EXPIREDThePresbyterianChurchBearingFalseWitnessAgainstIsrael

.
Click here to view possible topics for future meetings. Participants of each monthly meeting vote for the topic of the next monthly meeting.

If you would like to suggest a topic, it is requested as a courtesy that your suggestion be posted here at least 24 hours in advance so that others will have time to give it proper consideration.

EXPIRATION. We have always had a rule that a Possible Topic remains active so long as it receives at least one vote every six meetings. However, if a possible-topic proposal contains a wealth of information that is worth preserving but has not received a vote for six consecutive meetings, it is retained but listed as “Expired."

**********************
SHORT-FUSE NOTICE

*****
EXPLANATION

Occasionally, a Proposed Topic for Future Meetings has a SHORT-TIME FUSE because a governmental unit is soliciting PUBLIC COMMENTS for a limited time period with a SPECIFIED DEADLINE.

Exhibit A would be the 8/5/2016 Proposed Topic entitled “Clone Rights -- Involuntary Soldiers, Sex Slaves, Human Lab Rats, Etc.”

We had already focused on this topic for our 4/9/2008 meeting more than 8 years ago when the PBS Newshour interviewed a Yale U. Biology Professor who had already created a “Chimaera” with 25% Human DNA and 75% Chimp DNA (Chimps are the animals that share the most DNA with humans).

The Yale U. Biology Professor stated that he was then (2008) in the process of creating a “Chimaera” with 50% Human DNA and 50% Chimp DNA, and that he planned to create in the near future (2008 et seq.) a “Chimaera” with 75% Human DNA and 25% Chimp DNA.

As our 4/9/2008 meeting materials posted on http://www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake.org disclose, Gwen Ifill who conducted the interview, was oblivious to the issue of the Nazi’s definition of a Jew based on the percentage of Jewish heritage and the Ante-Bellum American South’s definition of African-American based on the percentage of Sub-Saharan-African heritage.

But, even more appallingly, Gwen Ifill failed to ask the obvious question = What happens if the 50%-50% “Chimaera” then already being created happens to exhibit as DOMINANT TRAITS 100% Human DNA and as RECESSIVE TRAITS 100% Chimp DNA!!! Which, of course, would mean that Yale U. was treating as a lab rat a “Chimaera” that is 100% Human!!!

Unfortunately, the 8/5/2016 Proposed Topic was prompted by a Proposal from the National Institute of Health (NIH) which appeared in The Federal Register of 8/5/2016 and which had a 9/6/2016 deadline for public comments!!!

So our 9/14/2016 meeting, which was the first for which our focus had not already been determined as of 8/5/2016 under our normal rules, was too late.

So the reason for inaugurating this Short-Fuse Notice Section is to provide a Special Heads Up that a Proposed Topic has a Public-Comment Deadline that will occur before the first regular meeting date at which the topic can be discussed -- so that any of our readers who want to comply with the Public-Comment Deadline can contact the Proposer of the Topic in order to confer with anyone else who may be considering comments by the deadline.

*****
PENDING SHORT-FUSE PROPOSALS

1. Re “Clone Rights -- Involuntary Soldiers, Sex Slaves, Human Lab Rats, Etc.” (proposed 8/5/2016), although the 9/6/2016 public-comment deadline of the National Institute of Health (NIH) has passed, this Topic Proposal is still active. PLEASE NOTE ATTACHED TO THIS PROPOSAL THE 1/29/2017 UPDATE ENTITLED0 “HUMAN-PIG CHIMERAS -- DECENT BEHAVIOR DESPITE OPEN BARN DOOR.”

2. Re “Destroying Great Salt Lake To Grow Low-Profit Hay For China” (proposed 9/27/2016), there is a 10/24/2016 public-comment deadline that will occur before our first possible regular meeting (11/16/2016) at which this Proposed Topic could be considered.
Post Reply
johnkarls
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:43 pm

EXPIREDThePresbyterianChurchBearingFalseWitnessAgainstIsrael

Post by johnkarls »

.
I propose that we focus on the Palestinian issue in general. And, in particular, on “Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest For A Just Peace” (the 50-page glossy propaganda piece published by the National Presbyterian Church) and all of the defamation of Israel with which “Steadfast Hope” is riddled.

[The reason for the proposal is that several RSVP’ers for our 9/3/2014 meeting on “Hillary Distancing Herself from President Obama Re The Islamic State” noticed that in her interview by The Atlantic, she had made some comments in support of Israel and the RSVP’ers believed that the Palestinian issue is relevant to our discussion of The Islamic State. Since the Palestinian issue itself is more than could be discussed in one session, particularly if there is no agreement beforehand on what the facts are, I promised the RSVP’ers who wanted to discuss the Palestinian issue (1) a meeting-topic proposal so that the Palestinian issue could be the sole focus of one of our meetings, and (2) an extensive recital of the facts so that anyone who disagrees with anything can try to disprove it with research before the meeting, because discussions bog down in frustration if instead of discussing principles, participants are arguing over facts. Hopefully, this proposal and its extensive recital of “facts” alleged by Yours Truly can help to preserve the major focus of our 9/3/2014 meeting on The Islamic State exclusively of the Palestinian issue.]

We have only focused on the Palestinian issue once during our 8.5-year history.

Following our 10/14/2009 meeting, we launched a Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign calling for “A Marshall-Type Plan” for the Palestinians which concluded with --

“What is necessary is a good education for the Palestinian children and training for the adults so that they can handle jobs that would go with economic development (construction, irrigation, manufacturing, etc.), following a careful assessment of the comparative strengths that Palestine would possess. The U.S. began providing Egypt and Israel with $6 billion/year of economic aid when they signed their 1979 Peace Agreement. It would seem a comparable amount would be a small price to pay to provide a real solution to a conflict that has festered for 60 years and, with nuclear arms soon to permeate the area, could soon produce a nuclear holocaust that might lead to ‘the twilight of the humans’!”

[For the curious, this policy proposal was conceived by Yours Truly who persuaded the other attendees of our 10/14/2009 meeting to support it. The persuading wasn’t difficult!!!]

At the moment (8/26/2014), we are preparing for a meeting on 9/3/2014 that will focus on the topic of “Hillary Distancing Herself From President Obama Re The Islamic State” and several of our members who have RSVP’d have mentioned that they believe that the Palestinian issue, though not central, is still relevant in discussing The Islamic State.

Unfortunately, one constantly encounters Americans who believe that “if only we would throw Israel under the bus” all our problems would be solved. And who, if queried to any extent, display an amazing ignorance based on lies such as those propagated by the National Presbyterian Church in, inter alia, its 50-page glossy propaganda piece entitled “Steadfast Hope: The Palestinian Quest For A Just Peace.”

The National Presbyterian Church’s website http://www.pcusa.org indicates that “Steadfast Hope” is in its Second Edition as of 4/1/2011.

What http://www.pcusa.org does NOT disclose is that the Second Edition MADE NO CORRECTIONS as a result of the documentation presented to it of the egregious lies permeating its First Edition (6/1/2009) which was the subject of the following e-mail from Yours Truly to the Adult Ed Committee of Wasatch Presbyterian Church of Salt Lake City. Yours Truly provided a copy of that e-mail to the National Presbyterian Church with a covering letter demanding that the brochure be substantially revised, if not withdrawn entirely.

The Second Edition made NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER that Yours Truly was able to detect, much less ANY CHANGES TO ALL OF THE LIES CONCERNING ISRAEL WITH WHICH THE FIRST EDITION WAS RIDDLED.

Obviously the National Presbyterian Church is insisting despite protests from at least Yours Truly, with violating the Ten Commandments which include “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor” and in violating Christ’s Two Commandments which include the Golden Rule “Love Your Neighbor As Yourself.”

For the curious, Yours Truly attended SLC’s Wasatch Presbyterian from 2007 through 2010 when in Utah and even led 5-6 Adult Ed classes while Rev. David Henry was its Senior Minister (though on topics that did not involve the Palestinian issue). However, Yours Truly never became a member of Wasatch because of concerns over its Anti-Semitism and stopped attending after 2010 because Wasatch persisted in basing Adult Ed classes on “Steadfast Hope” despite his 3/31/2010 e-mail protest that follows below.

In preparing the traditional Suggested Discussion Outline for our pending 9/3/2014 meeting on “Hillary Distancing Herself From President Obama Re The Islamic State” I will include some “bullet points” regarding the Palestinian imbroglio with references to this Proposed Topic for a stand-alone meeting so that, hopefully, the issue does not have to occupy an unduly long portion of the 9/3/2014 meeting because of factual disputes that are easily resolved by consulting the following e-mail (and by verifying through research any factual matter that anyone wants to investigate further).


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Good Samaritan Report on Your Personal Exposure to Defamation and Punitive Damages
From: john@johnkarls.com
Date: Wed, March 31, 2010 3:24 pm - MST
To: Scott Wipperman (Wasatch Presbyterian Interim Associate Minister and Adult Ed Committee Chair) and the other four members of the Adult Ed Committee
Cc: Ginger Memmott (Wasatch Presbyterian Interim Senior Minister)
Attachments:
WPC-v222
WPC-v301
WPC-v302
UNSCOP Report (Adobe File)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bob, Scott, Ashdora, Elizabeth and Jan,

The following may come as a shock to you, or you may already know all about it.

The reason for uncertainty regarding how much you know is that I queried one of you whether Scott apprised all of you (as the WPC Committee with responsibility for Adult Education when you approved the "Palestine Occupation" class) that Rev. David Henry*, in the course of Session rejecting his recommendation in 2007 to accept the offer of Rabbi Rosen of Congregation Kol Ami to conduct an Adult Ed class for us in response to our Anti-Semitism, had ascertained that the lie contained in our long-standing Anti-Semitic prayer requests to the effect that Gaza as of 2007 was “occupied,” was mirrored by a similar lie on the national-Presbyterian web site. And, accordingly, that the materials from the National Presbyterian Church on which the current class would be based, should be viewed as suspect and receive special scrutiny.

I received no answer.

[* Reading Liberally Editorial Note: Rev. David Henry was the long-time Wasatch Presbyterian Senior Minister as of 2007 and Yours Truly had, upon first attending Wasatch Presbyterian in 2007, called attention to the lie in the long-standing prayer request.]

**********
MY STATUS AS A GOOD SAMARITAN

At the outset, please permit me to describe my status.

I have no particular love for Israel. Indeed, Israel has done many things that should be criticized and condemned.

However, I do have a love for the law. And it pains me as a lawyer to witness defamation accompanied by obvious hostility (or, in legalese, “motivated by malice”).

In addition, you may wonder about my credentials for commenting on the accuracy of the lesson materials for the “Palestine Occupation” class which were issued by the national-Presbyterian organization. I was married for 33 years (1967-2000) to the co-author of the United States’ best-selling high school world history textbook (McGraw-Hill with National Geographic illustrations – now in its 6th edition and counting). And when not engaged in my own unrelated career, I was responsible for reading EVERY YEAR 12-15 thick biographies and/or historical tomes for nuggets and nuances that should be included in the next edition of the world history textbook. When one has read more than 700 thick biographies and/or historical tomes, one probably knows more about world history than the author herself who was only provided the nuggets that were important enough to be considered for inclusion.

Nevertheless, if you have any question regarding any statement in this e-mail or in any of the materials that you will receive, I would be happy to provide documentation.

In case anyone is curious why my marriage ended after 33 years, the situation was very sad. She was not religious and did not believe in an after life. Her psychiatrists testified that she had a romantic idea from childhood that a spouse is supposed to solve all your problems so that, when she reached “mid-life crisis” and began focusing on her own mortality, she blamed me for not solving the problem that she (like the rest of humanity) was destined to die eventually. Indeed, on the recommendation of her psychiatrists, she moved to the opposite end of our home for 3 years in an attempt to fool herself into believing that she was no longer married to me so that she could then stop blaming me for her mortality (she is a wonderful human being who has always treated everyone else beautifully). When that didn’t work, her psychiatrists had nothing further to recommend and she filed for divorce.

But enough already on digressions.

**********
REVIEWING MY LEGAL OBSERVATIONS WITH YOUR OWN PERSONAL ATTORNEY

Although I have practiced law in New York for 43 years, I am not admitted to practice in Utah. Accordingly, you should view my legal observations as unofficial and each of you should review them with your own personal attorney.

In doing so, my credentials offered for the consideration of your own personal attorney = JD, Harvard Law School, 1967; Who’s Who in American Law, 1988-2003; Who’s Who in America, 1988-2003; Who’s Who in the World, 1994-2003.

It should be noted that it would be improper for the attorney(s) representing Wasatch Presbyterian to offer you legal advice because you and Wasatch Presbyterian have a built-in “conflict of interest” = if this imbroglio should become a legal problem, the attorneys for Wasatch Presbyterian will be trying, in part, to absolve (and limit punitive damages for) their client by blaming you as individuals.

**********
THE MATERIALS DOCUMENTING THE ANTI-SEMITISM OF WASATCH PRESBYTERIAN

You will be receiving momentarily copies of three e-mails (one of which has 3 attachments) that document (1) the 2007 rejection by Session of Rev. David Henry’s recommendation to accept the offer of Rabbi Rosen of Congregation Kol Ami to conduct an Adult Ed class for us in response to our Anti-Semitism, and Rev. Henry's discovery that the lie contained in our long-standing anti-Semitic prayer requests to the effect that Gaza as of 2007 was “occupied” was mirrored on the national Presbyterian web site and (2) the current imbroglio comprising the Adult Ed class on “Palestine Occupation.”

Anti-Semitism almost always comprises defamation = statements that are false and that are made either with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The classic historical example would be the myth that was widely believed throughout history at various times by various groups that “all Jews drink the blood of Christian babies.” Though probably the most egregious was the Roman Catholic Church’s “blood guilt” doctrine that all Jews currently living are responsible for the death of Christ – which remained official Roman Catholic doctrine until 1961, SIXTEEN YEARS AFTER THE END OF WORLD WAR II.

For that reason, the most prominent organization fighting Anti-Semitism in America is the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. It has limited resources, though it often accepts donations “ear marked” for acting in specific situations. For example, if a member of the Salt Lake Jewish community were to take umbrage at the Anti-Semitism of Wasatch Presbyterian Church, it is quite possible that funding for a JADL lawsuit against Wasatch Presbyterian Church and you as individuals might be instituted.

Defamation comes in two varieties – slander is oral and libel is written.

Libel is “actionable per se” which means that punitive damages are in order even if there have been no monetary or other damages. However, unless there has been monetary or other actual harm, punitive damages cannot be imposed for slander unless it involves a claim of (1) criminal conduct by the victim, (2) the victim has a loathsome disease, (3) professional incompetence of the victim, or (4) sexual misconduct by the victim.

Your personal responsibility for the defamatory materials being used in the “Palestine Occupation” Adult Ed class comprises libel and subjects you personally to punitive damages even though there may have been no actual harm to the Salt Lake Jewish community.

Your personal responsibility for the use of these defamatory materials is not excused by the fact that they were prepared by the national Presbyterian organization, and it is not excused by the fact that you may have authorized one of your members to make the decision to permit the use of these materials rather than participating in a vote on the issue (indeed, such an authorization as a “dereliction of duty” may be worse from a legal viewpoint than simply claiming your disregard for the truth was not “reckless” -- especially compounded by the fact that the the person you authorized to make the decision would be considered your agent and, therefore, any knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth on the part of that agent would be attributed back to you).

Punitive damages are usually based on the net worth of the defendant(s) and the percentage of that net worth awarded is based on the judgment of the jury regarding how much would be needed to “teach a lesson” to the defendant(s) so that the behavior does not recur.

A good “rule of thumb” would be to plan on punitive damages equal to 50% of the net worth of the defendant(s).

Incidentally, with regard to Wasatch Presbyterian Church, it is easy to be lulled into a false sense of security by thinking that the church’s property would not be very valuable because, with declining church attendance across America in general and in Salt Lake City in particular, there may not be much demand for a church building such as ours.

However, both the bank that holds our mortgage(s) and the jury as instructed by the judge would look at the value of our land as building lots and/or a site for a condominium/PUD, less the cost of knocking down the church building and removing the debris.

**********
GOING-FORWARD MODUS VIVENDI

Before offering comments on a few examples of the many defamatory statements contained in “Steadfast Hope” (the brochure used for your “Palestine Occupation” Adult Ed course), I am willing (as mentioned above) to provide documentation regarding any historical facts that are contained in this e-mail or the other materials that you will receive.

I am not willing to provide further elaboration on any legal observations. As previously mentioned, they should be reviewed by you with your own personal attorney.

And I am not willing to engage in any oral discussions regarding this imbroglio. Throughout a 43-year legal career, I have found it essential in matters such as these to keep everything “on the record.”

**********
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS – HISTORICAL CONTEXT PLUS CLAIMS BY ADOLF HITLER AND BY IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD

Palestine has not been a “country” for 2,000 years even though “Steadfast Hope” refers several times to Palestinians and “their country.”

Indeed, from the mid-1000’s to 1299 AD, it was part of the Seljuk Turk Empire. The Seljuk Turks came from Russian Turkestan which fragmented into all of the “stans” except Afghanistan which was always separate, and from Chinese Turkestan aka Sinkiang Province. Following their arrival in the Middle East, the Seljuk Turks were centered in modern-day Iran where they promptly “went native” in terms of dress, language, inter-marrying, etc.

From 1299 AD, it was part of the Ottoman Turk Empire. The Ottoman Turks also came from Russian Turkestan and Chinese Turkestan. Following their arrival in the Middle East, the Ottoman Turks put military pressure on Constantinople and, after conquering it in 1453, made it their capital until World War I when the Ottoman Empire was defeated along with Germany and the Habsburg (aka Austro-Hungarian) Empire.

What became Palestine remained part of the Ottoman Turk Empire until it was captured by the British in 1917 as part of World War I.

In 1923, the League of Nations divided the area into four parts – giving France “mandates” to rule what the League created and called Lebanon and Syria, and Britain “mandates” to rule what the League created and called Iraq and Palestine.

However, immediately after the capture of the entire area by Britain in 1917, British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour wrote a letter to the head of the world-wide Rothschild family promising that Jews not currently living in Palestine would be permitted to make it their national home.

This letter (which “Steadfast Hope” calls the “Balfour Declaration” though it is usually called the Balfour Doctrine in most historical works) was the basis for Hitler’s claim that Germany had been “stabbed in the back” by international Jewry toward the end of World War I. Certainly its substance, its timing, and the person to whom it was addressed lend credence to Hitler’s claim (though, of course, there is little or no evidence that the international financial-powerhouse Rothschild family actually took any action as a result of the letter from Balfour).

Although the Balfour Doctrine had promised Jews not living in Palestine in 1917 a homeland there, the British following the end of World War I decided that it was more important from the viewpoint of oil supplies to renege on the Balfour Doctrine – which is why there is little or no evidence that the international Rothschild family reacted to Arthur Balfour’s letter since they were probably properly skeptical.

Indeed, when Hitler’s concentration camps opened and the international community refused to permit German Jews to immigrate into their countries (including the famous ship loaded with Jewish refugees that sailed around the world and was refused by everyone, including the U.S., to permit its passengers to disembark and eventually had to sail the Jewish refugees back to Germany), Britain announced a policy in 1939 that Jewish immigration in Palestine would be limited to a grand total of 75,000 for the next 5 years (i.e., 15,000/year) and prohibited thereafter.

This policy was strictly enforced. Indeed, the Hollywood movie Exodus starring Paul Newman was a hoax. On July 11, 1947, the Exodus sailed from Sète, France loaded with 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors. It was intercepted by the British Royal Navy (1) in violation of international law because it occurred on the high seas, and (2) with loss of life including some Americans among the crew. It was escorted to Cyprus where the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors were imprisoned briefly. The movie falsely shows the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors (which the movie says numbered only 611), making a daring escape from the British prison back to the Exodus, and engaging in a hunger strike that forced the Brits to permit the Exodus and its human cargo to sail to Haifa. There was no escape or hunger strike in Cyprus. The Brits did sail Exodus to Haifa, where the Brits re-loaded the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors onto three more sea-worthy vessels. The Brits then sent the 4,515 human cargo back to France. It was at Port-de-Bouc near Marseilles that on August 2, 1947, the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors refused to disembark and engaged in their 24-hour hunger strike. In response, the French refused to force them to disembark. So the Brits sailed them to Hamburg located in the British occupation zone of Germany, from which the Brits transported the 4,515 European Jewish Holocaust Survivors to be imprisoned in the Pöppendorf Concentration Camp at Lübeck, Germany which was also in the British occupation zone.

Indeed, one of the worst scandals of World War II was the decision by the victorious Americans, Brits and French (the 7 million man French army from the African colonies was the largest allied army at the time of the Normandy invasion) NOT TO PERMIT THE 1.2 MILLION SURVIVORS OF HITLER’S CONCENTRATION CAMPS TO RETURN TO THEIR EUROPEAN HOMES. INSTEAD, THE AMERICANS, BRITS AND FRENCH CONTINUED TO CONFINE THEM IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS (old concentration camps, new management – though the ovens were turned off).

The Brits and French were planning to keep the 1.2 million Jewish survivors confined in Hitler’s concentration camps permanently (the last did not close until 1951).

However, President Truman, in disgust, forced the Brits and French to acquiesce in ending the League of Nations “mandate” for Britain to rule Palestine and in forming a United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (“UNSCOP”) to carefully catalogue who owned what in Palestine. UNSCOP, which did not have as members France, Britain or the United States, made the survey and recommended that Palestine be partitioned on the basis of actual ownership of the land. The UNSCOP Report (which will be e-mailed to you) lists the population of the Palestine Mandate at the end of 1945 and the end of 1946 (reflecting no changes as a result of the 1939 British prohibition on Jewish immigration) as:

Moslems – 1,076,783
Jews – 608,225
Christians – 145,063
Others – 15,488
Total – 1,845,559

The 8/31/1947 UNSCOP Report recommended a “Jewish State” comprising all of the land then owned by Jews, and an Arab State comprising all of the land then owned by non-Jews – even though much of the land comprising each state would be islands within the other state.

U.N. Resolution 181 (11/29/1947) adopted the UNSCOP recommendation. However, the UNSCOP Report had documented that virtually all of the Negev desert was unpopulated and not owned by anyone except Britain since 1917 and the Turks for 900 years prior to that. U.N. Resolution 181 gave the Negev desert to the Jewish State.

On 5/14/1948 (the anniversary of the U.N. resolution creating UNSCOP), the old British mandate to rule Palestine terminated by virtue of the U.N. resolution creating UNSCOP. On that date, Israel declared its independence based on U.N. Resolution 181. It was immediately invaded by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon.

The United Nations had only 50 members in 1947 at the time of U.N. Resolution 181. All of the European members voted for the resolution.

Accordingly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is correct in his often-repeated claim that Israel was created by the European nations as a dumping ground for their surviving Jews.

**********
EXAMPLES OF EGREGIOUS DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS BY “STEADFAST HOPE”

As a preliminary matter, I would reiterate my claim that I have no particular love for Israel and that Israel has done many things that should be criticized and condemned.

For example, Israel joined Britain and France in invading Egypt when, immediately following full Egyptian independence from Britain in 1958, Egypt immediately nationalized the Suez Canal which was owned by France and Britain.

And, as noted on p. 45 of “Steadfast Hope,” Israeli troops in 1982 under the command of Israeli General (and later Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon surrounded a Palestinian refugee camp just south of Beirut Lebanon and permitted Lebanese Christian troops to massacre thousands of women, children and elderly over a period of several days. Indeed, “Steadfast Hope” does not mention that Ariel Sharon was convicted in absentia of war crimes for this massacre in a Belgian court in 2001. However, a Belgian appeals court reversed the conviction because during the appeal, Belgium changed its law to disallow criminal prosecutions for acts occurring outside Belgium unless committed by a Belgian citizen. [NB: The original provision in Belgian law is fairly standard by international norms in order to prosecute the actions of pirates on the high seas; the provision was changed under pressure from the U.S. which questioned whether Belgium should remain the location for the headquarters of such international institutions as NATO unless it changed its law.]

EXAMPLE 1 – HAVING IT BOTH WAYS RE “INTERNATIONAL LAW”

Whenever a U.N. resolution (such as Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine) favors Israel, it is disregarded by “Steadfast Hope.” But whenever it favors the Palestinians, it is described as “international law.”

In reality, U.N. resolutions have no force as “international law” as was on prominent display when Saddam Hussein over a period of years thumbed his nose at approximately two dozen U.N. resolutions on various subjects. However, U.N. resolutions are occasionally used as justification for U.N. sanctions and/or U.N. military action but that is only achieved by virtue of yet another U.N. resolution.

EXAMPLE 2 – THE “RIGHT OF RETURN”

“Steadfast Hope” and the first portion of its accompanying DVD, talk constantly about Palestinian ownership of their former homes inside what is now Israel on the basis of a “right of return” with regard to which “Steadfast Hope” states (p. 10) “UN Security Council Resolution 194 stated that ‘refugees wishing to return to their homes should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date and that those choosing not to return should be compensated for their property.’”

Minor points are: (1) according to Encyclopaedia Britannica, 567 thousand Jews were thrown out of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon when they invaded Israel immediately after its Declaration of Independence in 1948 which is comparable to the number of Moslems that were displaced from what became Israel, and (2) this is another example of “Steadfast Hope” treating any favorable U.N. resolution as “international law.”

The major point is that “Steadfast Hope” lied by omitting from its purported direct quotation of U.N. resolution 194 an important element of the U.N. resolution which states “…that the refugees wishing to return to their homes AND LIVE AT PEACE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS should be permitted…” (emphasis added). Israel has always taken the position that Arab refugees do not wish to “live at peace with their neighbors” and the Arab track record is not supportive that they do.

Moreover, the Palestinians have never recognized Israel’s “right to exist” which is the usually insuperable obstacle to achieving a two-state agreement. That issue will be addressed in the next section. However, it is relevant here because the refusal of Palestinians to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” coupled with their constant terrorism against Israel (not to mention 3 wars of annihilation against Israel by its Arab neighbors) are at least a respectable prima facie case that Palestinian refugees do not wish “to live at peace” with Israel.

EXAMPLE 3 – ISRAEL’S “RIGHT TO EXIST”

“Steadfast Hope” defamatorily attempts to create the misimpression that Palestinians recognize Israel’s “right to exist.”

Hamas, which controls the Gaza strip, has never recognized Israel’s “right to exist” and even “Steadfast Hope” does not falsely claim that they do.

The basis of the defamatory claim by “Steadfast Hope” at, for example, page 8 that Palestinians recognize Israel’s “right to exist” is the fact that the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) which rules the West Bank has engaged in negotiations with Israel regarding a two-state agreement. However, “Steadfast Hope” blandly states (p. 45) that in 2000 “Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barack, Palestinian Chairman Yassir Arafat, and U.S. President Bill Clinton meet at Camp David in a failed attempt to negotiate a settlement of final status issues.”

“Steadfast Hope” is engaged in a bald-faced lie. The negotiations at Camp David were successful!!! They did result in an agreement of final status issues. The problem was that Yassir Arafat, in all of his Arabic speeches, had always preached to all of his followers that he and the PLO had an implacable goal of “throwing Israel into the sea”!!!

Accordingly, when he returned to Palestine from Camp David, he realized that he could not possibly admit to his followers that he had recognized Israel’s “right to exist” and that they should do so also. Therefore, he reneged on the agreement without ever daring to mention to his followers that he had agreed that Israel had a “right to exist”!!!

EXAMPLE 4 – EGYPTIAN ANNEXATION OF GAZA 1949-1967 AND JORDANIAN ANNEXATION OF THE WEST BANK 1949-1967

“Steadfast Hope” (p. 44) states that in 1949, “West Bank and Gaza came under Jordanian and Egyptian control, respectively.”

No, they didn’t happen to “come under Jordanian and Egyptian control” in 1949. THEY WERE INVADED THE PREVIOUS YEAR BY THE JORDANIAN AND EGYPTIAN ARMIES ON 5/14/1948 AND THEY WERE STILL OCCUPIED WHEN THE SMOKE CLEARED.

Indeed, they continued to be occupied by Egypt and Jordan until 1967. Both were annexed, though Egypt did not grant Egyptian citizenship to Gazans while Jordan did grant citizenship to Palestinians living on the West Bank. However, there was a recent article in the NY Times about how Jordan has been trying to revoke the citizenship of Palestinians who were born on the West Bank after 1967 and have lived only on the West Bank even though both parents may also have lived solely on the West Bank but, having been born before 1967, are Palestinians with Jordanian citizenship.

EXAMPLE 5 – ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

“Steadfast Hope” constantly claims that since 1967, Israel has been occupying Palestinian territory. In fact, Israel has been occupying a portion of Egypt and a portion of Jordan which it captured as a result of a war initiated by Egypt and Jordan (technically, both Egypt and Jordan massed troops on their borders with Israel for an attack pursuant to which Israel, under the authority of Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions of 8/12/1949, launched a preemptive attack under its “right of self defense” – and super-technically, although Article 51 does not speak of a preemptive attack, its “right of self defense” is repeatedly and universally held authoritatively in various contexts to include the right to launch a preemptive attack in the face of an “imminent” threat).

It is true that various international efforts have been made to make Gaza and the West Bank into a separate Arab state rather than return them to Egypt and Jordan.

However, when a war has resulted in the capture of territory, the cease-fire line usually becomes a permanent border absent an agreement following the conflict – for example, the cease-fire line in 1953 between South Korea and North Korea which is still today technically at war with the United Nations, the division of Germany following World War II based on the position of Russian and Western troops, etc., etc.

Although Egypt entered into a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 pursuant to which Egypt took back the Sinai Peninsula but abandoned Gaza, and Jordan entered into a peace treaty with Israel in 1994 which, inter alia, did NOT address whether The West Bank was still part of Jordan while recognizing an “administrative boundary” between Jordan and the West Bank, the other 20 members of the Arab League of nations, do NOT recognize Israel’s “right to exist.” And, as described above, the Palestinians themselves (just like Yassir Arafat in 2000) still refuse to recognize Israel’s “right to exist” or to enter into a peace agreement with it.

EXAMPLE 6 – CONTINUED ISRAELI OCCUPATION OF GAZA FOLLOWING THE 2005 PULL OUT

“Steadfast Hope” (like Rev. David Henry discovered was true of the national Presbyterian web site in 2007) continues to claim that Gaza is still “occupied” by Israel despite the pull out in 2005 – INCLUDING THE FORCED REPATRIATION BY THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT OF ALL THE JEWISH SETTLERS IN THE GAZA STRIP BACK TO ISRAEL.

The false claim is based on Israeli control of Gaza’s air space and ports to try to prevent the importation of rockets that are constantly used to attack Israel.

However, using the term “occupation” to describe import controls is torturing the English language. The plain meaning of “occupation” is to occupy. Obviously, if Israel still had “boots on the ground” in Gaza itself, rockets would not have been raining daily on Israel from the 2005 pull out until Israel invaded part of Gaza 1/3/2009 for 18 days until withdrawing again 1/21/2009 – following which rockets have continued to be fired into Israel sporadically to the present day.

EXAMPLE 7 – THE WALL

“Steadfast Hope” contains a section entitled “Illegal” (p. 25) to describe the wall separating Israel from the West bank.

The section describes at length an opinion of the International Court of Justice.

The first problem is that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction in the matter so its “advisory opinion” (as “Steadfast Hope” admits was volunteered following, of course, no participation by Israel to defend itself in the proceedings) has no authority for rendering anything “illegal.”

Moreover, the wall follows for the most part the 1967 cease-fire line which everyone who supports a two-state solution (which the Palestinians and 20 of 22 Arab nations, as discussed above, do NOT), believes should be Israel’s border – or at least the starting point for negotiations. Although the wall does make some deviations from the 1967 cease-fire line, the 2000 peace agreement between Israel and Yassir Arafat did provide for changes in the 1967 cease-fire line which are reflected in the location of the wall in some instances. However, it must be conceded that the wall also reflects in a few spots Israel’s future negotiating position in the event that there are ever again any negotiations for a peace agreement – though even the most Anti-Semitic opponents of Israel would have to admit that the Israeli Government’s forced repatriation of all Israeli settlers from Gaza back to Israel in 2005 demonstrates that “bricks and mortar” are not the “last word” on what Israel might do in the future.

Nevertheless, the most important aspect of the wall is that it was built to exclude from Israel proper all of the Palestinian suicide bombers who dominated the world’s headlines almost on a daily basis by blowing up school buses, restaurants, etc. – until the wall was constructed beginning in 2002.

The wall has been a tremendous success in excluding suicide bombers. If a proper court with jurisdiction were to consider the matter, it would most likely decide that Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions of 8/12/1949 sanctioning “self defense” is sufficient to justify the legality of the wall.

EXAMPLE 8 – THE MENDACITY OF TRYING TO ABSOLVE PALESTINIANS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WARS OF ANNIHILATION LAUNCHED BY THEIR ARAB SUPPORTERS AND THEIR OWN TERRORISM AGAINST ISRAEL

As discussed above, the policy of both Hamas and the PLO and all of the 22 members of the Arab League of nations (with the sole exceptions of Egypt and Jordan) is that Israel does not have a “right to exist” and should be “thrown into the sea.”

*****
Any objective observer would have to admit that when Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon invaded Israel on the first day of its existence on May 14, 1948, their objective was annihilation.

*****
“Steadfast Hope” states (p. 18): “On June 5, 1967, Israel initiated a preemptive strike by bombing and then invading Egypt, Jordan, and Syria with the goal of expanding the boundaries of the state. Six days later Israel controlled Gaza, Sinai, the Golan, and the West Bank.”

This claim regarding Israel’s goal is one of the most gruesome lies contained in “Steadfast Hope.”

First, as discussed above, Egypt, Jordan and Syria massed troops along the Israeli border in preparation to attack Israel. Nobody has ever argued throughout the course of history that they were merely bluffing and did not intend to carry through.

Second, as discussed above, in the face of the imminent attack, Israel did launch a preemptive strike as permitted by the “right of self defense” under Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions of 8/12/1949.

Third, how could Israel conceivably be DEFENDING itself with an objective of conquest??? And why would Egypt, Jordan and Syria be mounting an attack on Israel with an objective of losing territory???

William Manchester’s thesis in “The Arms of Krupp” is that military battles are almost always decided on the basis of superior weapons – but who was certain in advance that the Russian weapons would prove inferior??? And why would Israel want to risk its existence except in order to defend itself???

*****
The last Arab-Israeli War (the so-called Yom Kippur War because it was a surprise attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria on the Jewish Holy Day of Yom Kippur in 1973) is described by “ Steadfast Hope” as follows (p. 44): “On the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria attack Israel. With significant US economic and military assistance, Israel, although losing nearly 150 planes and suffering hundreds of casualties, pushes back both armies.”

The truth is that Israel was within 24 hours of becoming the answer to a trivia question = What WAS Israel?

Israel had followed the philosophy of Charles de Gaulle who pulled France out of NATO and developed French nuclear weapons because he didn’t believe that the old Soviet Union would believe for a minute that the U.S. would risk a nuclear holocaust in order to save France from a Soviet invasion using its overwhelming advantage in conventional weapons.

Pulitzer-Prize author, Seymour Hersh, details in his book “The Samson Option” Israel’s nuclear capabilities and how it saved Israel when Egypt & Syria launched the “Yom Kippur War” in 1973. Henry Kissinger had imposed an ammunition boycott on Israel for more than a year because Kissinger was so upset with the imperious treatment Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had been heaping on Arab diplomats since the 1967 war. So when Egypt and Syria (which had actually united into a single country called the United Arab Republic for 3-4 years immediately after Egypt achieved full independence from Britain in 1958) launched their surprise attack on Yom Kippur in 1973, Syrian tanks were encountering virtually no resistance because the Israelis were rationing their ammunition.

Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir convened the Israeli Cabinet (1) to re-affirm their long-standing policy that if they reached the point at which Israel had fewer than 24 hours to go to complete annihilation, they would fire their 7 nuclear missiles which, interestingly, were trained on Russian cities rather than Arab capitals (because Israel recognized that the old Soviet Union had been inflaming Arab public opinion against Israel since its independence in 1949 in order to alienate oil-producing countries from the U.S.), and (2) to formally agree that Israel had reached the point of fewer than 24 hours to go to complete annihilation.

Seymour Hersh’s “Samson Option” does not record the identity of the Cabinet Minister who, at that meeting, made the suggestion that a telex be sent immediately to Kissinger to inform him on what would be “going down” within a matter of minutes. Luckily, Hersh reports, Kissinger was available to receive the telex and immediately replied: “Commence firing as if there is no tomorrow – the re-supply planes will take off at dawn.” The Israelis did begin firing “as if there were no tomorrow,” the re-supply planes did take off at dawn, the Israeli-Syrian front lines stabilized, and Israel did not become the answer to that trivia question.

Incidentally, since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Israelis have been following a policy of being as self-reliant as possible with regard to military supplies.

*****
There has already been discussed above all of the Palestinian suicide bombings that were only brought to a halt with the construction of the wall.

*****
There has already been discussed above the constant raining of rockets on Israel on a daily basis by Palestinians from Gaza following the 2005 Israeli pull out until the end of 2008 when Israel invaded Gaza. The rockets have continued on a sporadic basis since then.

EXAMPLE 8 – THE FALSE POSTURING AS “PEACE MAKERS”

“Steadfast Hope” constantly postures itself as making peace.

Removing the wall would simply expose Israel once more to the Palestinian suicide bombers. That is hardly advancing the cause of peace.

A two-state “solution” has little promise for achieving peace. The Israeli experience of pulling out of Gaza and then having rockets rained on it on a daily basis demonstrates that giving the Palestinians control will do the opposite.

Indeed, when the U.S. has been confronted by terrorist regimes (the Old Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. – though I recognize that some readers of this e-mail will quarrel with my characterization or with some of the countries on my list), the policy has always been containment without any “peace agreement” – not risking our existence for a so-called “peace agreement.” Peace-wise, co-existence is often “as good as it gets.”

CONCLUSION

I’m sorry to have been so verbose. However, as you can probably appreciate if you have read this far, I could write an entire book about all of the falsehoods contained in “Steadfast Hope.” Indeed, a more appropriate title might have been: “Constant Arab Wars of Annihilation and Other Forms of Palestinian Terrorism.”

As promised, I will send you momentarily three e-mails that contain the historical record of Anti-Semitism at Wasatch. And a fourth e-mail which will contain as an attachment the UNSCOP report of 1948.

If your private attorney would like to contact me for any reason, I would be willing to respond to any queries s/he might have.

If you decide that you don’t want to stand the expense of advice from your own private attorney, it is respectfully suggested for your consideration the observation of what I would do in your shoes = request a vote on whether to continue with the “Occupied Palestine” Adult Ed course in the future (I notice from the WPC web site that Part II of 3 is scheduled for the next session commencing April 16th) and, in the event that a vote is denied or that a vote is taken but it permits the course to continue or that Session overrules a decision by your group to terminate the course, I would immediately resign from your group.

Good luck!!!

Your friend,

John K., Good Samaritan

BillLee
Site Admin
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:17 am

Succinct Recap Re Israel

Post by BillLee »

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Succinct Recap Re Israel
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Tue, August 26, 2014 1:05 am - MDT
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Sorry to have lost my temper.

To recap the salient points vis-a-vis which the National Presbyterian Church has lied --

(1) Palestine NEVER belonged to the Arabs, at least not for the last 1,000 years when it was owned by the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks and then, according to the U.N. survey, partitioned based on who owned what which, of course, the Arabs have never been willing to accept due to Soviet fomentation against American interests during the Cold War and Iranian fomentation against American interests ever since.

(2) Most importantly, the Palestinians have NEVER been willing to concede Israel's right to exist (which implacable opposition to Israel’s existence is embedded in the Constitution of Hamas which took control of Gaza from the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 2007 and which implacable opposition, as described in my 3/31/2010 e-mail, was why the PLO’s Yasir Arafat reneged on the comprehensive peace agreement settling all outstanding issues that he had signed with Israel in 2000 under the good offices of Bill Clinton), so what's to negotiate???

(3) The most recent rocket attacks on Israel must put at two dozen at least, the serious attempts by the Arabs and Palestinians to annihilate Israel by means of three wars and numerous terrorism campaigns.

*****
I hope that sounds a little more even tempered.

Though it is difficult to keep one's temper when faced with such mendacity.

But enough already. I'll have everything re-corked by Sep 3rd.

Your friend,

John K.


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Succinct Recap Re Israel
From: Bill Lee
Date: Tue, August 26, 2014 12:03 pm - MDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

John - Believe it or not I am used to what on occasion seems a bit of hyperbole, where your methods of stating things are concerned as you are “stirring the pot” to generate discussion. Thus since we were not speaking in person I was not aware that you were as incensed as I now read you may have been. Apologies certainly not necessary.

I must admit however that on this and on past occasions I have wondered why this particular issue is so close to your heart. As you are not Jewish I would think that you would have less "skin in the game" than you would, say, with American inner city children due to your time and emotional investment in that area.

Perhaps at some point you will enlighten me. ~ Bill


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: Succinct Recap Re Israel
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Tue, August 26, 2014 9:59 pm - MDT
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Delighted to honor your request that "perhaps at some point you will enlighten me" - as to why I care so much about the defamation of Israel by the likes of the National Presbyterian Church.

My 3/31/2010 e-mail to the members of the Wasatch Presbyterian Adult Ed Committee, which was part of my original response to your e-mail that started our current exchange of views, stated as the second and third paragraphs of its second section entitled "My Status As A Good Samaritan" --

"I have no particular love for Israel. Indeed, Israel has done many things that should be criticized and condemned. However, I do have a love for the law. And it pains me as a lawyer to witness defamation accompanied by obvious hostility (or, in legalese, 'motivated by malice')."

I hope you will not be offended if I point out that your attitude, which is in effect "why get involved if it's not your fight?", is the reason why 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis.

And if I point out that under English-American common law, a failure to oppose the commission of a crime makes you an accessory who is ipso facto guilty of the same crime.

[Indeed, my failure to oppose the criminal defamation by Wasatch Presbyterian and the National Presbyterian Church would have made me an accessory who was ipso facto guilty of criminal defamation.]

I trust that since we have been good friends for 9 years, my frank answer to your question will not jeopardize our friendship.

Your friend (still, I hope),

John K.

BillLee
Site Admin
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:17 am

Re: Re: Re: Succinct Recap Re Israel

Post by BillLee »

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: Re: Succinct Recap Re Israel
From: Bill Lee
Date: Wed, August 27, 2014 10:18 am - MDT
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

John –

I recall reading your words (which follow) more than once in your e-mail. ["I have no particular love for Israel. Indeed, Israel has done many things that should be criticized and condemned. However, I do have a love for the law."].

Somehow it just didn't occur to me that your level of vehemence could actually be chalked up to a "love for the law", especially since Israel is guilty of breaking so many moral if not legal laws itself, and currently has the upper hand. I just figured it had to be more than that. Not to mention it wasn't the illegalities in the conflict itself that had you incensed. It was what you considered to be a philosophical misstep by a religious organization here in the states. (Aside: Almost any non violent behavior by Christian malefactors (religious organizations) can be explained away, or defended in court, as long as the explanation\defense is couched in the malefactor's belief in people's favorite mythical beast. Thus you were tilting at windmills anyway.)

I guess it also may have failed to occur to me because I have so little love for the way that the law is applied both here and there.

All of that said, you are definitely "putting words in my mouth" when you say that my position is: "why get involved if it's not your [our] fight?". When in fact I had voiced no position at all so far. I had merely asked why it seems you are more adamant about this issue than you are most other topics we have discussed.

In truth when the subject comes up I most often ask the proponents of Israel to justify some of the most egregious behavior on Israel's part and do exactly the same when confronted by folks like Dayne and his buddies. I think both sides behave badly often (or at least in a counter productive manner). To both sides I would say that: You can't undo what has been done. The only way forward is to make lemonade of the lemons you've been given. There is no way Israel is going to go away, especially when they are winning. And there is no way the Palestinians are going to stop fighting when the Israelis continue to make their lives worse instead of better. And until both sides use that as a basis for their approach to the situation they deserve less of our attention, and I am happy to say that to the supporters ($$) of either side here in the US.

The fact of the matter is that I agree with what you have mentioned as one of the most outrageous of the facts in the progression to the current situation. The remaining Jews should have been restored to their rightful homes as soon as WWII ended, and Germany should have been required to make reparations for damaged property and for stolen belongings. As you can imagine, that opinion has roots in my general dislike for religion of all sorts.

That is also why I was nowhere near as offended, as people who considered it to be anti-Semitic, when that famous female journalist (middle eastern heritage) said the Jews should go back to where they come from. The result might not currently be any less dislike for Jews, among those who are so disposed. However just as the Jews, who were uprooted by WWII, should never have been forced from their homes, it should never have happened to those who suffered the same fate at the hands of the Israelis.

Enough until next Wednesday. ~ Bill


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: You've Drunk The Kool Aid !!!
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Wed, August 27, 2014 11:08 am - MDT
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Thank you very much for you e-mail.

I enjoyed immensely reading your comments and agree with many of them.

However, you concluded with -- "However just as the Jews, who were uprooted by WWII, should never have been forced from their homes, it should never have happened to those who suffered the same fate at the hands of the Israelis."

One of my major points was that the UN Resolution Partitioning Palestine was based on who owned what, even if both the resulting "Jewish State" and "Palestinian State" comprised zillions of small islands within the other state.

The Arabs immediately launched a war resulting in many displaced persons on both sides.

And the Arabs have continued to launch wars and acts of terrorism which have resulted in many displaced persons -- including Hamas constantly raining rockets on Israel ever since it took control of Gaza shortly after the Israelis pulled out in 2005, forcing the Israelis to defend themselves.

Digressing for a moment, Israel is often criticized because its responses to Arab aggression are allegedly (demonstrably in some cases) not proportional to the provocation.

So was America's response to Pearl Harbor proportional??? Or America's entry into World War I because of the sinking of the Lusitania proportional???

History teaches that aggression must be countered with enough force to either defeat the aggressor or to deter the aggressor, once the smoke clears, from further aggression.

So some questions for you --

Do you really believe that everyone who was displaced from their homes after America's entry into World War II, and everyone who was displaced from their homes after America's entry into World War I, should be blamed on America???

Not to mention blaming America for all of the deaths that occurred after its entry into WW-II and WW-I???

If not, why is Israel responsible for not "turning the other cheek" when attacked???

Besides which (since you are an agnostic), "turning the other cheek" is a Christian principle (i.e., Biblical New Testament rather than Old Testament, aka Jewish Bible).

My questions are not intended to be rhetorical. And I'm sure you will have a response, but I will not anticipate what it will be.

Your friend,

John K.

BillLee
Site Admin
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:17 am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Succinct Recap Re Israel

Post by BillLee »

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: But Your Kool Aid Was Spiked
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 5:47 am - MDT
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Yesterday afternoon, you responded to my e-mail of yesterday morning by interspersing your comments inside a copy of my e-mail. There follows immediately below my e-mail, your interspersed comments and my interspersed replies to your comments.

One of your previous e-mails had suggested that we let matters rest.

Since all of the essays that I posted on our bulletin board last week regarding our 9/3/2014 meeting on The Islamic State, and now all of the correspondence with you about the Palestinian issue, have really wreaked havoc with my time budget for working on “Inner-City Holocaust and America's Apartheid "Justice" System (In Honor of Jonathan Kozol and In Memory of John Howard Griffin),” I agree with your suggestion.

Your friend,

John K.


---------------------------- Original Message With Interspersed Responses and Replies To Those Responses ----------------------------
Subject: You've Drunk The Kool Aid !!!
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Wed, August 27, 2014 11:08 am - MDT
To: Bill Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Bill,

Thank you very much for you e-mail.

I enjoyed immensely reading your comments and agree with many of them.

However, you concluded with -- "However just as the Jews, who were uprooted by WWII, should never have been forced from their homes, it should never have happened to those who suffered the same fate at the hands of the Israelis."

One of my major points was that the UN Resolution Partitioning Palestine was based on who owned what, even if both the resulting "Jewish State" and "Palestinian State" comprised zillions of small islands within the other state.

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

Bigots and the fearful have, since the dawn of time, felt it necessary to resist when others enter what they consider to be their territory. I am quite sure that even the feet on the ground (as well as the rest of the regional "Arabs") felt invaded when large numbers of "foreigners" were deposited in their "backyard". I am sure that would have been the reaction if the Jews were deposited next to Christian neighborhoods in the same concentration in small regions almost anywhere in the world. Not to mention, in the same approximate time frame as that "resettlement", small sectors of the Jewish population were banding together and doing their own bombings (etc.) in terrorist fashion. (see: Etzel and Lehi)

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Re your comments excluding momentarily your last sentence, you seem to be confused regarding the sequence of events. And confused regarding your use of such terms as “invaded” and “deposited.”

When what became Palestine was owned by the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks from the mid-1000’s to 1917, the Turks permitted anyone of any ethnicity/religion to purchase individual plots of land freely.

And, indeed, the UNSCOP Report shows the population of the Palestinian Mandate at 12/31/1945 and 12/31/1946 after THE BRITS PERMITTED VIRTUALLY NO JEWISH IMMIGRATION 1917-1943 and ABSOLUTELY NO JEWISH IMMIGRATION 1944-1946 as 1,077 thousand Muslims out of a total population of 1,846 thousand = 58.3%.

As can be seen from my detailed discussion regarding how the movie “Exodus” starring Paul Newman was a hoax, the Brits continued to permit ABSOLUTELY NO JEWISH IMMIGRATION until the end of their League of Nations “Mandate” over Palestine on 5/14/1948.

[And, yes, there may have been a small number of Jews who evaded the British ban on immigration to become sheltered on Jewish-owned land but, as previously discussed at length, the impression created by the “Exodus” movie hoax that there were significant numbers involved is false.]

On the same date 5/14/1948 that the British “Mandate” was terminated, Israel declared its independence IAW U.N. Resolution 181 partitioning Palestine into a “Jewish State” and a “Palestinian State” based on the UNSCOP Report of who owned what -- and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon immediately invaded the “Jewish State” that had been created by U.N. Resolution 181.

ACCORDINGLY, THE TIMING OF WHAT YOU TERM “INVADED” AND “DEPOSITED” OCCURRED AFTER THE CREATION OF THE “JEWISH STATE” AND THE “PALESTINIAN STATE.”

So why do you apparently think that after American Independence, it was any business of Canada what America’s going-forward immigration policy was AND why it was any business of America what Canada’s going-forward immigration policy was???

*****
Re your last sentence = “Not to mention, in the same approximate time frame as that "resettlement", small sectors of the Jewish population were banding together and doing their own bombings (etc.) in terrorist fashion. (see: Etzel and Lehi)”

Since you are confused about the timing of when the Brits, French and Americans finally released from Hitler’s concentration camps beginning 5/14/1948 (and not ending until 1951) Europe’s surviving Jews, your sentence is non-sensical.

But even granting your false premise, which would make the sentence relate to pre-5/14/1948, your sentence then relates to the attacks by the Jewish Irgun against the occupying Brits.

But what is your point??? Especially since the attacks against the Brits did NOT cause them to abandon their ban on Jewish immigration!!!

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

The Arabs immediately launched a war resulting in many displaced persons on both sides.

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

Unfortunate. But what is the statute of limitation on that crime, as well as the statute of limitation on the responses by the Israelis. My point is that there is no progress to be made justifying actions based on the distant past (I recognize that "distant" is a relative and somewhat nebulous term in this particular instance). No problem with the criminal prosecution of individual offenders (There is not statute of limitation on murder). But forward progress is the only thing that interests me.

(I'm also not interested in current US members of the non Native American populations or non African American populations suffering in order to compensate descendants. That is as long as we are doing our best to help members of those communities [and others] who are currently suffering. I have to hold my nose when I hear IRA remarks about what was done to them 800 years ago. The same goes for members of Islam, Jews, and Christians who justify current tyranny based on religious garbage that supposedly happened hundreds of years ago.)

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Your second paragraph will be ignored in order to maintain our focus.

From your first paragraph, it would appear that at the height of World War II when the Nazis had successfully invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Benelux, France, Denmark, Norway, Greece and much of the Soviet Union, Bill Lee would have imposed himself on the situation --

(1) to lecture the occupied countries that the fact that they used to be independent countries and the fact that the Nazis were aggressors are irrelevant!!!

AND

(2) to lecture the occupied countries that they would just have to find a way to get along with the Nazis!!!

If that’s what you really believe, then there’s nothing I can do to help you.

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

And the Arabs have continued to launch wars and acts of terrorism which have resulted in many displaced persons -- including Hamas constantly raining rockets on Israel ever since it took control of Gaza shortly after the Israelis pulled out in 2005, forcing the Israelis to defend themselves.

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

(see above)

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

See above.

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

Digressing for a moment, Israel is often criticized because its responses to Arab aggression are allegedly (demonstrably in some cases) not proportional to the provocation.

So was America's response to Pearl Harbor proportional??? Or America's entry into World War I because of the sinking of the Lusitania proportional???

History teaches that aggression must be countered with enough force to either defeat the aggressor or to deter the aggressor, once the smoke clears, from further aggression.

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

Agreed. Although that raises other issues. The discussion of which would be equally as time consuming. For instance: When do you recognize that that approach isn't solving the problem either? There are many examples that could be used as fodder in that discussion, including our attempts to use that principle in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the "principle of disproportionate response" to work there has to be a large enough body of people who control those who would act out. And those people have to be uninterested in suffering the affects of that disproportionate response. The first of those elements is lacking in Palestine.

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

So what makes you think “that approach” isn’t solving “the problem” and what do you think “the problem” is???

I have suggested that “the problem” is that the Soviet Union constantly fomented against American influence in the Middle East throughout the Cold War and Iran has continued to do the same ever since.

Which is the basic reason why the Palestinians continue their unwarranted Wars of Annihilation and Other Terrorism.

Against which Israel has been forced to defend itself and has done so.

So is the real problem that you are squeamish that Muslims, who as we have studied many times believe that every martyr (together with 70 relatives) by-passes a Fearsome Judgment Day to enter Paradise, want to become martyrs and want their children to become martyrs???

And that you feel uncomfortable about watching the results of their Quest for Martyrdom on your living-room TV???

And why do you think that you have the right to require Israel to acquiesce in Arab/Palestinian demands that they cease to exist in order to make you feel more comfortable in your TV viewing???

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

So some questions for you --

Do you really believe that everyone who was displaced from their homes after America's entry into World War II, and everyone who was displaced from their homes after America's entry into World War I, should be blamed on America???

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

(blame is irrelevant see above)

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Blame is NOT irrelevant (see above). Though I take your apparent point that the victims of Nazi aggression during WW-II should have learned to get along with the Nazis.

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

Not to mention blaming America for all of the deaths that occurred after its entry into WW-II and WW-I???

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

(Again)

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Again. Though I again take your apparent point that the victims of Nazi aggression during WW-II should have learned to get along with the Nazis.

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

If not, why is Israel responsible for not "turning the other cheek" when attacked???

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

(Again above. Although in this case I will point out that Israel appears to act as if they fail to recognize the degree of lack of success resulting from that approach. The fact that they do not couple it with others might be considered by some as evidence of a lack of interest in changing the dynamic.)

********************
John Karls Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Please see my previous comments questioning what you think “the problem” is.

In my terms, why should Israel acquiesce in the Arab/Palestinian demand that they cease to exist just in order to make Bill Lee feel more comfortable in watching his living-room TV???

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

Besides which (since you are an agnostic), "turning the other cheek" is a Christian principle (i.e., Biblical New Testament rather than Old Testament, aka Jewish Bible).

********************
Bill Lee’s Comments

That one is actually laughable. One obviously weak argument for not abandoning religion is the "moral society and individuals" that supposedly result from the practice. The obvious rebuttal is that you do not have to be religious to be moral. I have little doubt that individual members of early humanity felt compassion toward other members and were often interested in imparting a "turn the other cheek / do onto your neighbor" philosophy in the hope of avoiding violence. It would take a huge body of evidence to convince me to accept that the Bible is the origination of that concept.

********************
John Karls’ Reaction to Bill Lee Comments

Yes, I thought you would enjoy my humor!!!

Obviously, you were NOT trying to impose YOUR Christian principle on Israel since you are an agnostic!!!

********************
Continuation of Original John Karls E-mail

My questions are not intended to be rhetorical. And I'm sure you will have a response, but I will not anticipate what it will be.

[Bill Lee Editorial Comment - I did in fact have responses as set forth above and John, as always, re-responded as set forth above.]

Your friend,

John K.

Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

Islamic Martyrs & 70 Close Relatives - Free Pass to Paradise

Post by Pat »

.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Authority for Islamic Martyrs and 70 Close Relatives By-Passing A Truly-Fearsome Judgment Day and Proceeding Immediately to Paradise
From: Solutions
Date: Mon, October 6, 2014 10:12 am
To: John Karls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

Although in your 8/28/2014 e-mail to Bill Lee you provided replies to Bill Lee’s comments that he had interspersed in your 8/27/2014 e-mail, you also accepted Bill’s suggestion of holding any further discussion for the 9/3/2014 meeting. And I do not recall any discussion at the meeting of a very interesting point.

About two thirds of the way through the version of your 8/27/2014 e-mail that contained Bill’s interspersed comments and your interspersed replies, you said --

“So is the real problem that you are squeamish that Muslims, who as we have studied many times believe that every martyr (together with 70 close relatives) by-passes a Fearsome Judgment Day to enter Paradise, want to become martyrs and want their children to become martyrs??? And that you feel uncomfortable about watching the results of their Quest for Martyrdom on your living-room TV??? And why do you think that you have the right to require Israel to acquiesce in Arab/Palestinian demands that they cease to exist in order to make you feel more comfortable in your TV viewing???”

Yes, we have studied many times in the past that Muslims believe that every martyr (together with 70 close relatives) by-passes a Fearsome Judgment Day to enter Paradise.

But I do not recall what the authority is for that belief.

Could you please provide it?

Your friend,

Solutions


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Authority for Islamic Martyrs and 70 Close Relatives By-Passing A Truly-Fearsome Judgment Day and Proceeding Immediately to Paradise
From: John Karls
Date: Tues, October 7, 2014 11:47 am
To: Solutions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Solutions,

Thank you very much for your request.

Especially since we have made this point so often over so many years, we have in recent years just taken it for granted.

By way of background, Osama bin Laden issued at least five fatwas --

(1) In August 1996, he issued a fatwa entitled “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.”

(2) In February 1998, he issued a fatwa entitled “Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.”

(3) In December 1998, he issued a fatwa entitled “The Nuclear Bomb of Islam.”

(4) In 2002, nine months after 9/11, he issued a fatwa requiring all of his followers to nuke 4 million Americans -- a fatwa about which the Founding Dean of Harvard U’s Kennedy School of Government, Graham Allison, wrote a famous book entitled “Nuclear Terrorism” about how to deal with the fatwa. [NB: His prescription for all of the world’s nuclear powers to “lock down” every iota of fissile material and to prevent any non-nuclear powers, such as Iran, from enriching fissile material, was widely criticized as impractical and, in any event, has not been implemented.]

(5) By 2005, Osama had issued a revised fatwa requiring all of his followers to nuke 10 million Americans -- as was painfully clear from Tim Russert’s 5/29/2005 Meet the Press interview about how to deal with the fatwa with former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman 1987-1995), U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN and then-current Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman) and Messrs. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (Chair and Co-Chair of The 9/11 Commission) -- during which they essentially recommended following Dean Graham Allison’s prescription which, as previously noted, has NOT been done.

**********
As noted in Q&A-9 & Q&A-10 for our 9/3/2014 meeting, Osama’s fatwa to nuke 10 million Americans can NOT be revoked now that Osama is dead, because fatwas can only be revoked by the issuer.

Accordingly, all members of Al Qaeda and its affiliates presumably feel obligated, as followers of Osama, to try to nuke 10 million Americans.
**********

But back to your question regarding Islamic martyrs.

Osama bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa entitled “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” [which spans roughly 30 Microsoft Word pages] states about two thirds of the way through [translation courtesy of the PBS Newshour at pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-july-dec96-fatwa_1996] --

“A martyr’s privileges are guaranteed by Allah: forgiveness with the first gush of his blood, he will be shown his seat in paradise, he will be decorated with the jewels of belief (Imaan), married off to the beautiful ones, protected from the test in the grave, assured security in the day of judgement, crowned with the crown of dignity, a ruby of which is better than this whole world (Duniah) and its entire content, wedded to seventy two of the pure Houries (beautiful ones of Paradise) and his intercession on the behalf of seventy of his relatives will be accepted.”

**********
It should also be noted that Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei echoes these views, as discussed below in an article by James M. Arlandson in The American Thinker.

Accordingly, since Iran is designated by the U.S. Government as a “state sponsor of terrorism” conducted, inter alia, through its puppets such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Syrian President Assad, it would appear that the belief that Islamic martyrs and 70 relatives by-pass a Truly Fearsome Judgment Day to enter Paradise is an Article of Faith for both Jihadis under the influence of Shiite Iran and Jihadis under the influence of Sunni Al Qaeda.

NB: If you or anyone else believes that James M. Arlandson does NOT know what he is talking about in the following article, then you/they have only succeeded in questioning THE EXPLANATION for the claims made by Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- you/they still have to deal with the fact that Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have made those claims and have not retracted them.

I hope all is well with you.

Your friend,

John K.

******************************************************************************
answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/death_economy.htm


Islamic Martyrdom? What a bargain!
The Economy of Death in the Quran
James M. Arlandson

Copyright by James Malcolm Arlandson. Originally published at americanthinker.com, this article was slightly edited for Answering Islam.


Yet another suicide-homicide bomber strikes Tel Aviv. A suicide car bomber in Iraq killed the most civilians (120) ever so far in a single blast. They were waiting to join the police and National Guard, signing up near a medical clinic.

Islamic suicide-homicide bombers are relentless. Many national Iraqi terrorists as well as foreign fighters who have traveled to Iraq from neighboring nations dream of achieving martyrdom. They casually walk up to mosques and a US Mess Hall in Iraq and detonate bombs strapped to their bodies under their clothing.

Muslim leaders in the West who have access to the national media tell unsuspecting Westerners that Islam is the religion of peace and that terrorists are only an aberration. While the leaders reassure us, another human bomb goes off.

Where is the truth between the two extremes?

If Islam is the religion of peace, then what inspires the terrorists? Political leaders?

Maybe. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in a speech at Ayatollah Khomeini’s Mausoleum, June 4, 2002, supports the Palestinian suicide-homicide martyrdoms that are deliberately carried out on innocent Israelis.

Let me say to you: these stances [of American administrators on suicide bombings] will not be of any use. This quest for martyrdom is not based on emotions; it is based on belief in Islam and faith in [the] Judgment Day and faith in life after death. Anywhere Islam exists in its true sense, arrogance faces this threat.

These words of the Supreme Leader of Iran constitute a serious indictment against Islam. It should no longer be claimed that suicide-homicide bombings are supported only in the dark corners of the Islamic world; rather, the Supreme Leader himself supports this death-cult. Speaking the truth, he says that homicide bombers do not commit their atrocities out of emotions, but out of the core doctrines of Islam: the Last Day and life after death. Thus, he asserts that Islam in its "true sense"—martyrdoms by homicide bombing—threatens arrogance, that is, the US and Israel.

MEMRI TV also has a video clip and a transcript of an interview with a "martyrdom seeker" who will fight all Zionists. These "seekers" (the report speaks of 40,000) will also attack America and Great Britain, becoming human bombs.

Does the dark prince of terrorism, Osama bin Laden, inspire evil martyrdom operations?

In his 1996 Fatwa declaring war on the US, bin Laden quotes a hadith passage (Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran) that has the prophet describing heaven for the martyrs fallen in a holy war. The first moment blood gushes, they are guaranteed Islamic heaven. They receive crowns, jewels, and seventy-two dark-eyed houris or beautiful maidens, for each martyr.

[A] martyr’s privileges are guaranteed by Allah; forgiveness with the first gush of his blood, he will be shown his seat in paradise, he will be decorated with the jewels of belief, married off to the beautiful ones, protected from the test in the grave, assured security in the day of judgment, crowned with the crown of dignity, a ruby of which is better than this whole world and its entire content, wedded to seventy-two of the pure Houris (beautiful women of Paradise) and his intercession on the behalf of seventy of his relatives will be accepted.

This hadith source that bin Laden cites puts together different Quranic passages describing Islamic heaven, complete with beautiful virgins (Suras 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78), with those describing the immediate reward of heaven for jihadist martyrs (Suras 61:10-12; 4:74; 9:111). (For multiple translations of these "virgin verses" and other sensuous descriptions of Islamic heaven, go to this site, and type in the references: 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78.)

Where does this evil doctrine of martyrdom in a battle come from? The answer to the question is that Khamenei and bin Laden are not the deepest sources of inspiration for martyrdom bombers. If they were, we could stop terrorism quickly. Sad to report, these two evil-doers, as well the faceless human bombs, get their inspiration from the Quran itself. Islam at its core is not the religion of peace, but violence sits in the origins of Islam.

Suras 61:10-12, 4:74, and 9:111 guarantee Islamic martyrs heaven in an economic bargain. Indeed, these three references explicitly use words that connote buying and selling and signing a contract of sale, and the currency behind the deals is death by martyrdom.

Deducing claims from these verses and using the logic of evil, suicide-homicide bombers with modern and private weapons accept this bargain and throw themselves into battle against disciples of the Great Satan (the US) and the little Satan (Israel). Derived from these verses, the martyrs’ death-acts show their total surrender to Allah; they count their lives as nothing compared with their devotion to him and security in achieving heaven. So Allah is pleased—it is a done deal.

To explain how the economy of this death-cult and the derived evil logic originate in the Quran, a specific exegetical method is used. First, Muslim translators are cited so that they, not Westerners, speak for their religion. Second, the historical context is outlined because it sheds light on the words in the verses themselves. Third, the literary context of each passage is summarized because the words in the targeted passages take on meaning from the surrounding verses. These second and third steps not only elucidate the meaning within the key verses, they also prevent the standard, reflexive "out of context" defense from Muslim apologists. Fourth, we interpret the verses themselves. Finally, one of the analyzed passages and another’s literary context invite a comparison with the Torah and the Gospels, so we end the article accepting this invitation.

Suffice it to say, the Torah and especially the Gospels do not have this death-cult of martyrdom in military battles or in any context. The later religion of Islam, picking and choosing ideas from the two earlier religions—especially Christianity in this case—degrades and distorts the positive call to total devotion to God—the historical context makes all the differences in the world between the first two religions and the later one.

Sura 61:10-12

In this passage, the Arabic word "jihad" (root is j-h-d) is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come.

61:10 You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph. (M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford University Press, 2004)

Other translators agree with Haleem’s "bargain" (t-j-r) in bold print, but render the key word as follows: "profitable course" (Dawood, not a Muslim, but an Iraqi), "merchandise" (Shakir and Maulana), and "trade" (Fakhry, Hilali and Khan, and the team of scholars translating Ibn Kathir). Regardless of the various words, they still convey the central meaning of an economic exchange.

It is difficult to pin down the historical context of Sura 61:10-12 because internal evidence directly bearing on external events is slim; the sura, after all, is only fourteen verses long. Reputable scholars, though, place the sura not long after the Battle of Uhud in March 625 (so named after a hill to the north of Medina), which pitted the Muslims against the Meccans. This battle was the Meccan riposte to the surprise victory of the Muslims over the Meccans in the Battle of Badr a year earlier in March. But in this present case, the Meccans got the better of the Islamic community. Muhammad was rumored even to be have been killed, but he was actually chased up into higher ground. The Muslim defeat stung at first, but that night, burying their dead, Muhammad realized that he did not lose substantially, so he sent a raiding party the next morning to confront the Meccans, who had stayed in the vicinity because Arab custom demanded that an army returning from battle must not appear to retreat, a sign of weakness. The leader of the Meccans was not in a position to attack, for he suffered losses too, so eventually he and his army made their way back to Mecca.

Moreover, the sura may have been revealed later than Uhud, but still in 625. In this case the Muslims are gaining ground despite the slight loss at Uhud, because they expelled the Jewish Nadir tribe from Medina in August 625 on the flimsy charge of refusal to pay blood-wit (compensation for loss of life) and a revelation that members of the tribe were attempting to assassinate him. (For more on this expulsion, refer to this article.)

The larger historical context of Sura 61:10-12, then, is warfare with the Meccans and other outsiders and internal conflict in Medina, all of which the Muslim community managed to overcome.

The literary context—the eleven verses surrounding vv. 10-12—reveal five themes. First, Muhammad scolds the hypocrites (nominal Muslims who do not jump when Muhammad cracks the whip) for promising to do things, but not following through, in the context of fighting in solid lines or ranks in the cause of Allah (vv. 3-4). This faction of "conscientious objectors" does not wish to join Muhammad in his wars. Second, it is interesting that the sura is entitled "Solid Lines" because of v. 4; Allah loves it when his soldiers line up neatly in battle. This neatness of lining up is reminiscent of Muslims lining up to pray. According to reliable hadiths, Muhammad placed orderly marks on the floor in his mosque so his Muslims would pray in rows. Third, the word "fighting" in v. 4 comes from qital (root is q-t-l), which means only warring and killing. Fourth, Muhammad appeals to Moses and Jesus as inspirations because they too encountered resistance from their followers (vv. 5-6; 14). Muhammad is just like them and better. Finally, Allah tells his prophet that it is Islam, despite the opposition, which will rule the world and rise above all other religions (vv.7-9) (For more on this "great commission" which is a distortion of the Great Commission in the Gospel of Matthew (28:18-20), refer to this article.)

Thus, the literary context of Sura 61:10-12 is warfare (q-t-l); Allah’s love of soldiers who fight in solid lines or ranks (the sura’s title); the condemnation of hypocrites who do not wish to fight, and Muhammad’s identity with Moses and Jesus, though Muhammad and his new religion triumphantly fulfill the first two leaders and their religions.

Interpreting Sura 61:10-12 reveals three unpleasant themes. First, the divine "bargain" has death as the currency behind it. What do Allah and his followers get in the exchange? The martyrs receive the forgiveness of sins and heaven, and Allah receives complete devotion to him in establishing his community and religion. Allah has sent Muhammad as his messenger with the truth—the final answer—which must win the world. Also, the bargain apparently saves even Muslims from a painful torment in hell. This image of humans suffering in hell, which includes even reluctant and disobedient Muslims like the hypocrites, occurs frequently enough in the Quran (2:81, 206; 23:103; 66:8; 20:124-126, to cite only a few); Muhammad’s prediction of it for many who disobey him demonstrates how much social control of the worst kind he exerts over his followers, many of whom waited for him to get his haircut so they could take even one hair and cherish it. The economic metaphor is effective, but diabolical in the context of warfare and fiery devotion.

Second, Muhammad guarantees martyrs a place in Islamic heaven in exchange for a struggle not only with their possessions, but also with their persons or lives. Hence, jihad in this context means more than a bloody struggle, but jihad also must include bloodshed in these three verses. They answer the misinformation spread by Muslim apologists that jihad means only and exclusively a struggle with sin in the soul. It may include that, but it must also include a bloody war in some contexts like the one for Sura 61:10-12.

Finally, in the bargain, Muhammad mixes salvation with works, which is bound to force Muslims to strive hard (j-h-d) to earn their place in heaven—pure, unadulterated grace gets lost in Islamic theology, but an unhealthy mixture of faith and works is the core belief. Hence, martyrdom is the ultimate good work; and from a psychological standpoint, doing the highest of the best deeds frees the jihadists’ minds from the torment of doubt over their eternal destiny. Today, the promise of a Garden is a strong inducement for troubled, would-be martyrs to kill themselves in their self-conceived jihad against the Great Satan, against the little Satan, and now even against the Iraqi Shi’ites, simply because their theology differs from the Sunnis.

Thus, Sura 61:10-12 can only whisper temptations in the ear of a Muslim with a radical bent and only propel him forward in the deadly economic trade of his life for the life to come in the context of jihad. Muhammad and his Quran are the deepest source of inspiration for today’s jihadists. Their path to heaven is secured by the ultimate good work mixed in with their twisted faith.

Sura 4:74

In this verse the Arabic switches from jihad to qital (q-t-l), and this word means warring, fighting and killing with swords, and it again becomes the currency for fatally selling or trading this life for the Hereafter.

4:74 Let those of you who are willing to trade the life of this world for the life to come, fight [q-t-l] in God’s way. To anyone who fights [q-t-l] in God’s way, whether killed [q-t-l] or victorious, We shall give a great reward. (Haleem)

Other translations of the key word "trade" (sh-r-a) in bold print read as follows: "sell" (Hilali and Khan, Fakhry, Yusuf Ali, Maulana, Pickthall, Shakir), "exchange" (Dawood), "barter" (Ahmed Ali) and "barter away" (Maududi), all of which have an economic connotation.

Like Sura 61, the historical context of Sura 4 is difficult to discover. Three different passages reveal that the sura occurred in nearly a three-year span: after the Battle of Uhud in 625 in which Islam lost 70 holy warriors (vv. 1-35); the so-called Prayer of Fear in which Muhammad instructs his soldiers how to pray during a military campaign in 626 (v. 101-103); and during still another military expedition in 627, in which he instructs his soldiers how to perform ablutions when no water is available (sand is used) (v. 43). Whichever timeframe Sura 4:74 fits into, the overall historical context shows Muhammad establishing his community in Medina during warfare outside of the city.

The literary context of Sura 4:74 consists of warfare (q-t-l) outside of Medina and strife within Medina between Muhammad and the faction of hypocrites, some of whom want only the spoils of war, and others of whom want peace, prayer, and almsgiving. Muhammad, however, chooses the warpath, along with forced prayer and forced almsgiving, two of the Five Pillars in Islam. Peace does not reign in early Islam.

Moreover, Muhammad splits the world in two according to believers and unbelievers in the context of warfare or q-t-l (v. 76). A believer fights (q-t-l) for God, but an unbeliever fights (q-t-l) for an unjust cause and for Satan. So the world is divided up into Dar-al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar-al-Kufr (Abode of Unbelief), which belongs therefore to Dar-al-Harb (Abode of War). This means that Islam may wage war on unbelief, because this holy warfare—both q-t-l and j-h-d—eliminates the disciples of Satan, for example, citizens of the Great Satan and of the little Satan. If a civilization does not come under the control of Islam, then ipso facto it perpetuates injustice and unrighteousness, so Islam needs to subjugate it in order to purge out its bad qualities. A strategy in the gradual conquest can include aggressive martyrdom, as we will see in two Muslims’ interpretation of Sura 9:111, below.

The interpretation of Sura 4:74 is simple. First, the trade or selling of one’s life forms the currency in which one conducts the trade with the deity. Allah demands a Muslim’s whole life in the context of warfare. As a return payment, he gives the martyr Islamic heaven. In this scenario Allah receives the establishment of his true religion and guidance. Second, the short verse piles on violent and bloody qital in various forms, three times. This word clearly does not mean a struggle with sin only in the soul, to say the least. Next, a qitalist fights in God’s cause or way, and two results ensue: either he lives to fight another day so that maybe he can be martyred, or he dies in battle and securely goes to Islamic heaven, completing the ultimate good work. Finally, in a religious system (Islam) that requires an unspecified quantity of good works, today’s jihadists and qitalists have a strong psychological pull on their troubled minds to kill themselves in martyrdom. This lifts their burden of insecurity over their eternal destiny. They are inspired by their Founder who fought in sacred bloody battles (historical reality) and by his sacred book that conveniently endorses his sacred bloody battles (textual reality).

Sura 9:111

Muhammad continues using qital (q-t-l) in its various forms as the currency for his death-cult:

9:111 God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers for the Garden—they fight [q-t-l] in God’s way: they kill [q-t-l] and are killed [q-t-l]—this is a true promise given by Him in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. Who could be more faithful to his promise than God? So be happy with the bargain you have made: that is the supreme triumph. (Haleem)

Some translators agree with Haleem’s key words "purchased" (sh-r-a) and "bargain" (b-aa-c), but others use "bought" (Maulana, Yusuf Ali, Maududi, Fakhry, Pickthall, et al.), and one uses "pledge" for "bargain" (Shakir). With the possible exception of Shakir’s translation, which raises the commitment beyond just a bargain, all of these translations still remain within an economic semantic field.

The historical context of Sura 9:111 sees Muhammad returning from a military expedition against the Byzantine Empire in 630, two years before his death of a fever in 632. Muhammad heard a rumor that the Byzantines amassed an army some 700 miles to the north in Tabuk in order to attack Islam, so he led an army of 30,000 holy warriors to counter-strike preemptively. However, the Byzantines failed to materialize, so Muhammad’s expedition was fruitless, except he managed to extract (extort) agreements from northern tribes that they would not attack him and his community. They were also forced to pay a "protection" tax for the "privilege" of living under Islam. Muhammad’s military expedition qualifies as an Islamic Crusade long before the European ones. And as for the extortion of taxes, an army of 30,000 soldiers from the south must have deeply impressed the disunified, loose northern tribes, so in no way did they plan to attack Islam; thus, Muhammad’s forced tax was aggressive and hence unjust, not defensive and hence just.

The historical context of Sura 9:111, then, is warfare (q-t-l) on a large scale against the Byzantines.

The literary context of the targeted Sura 9:111 shows Muhammad scolding the hypocrites who finished building a mosque while he was away in Tabuk (vv. 107-110). They asked him to bless it when he returned to Medina, but instead he ordered it torn down. Truthfully, it is likely that they would have used it to stir up trouble within the Muslim community. In contrast to the hypocrites, in the verses after 9:111 Muhammad defines what true believers are: they do good works, bow down and prostrate themselves and forbid what is wrong (v. 112). Finally, Muslims ask their prophet if they should pray for their polytheistic relatives. He orders them not to, fabricating a story about Abraham who had prayed for his polytheist father, but who changed his mind and washed his hands of his father, after Abraham learned that he was the enemy of God. If Abraham prayed for his father only because he had made an earlier arrangement with him, but then washed his hands of him, why would Muslims pray for their relatives and ancestors (vv. 113-116)?

Thus, local verbal and political fighting (j-h-d and q-t-l); squabbling with his internal enemies like the hypocrites (cf. Sura 9:4, 73, 123); and disagreement with and correction of his uninformed Muslims who want to pray for their polytheist ancestors and relatives make up the literary context. (See this article for more information on Muhammad’s wars on the polytheists and hypocrites.)

To judge from the second and third steps (historical and literary contexts) in Suras 61:10-12, 4:74, and 9:111, it should be clear by now that Muhammad’s community in Medina does not experience very long stretches of peace, and this fact colors the very origins of Islam and what goes into the Quran. Islam at its core is not the religion of peace, contrary to the standard line fed to the unsuspecting West.

Sura 9:111 has caught the imagination of two widely used Muslim commentators, so we should let them speak for their own religion.

Sayyid Abdul A’la Maududi (d. 1979) was an Indo-Pakistani revivalist and radical who advocated the establishment of an Islamic state on the model of the prophet’s, from the top down without depending on swaying the public to accept the Islamic state. In other words, he opposed democracy and supported a centralized and powerful theocracy. Sayyid Qutb was an Egyptian radical and godfather of modern jihadist movements today. He was tried and executed in 1966 for plotting to overthrow the Egyptian government.

Maududi emphasizes the spiritual and psychological aspects of the divine transaction. A Muslim believer must be willing to relinquish his soul and possessions for Allah. A believer "surrenders his freedom and sacrifices his desires and wishes in this present world in return for His promise of the Gardens and eternal bliss in the Next World" ... Total devotion to a deity and total surrender of desires and wishes is the heart of the human-centered message of all of the great religions of the world. And total devotion can be positive. However, in the context of warfare (qital), combining the doctrine of total surrender with martyrdom is twisted and distorted.

Hence, Maududi commits two errors, one as a commentator, the other as a theologian. He fails to deal adequately with the context of Sura 9:111—fighting in war and killing and being killed. He seems to want only the spiritual side of sacrifice and to avoid the bloody mess of martyrdom in a pitched battle. The second error is theological. He says that a believer must go on fulfilling the terms of the transaction (selling his life to Allah) "up to his last breath." In an earlier note in his commentary on Sura 9, he says that a Muslim may atone for his sins by doing acts of charity. Of the many problems with the Islamic doctrine of salvation, the main one is its ambiguity. It does not specify the quantity of good works necessary to reach heaven. As noted, when this ambiguity is mixed in with the absoluteness of martyrdom in achieving heaven, the results can be deadly. Thus, a Muslim suffering from anxiety over his failure to totally surrender reads in his Quran (61:10-12; 4:74; 9:111) that if he dies as a martyr, he reaches heaven. Why would this not motivate him?

This is apparently true of Muhammad Atta, the Egyptian terrorist who crashed a fuel-laden jet into one of Twin Towers on 9/11. In a letter to his fellow jihadists, he accurately understands the doctrine of Quranic martyrdom:

You should feel complete tranquility, because the time between you and your marriage [in heaven] is very short. Afterwards begins the happy life, where God is satisfied with you. And eternal bliss ‘in the company of the prophets, the companions, the martyrs and the good people’ ...

He also told them to tame their souls because they must have "100% obedience." But how does one define absolute obedience? Islamic martyrdom. He fulfilled the terms of the economic transaction by doing the highest and best deed imaginable: selling his life to Allah in a worldwide battle against the Great Satan, the Dar-al-Kufr (Abode of Unbelief), which is subject to warfare (Dar-al-Harb). It must also be stated that many of the Muslim martyrs may be mentally troubled, but surely some of them act with level heads. They follow a simple, rational equation:

Total surrender = martyrdom in a holy war = Islamic heaven.

For Islam, this is 100% obedience. Historically, Muhammad the Founder of Islam engaged in this warfare on Dar-al-Kufr, for example, against the polytheist Meccans and against the Christian Byzantines. Fighting them for Allah signifies total surrender, which in turn leads to Islamic heaven. How could terrorists not be inspired by their prophet and his book?

Qutb is a radical, but a straightforward radical because, unlike Maududi, he deals with the historical context of warfare in his comments on Sura 9:111; indeed he embraces it with deep emotion. "Hence the sense of dread that I now feel as I am writing these words" [of 9:111]. In a section he subtitles "A Very Special Contract," Qutb, following Muhammad, scolds the Muslims around the world who are unwilling to sacrifice their lives in the cause of Allah (code for war). His rebuke also reveals a call that echoes in the head of all jihadists of the last several generations:

The [economic] deal fills us with awe. Yet those who are claiming to be Muslims everywhere, from the far east to the far west are sitting idle, unwilling to strive hard in order to establish the fundamental truth of God’s Lordship [read: Islam] on earth, or to remove the tyranny which usurps the qualities of Lordship over human life on earth [read: non-Islamic governments]. They are unwilling to fight, kill and be killed for God’s cause ...

This excerpt reflects his ideology laced throughout his multivolume commentary. He assumes that Islam is the fundamental truth of God’s Lordship, and Muslims must be willing to fight in order to impose it on the world.

Furthermore, as Sura 9:111 says at the end of the verse, Qutb reminds his fellow jihadists that they must rejoice in the bargain; they should gladly give up their lives, which amounts to nothing compared with the virgin-rich Garden. This reflects another verse that demonstrates that the early Muslims were eager to die in battle. In the historical context of the Battle of Uhud in 625 (see above, Sura 61:10-12), Muhammad tells his jihadists: "Before you encountered death, you were hoping for it" ... (Sura 3:143). This means that martyrs are allowed to hope for death in battle, and, logically, this permits Muslim suicide-homicide bombers today to seek out a means of death in a worldwide struggle to eliminate the enemies of Allah. In fact, Sura 3:143 is precisely the verse that Muhammad Atta quotes in his letter, and he too tells his jihadists to be optimistic and cheerful.

Finally, Qutb believes that all governments that are non-Islamic are ipso facto tyrannical because they impose order apart from Allah and his revealed will in the Quran and in the Sharia, the code of law derived from the Quran and the words and deeds of Muhammad. It never occurs to Qutb that the Quran and the Sharia are tyrannical by their very nature. It is no wonder that Qutb did not endorse democracy and neither does Zarqawi, the Jordanian evil-doer who beheads innocent civilians, saying recently that democracy is evil and that he will wage a fierce war on it.

To sum up the essence of Suras 61:10-12, 4:74, and 9:111, the doctrine of Islamic martyrdom has been placed in economic terms in the historical context of aggressive warfare. A Muslim sells his life through martyrdom in a holy war in a bargain with Allah. In return, the believer gets the guaranteed reward of Islamic heaven. For the deity’s part, he uses the surrender to spread his true religion around the world. Allah will establish Islam and get the ultimate victory. This guarantee appeals to Muslims today, who sell their lives in martyrdom against the Great Satan and the little Satan. Allah asks his fighters to "rejoice" in the bargain they have made with him, that is, to be inspired by it.

Biblical Martyrdom

The literary context of Sura 61:10-12, as well as Sura 9:111, invite the readers to contrast Muhammad and the Quran with Moses and the Torah and Jesus and the Gospels. Islam claims to implement a new way of thinking about God and living under his reign, under the "blessing" of the Sharia. We answer three Muslim apologists, Qutb, Maududi, and Yusuf Ali, in their commentaries on Sura 9:111. We repeat that the Christian doctrine of salvation (grace through faith in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross) does not and cannot lead to deliberate martyrdom in a holy military war. Islam degrades the positive path of total devotion found in the Gospels (and the Torah). The subject of martyrdom challenges Islam’s superiority.

To begin with, Muhammad’s knowledge of the Torah was limited and confused. Attempting to clarify his prophet’s confusion, Qutb says that the Old Testament orders jihad, but that distortions have crept into these Scriptures and hence into "their concept of God and what striving for His cause means." Maududi seeks to clear up Muhammad’s confusion as well, saying that the Torah does not have a developed view of heaven (in this he may be right). But he also says that God commands the ancient Hebrews to fight, but that they degraded the original command of winning heaven; instead, the Hebrews fought to win Canaan. But Qutb is as wrong as his prophet, and Maududi in his latter claim is wrong as well. It is true that the First Law says that the ancient Hebrews under Moses should fight under specific conditions in order to purge the land of Canaan, but in no way does the Torah exalt to high heaven the cult of martyrdom in an economy of death—this is proven by the so-called "undeveloped" doctrine of heaven in the Torah. God does not purchase the ancient Hebrews in exchange for paradise. (For more on the differences between God’s wars and Allah’s wars, refer to this article.)

Furthermore, Muhammad in his "inerrant Quran" is dead wrong when he asserts that the Gospels encourage the economy of death for Jesus and his followers. True, out of the deep and authentic love of God, Jesus willingly lays down his life for the sins of the world—even for the sins of the polytheists whom Muhammad slaughters—but a martyr’s death-cult is never built up for his followers to seek out fame on earth and a place in heaven. Christ died to secure his followers’ place in heaven, so that Christians do not have to kill themselves or to die from persecution in order to get into heaven, for this would insult Christ’s unique redemption on the cross. He was the final and ultimate "Martyr," and the effect of his "Martyrdom" transfers to all believers in him.

Yusuf Ali in his commentary on Sura 9:111 (note 1362) disputes this path of salvation, asserting that the "corrupted" Christian view of the atonement of Christ’s death on the cross is rejected by Islam. What Allah wants is submission, which may include "fighting for the Cause, both spiritual and physical." In reply to Yusuf Ali, however, it is difficult to find a Muslim who understands fully what the Christian doctrine of atonement means, though it is not so difficult to grasp. If he were to grasp it, he may not dismiss it so easily as "corrupted" and hence inferior, especially when it is contrasted with fighting and killing and being killed as a martyr in Allah’s cause (9:111). For all generations of Christians from the first century until now, the New Testament, which is the original source of Christian theology, says that only Christ saves through his blood on the cross; no reservoir of human good deeds can save, and certainly not a reservoir filled with jihadist blood from warfare for a "divine" cause. Christ’s atonement on the cross is the more peaceful and the more secure way to heaven.

Next, Maududi quotes Matt. 5:10; 10:39; 19:29, all of which speak of laying down one’s life and giving up one’s possessions. He infers that the Gospels also contain passages that exhort Christians to lay down their lives in a physical way. Thus, the New Testament and the Quran match up. It is true that the New Testament verses he cites speak of a willingness to give up all material possessions for the kingdom of God and to lay down one’s life mainly in a spiritual way, and possibly in a physical death under severe and fatal persecution, but the verses are not found in the context of a bloody religious war. Rather, Jesus calls his disciples to pick up their cross and follow him (Matt. 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27), but he also says that they should do this daily (Luke 9:23). The image of the cross means that they must follow Jesus no matter what, on a daily basis, which precludes an earthly martyrdom, which is done only once; per contra, a "daily martyrdom" is continuous. A twisted love of physical death is not in view in those New Testament passages in the context of qital.

It is also true that some of the early Christians suffer martyrdom, but, again, never in the cause of warfare; rather, they are persecuted and put to death because the listeners and local authorities are offended at their message, not because the Christians "fight in God’s way: they kill and are killed" (Sura 9:111). Stephen is the prime example and the first martyr in Christianity (Acts 6:8-8:1). He was stoned to death because he preached the truth, not because he was chopping off heads in a battle, only to have his head chopped off in turn by an enemy who had sneaked up behind him. His place in heaven was already secure before he preached or died, because Christ had saved him in his "Martyr’s" death on the cross.

True, the risen Christ predicted martyrdom for a few of his followers in the church at Smyrna (Rev. 2:10), but they did not initiate it in warfare; they were being persecuted—severely and fatally. Moreover, after their deaths, this New Testament church did not raise a small army to wage a jihad on their persecutors (as Muhammad did on his Meccan persecutors). It is better to die loving one’s executioner than to kill the executioner in rage. This stands in sharp contrast to Muhammad’s misguided belief that fighting enemies will relieve the rage that his Muslims have against them (Sura 9:15).

It is also true that some later Christians even sought out martyrdom, though not in the context of military warfare, but to win fame. Church authorities rightly rebuked them. The following cannot be repeated too often because it diametrically opposes the Islamic doctrine of salvation: only Christ’s "Martyrdom" guarantees a believer’s place in heaven; only his ultimate good work on the cross paves the way to God. Thus, the Christian does not (or should not) have a psychological inducement to kill himself or to be killed in battle to achieve heaven. He needs only trust in Christ.

So Jesus and his disciples through the first three centuries turned the world upside down by simple proclamation, not by butchering with swords (or by threatening to butcher with swords) people who opposed their ministry—the warpath of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century and the Medieval Crusaders do not set the genetic code in the very origins of Christianity in the New Testament. On the other hand, Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he says that a martyr’s death in the cause of Allah (cause = war) guarantees heaven. The contrast between the two religions is stark. Christ’s way leads to life and the light; Muhammad’s way leads to death and darkness.

Hence, the deadly bargain of martyrdom is completely foreign to devout Christians and even to nominal Christians world over, who no longer take their faith seriously. Christians want heaven, and they are assured of it by the atoning death of Christ, once they receive his Holy Spirit—the divine, life-transforming Spirit of God, who is not the angel Gabriel as claimed in Muslim theology.

Why would a Christian choose the inferior path to heaven—the one that Muhammad teaches—death by martyrdom in a qital or war? Total devotion and surrender should not be perverted. Instead, total devotion and surrender to Christ is far better, for he produces divine love and true inner peace, and hence his real path to heaven far surpasses Muhammad’s claims and "revelations" that conveniently support his wars. Christ rose above such petty, dubious assertions and cleared the way to heaven with his Death and Resurrection.

Thus, Islam does not complete or fulfill Christianity. Rather, Muhammad’s religion is a degradation and a distortion of Christianity, devolving downwards from it.

Post Reply

Return to “Section 3 – Possible Topics for Future Meetings”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests