sabotage of Iran’s nuclear installations by unconfirmed intelligence actors has moved the atomic goal post further out of Tehran’s reach. And finally, the last notion to fall was that Trump’s killing of Iran’s famed Quds Force commander, Qassem Suleimani, would spark a war. Instead it provoked a missile attack on a relatively unoccupied potion of a U.S. military base in Iraq—with sufficient forewarning by Tehran to Washington that was passed on via the Swiss.
The stark reality is that the clerical oligarchs were prepared to negotiate with either winner of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. A regime that cannot stabilize its currency or protect its people from the ravages of a pandemic needs relief from sanctions and understands that the pathway to the global economy and financial system runs through Washington. The problem is that the Americans who will show up at the table after Jan. 20 may be so disdainful of Trump’s maximum pressure strategy that they fail to appreciate its many advantages.
When President-elect Joe Biden finally starts getting intelligence briefings, he may want to pay special attention to Israel’s successful operation against Abu Muhammad al-Masri, al-Qaeda’s second in command.
The significance of that operation, which took place in August and saw al-Masri shot dead in the street, is its location: Iran. According to the center-left conventional wisdom, this sort of thing should be impossible. While many analysts acknowledge that senior al-Qaeda leaders fled to Iran after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, they have insisted that there was no significant relationship between the Shiite majority regime in Tehran and the Sunni-jihadist terrorist group.
In fact, al-Qaeda’s No. 2, who was wanted by the FBI for his role in planning the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, was living freely in an Iranian suburb. It should be obvious by now that Iran is willing to cooperate with al-Qaeda when their interests converge.
Iran and al-Qaeda have cooperated for decades against U.S. targets in the Middle East. “There is ample evidence going back to the 1990s that Iran is willing to work with al-Qaeda at times,” said Thomas Joscelyn, a founding editor of the Long War Journal. “Sometimes their interests are opposed and sometimes they converge.”
This came to the public’s attention in 2017, after the CIA released a batch of documents recovered at the compound of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. One of those documents is a 19-page memo laying out the quarter-century history of al-Qaeda’s relationship with Iran. It says Iranian intelligence offered al-Qaeda money, arms and training and facilitated the travel of some operatives, while providing safe haven for others. Indeed, after the fall of the Taliban, the wives and children of bin Laden and his deputy fled to Iran.
A group of Republican senators led by Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sent a letter to President Trump this week urging him to issue an executive order allowing goods produced in the Jewish settlements in the West Bank to be labeled “Made in Israel." Axios obtained a copy of the letter.
Why it matters: While the rest of the world views the settlements as illegal under international law and not part of Israel, the Trump administration has taken several steps intended to legitimize them and blur the differentiation between Israel and the West Bank.
- The letter — signed by Sens. Cotton, Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) — pushes the administration to issue the order before Jan. 20.
The letter was sent to Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf.
- The senators warned that a Biden administration would return to a policy of differentiating between Israel and the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
- That would make goods from the settlements “prime targets for BDS boycotts," they wrote, referring to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Kamala Loses the Jews
-
In September, the Jewish Democratic Council of America rolled out a poll
which claimed that 72% of American Jews backed Kamala, and that Jewish
voters d...
Hezbollah Leader
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Iran, War, Hezbollah, Nasrallah, Israel,
Lebanon,]
He's gone with the wind.
* * *
*Please make a donation to Dry Bones.*
Use Pa...
Making a Correction
-
Researching for an article on the "Saison", I checked the Hagana history
volume and a footnote directed me to the Palestine Post and a column
entitled "R...
The transparent mob attack on the Jewish Chronicle
-
Make no mistake, the Jewish Chronicle made a huge error in trusting a
source they should not have done. But as embarrassing as this episode may
be – the ...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Thursday, November 19, 2020
Elder of Ziyon
