FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

OK, it’s not from the regular media, it’s from the Little Green Footballs blog. But it’s still one of the best headlines ever:

Lebanon Kills Hundreds, Destroys Camp, World Yawns

On September 9, Fresno will host a ‘Night to Honor Israel’, an event put on by Dr. John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel (see my previous articles, ‘Rabbi Yoffie and Pastor Hagee‘, and ‘Should Jews support Christian Zionists?‘). The event will raise money, all of which will go to Israel and none to CUFI or even to pay for the event (the cost of the event has been paid by a Christian donor).

I expected that there would be differences of opinion in the Jewish community about this, but I wasn’t prepared for the strength of feelings expressed by those who opposed it (I should know better).

The local Jewish Federation has endorsed the event. The (by far) largest congregation in the region has pointedly not endorsed it, although their rabbi will be giving the invocation.

The reasons that I’ve heard for oppostion are the following:

• They only support Israel because they believe that there will be a massive battle of Armageddon in which the Jews will take part, and then be converted to Christianity with the Second Coming; and they are trying to bring this about.

• They think Israel should keep the territories and therefore are anti-peace.

• They want something from us in return — although they say that they don’t, they will call in their markers later.

And finally, what I think is the most important part:

• They are members of the ‘Christian Right’ who want to destroy the separation of church and state in the US and change the US into an explicitly Christian nation, who want to destroy public schools, prohibit gay marriage and abortion, etc.

‘Christian Zionism’ is a term that can be applied to many completely different theological points of view. To be fair to Dr. Hagee we should look at his own words:

The support of Israel is a biblically based mandate for every Christian. All other nations were created by an act of men, but God Himself established the boundaries of the nation of Israel. God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob a covenant of land that was eternally binding, and it’s recorded in the book of Genesis. God also told Abraham that He would make Abraham’s descendants into a great nation and through them He would bless all the families of the earth. In the same passage, God said He would “bless those who bless you” (Abraham), and “curse him who curses you” (Gen. 12:3). That gets my attention. I want to be blessed, not cursed, by God.

The Bible shows God as the protector and defender of Israel. Psalm 121:4 says that He never slumbers or sleeps in His watching over the nation of Israel. The prophet Zechariah said that the Jewish people are “the apple of God’s eye” (2:8). Any nation that comes against Israel is, in effect, poking God in the eye-not a very wise thing to do! If God created Israel, if God defends Israel, if God considers Israel the apple of His eye, then it is logical to say that those who stand with Israel are standing with God.

Every Christian should remember the debt of gratitude the Christian community owes to the Jewish community. The Jewish people do not need Christianity to explain their existence or their origin. But Christians cannot explain their existence without Judaism. It was the Jewish people who gave us the written Scripture. They gave us the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They gave us the disciples and the apostle Paul. The Jewish people gave to Christianity the first Christian family, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus-our Savior! If you take away the Jewish contribution to Christianity, there is nothing left.

I don’t see anything about starting a war there, do you? Opponents of CUFI insist, in the most insulting way possible, on not believing Hagee’s words and attributing the most extreme view possible to him.

I agree that Christian Zionists tend to align themselves with those who want Israel to keep the territories, and they are not especially sympathetic to the Palestinians. But differences of opinion about these issues are rife among Zionists in Israel and in the US, and shouldn’t disqualify a group from helping Israel. The money that has been raised by CUFI in the past has not gone to build settlements, but rather toward such things as mitigating the effects of the Hezbollah rocket attacks on Northern Israel, building shelters, etc.

As far as ‘wanting something’, yes, they do want something: they want legitimacy for their fundraising efforts (which they will not have if Jews reject them) and they want to extend their hand in friendship to make up, in part, for years of antisemitism by Christians. Should we slap it away?

Finally — they are members of the dreaded Christian Right, who helped elect George Bush and oppose everything that is modern and just. It’s true that these are the same people — they belong to the group of 50 to 150 million Americans who identify as Evangelical Christians. I think that although most liberal Jews are not going to find common ground with them on the issue of abortion, for example, it might be worthwhile for us to try to understand the source of their concerns.

And I think that just as they are prepared to agree to disagree with us on these issues, we can do the same so as to support one cause — the survival of the State of Israel — that we all agree upon.

Technorati Tags: Fresno, CUFI, Hagee, Christian Zionism

Today was the first day of school in Sderot. Seven Qassam rockets fell in the town in the morning. No one was hurt, but one landed close to a day care center, damaging a building. Qassams have been fired at Israelis since 2001; sometimes only one or two a day, sometimes hundreds within a few days.

Last week three Palestinian children were killed when they played tag around some Qassam launchers. IDF gunners did not see that they were children until a missile had already been fired at them.

So Hamas is trying hard to kill Israeli children, but only succeeded in killing Palestinian ones this time.

On their website, Hamas’ Ezzedeen al-Qassam brigades (the rocket and organization are named after the same “martyr”) claim that they are responding to “Zionist crimes” in attacking “settlers” in Sderot, which has been part of Israel since 1948.

Why is Hamas firing rockets at Sderot? Their reasoning is like this: If Israel continues to do nothing, Israelis will be shown to be weaklings that can’t defend their land. Ultimately the citizens of Sderot will give up and leave. This will be good for Hamas.

On the other hand, if Israel is provoked into a massive attack of Gaza (where Hamas has built serious defensive positions) there will be a large number of Israeli military casualties (good for Hamas) as well as opportunities to display Palestinian civilian casualties to the world (also good for Hamas). This also might trigger bombardment of Israeli towns in the north by Hezbollah.

But, as everyone says, “this can’t be allowed to continue”. And ultimately Israel will be fighting Hamas. It won’t go away and won’t become ‘moderate’.

So maybe get it over with, the sooner the better.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Sderot, Hamas, Qassam

Lebanon was supposed to be an example of cooperation between Muslims, Christians, Druze, etc. It hasn’t worked out that way, mostly because of interference from outside parties, such as the then-Soviet backed PLO in the ’70’s, and of course Syria. Barry Rubin discusses the present situation, precarious for the Lebanese and for Israel, and a bad omen for the struggle against radical Islamism.

The Battle for Lebanon

by Barry Rubin

Lebanon may be beginning one of the most turbulent periods in its all-too-tumultuous history. As the world looks on with apparent indifference, Islamist and Iran-led forces may be on the verge of a new victory over Arab nationalists and just about everyone else.

With what can only be called astounding courage, most Lebanese Christian, Druze, and Sunni Muslim politicians have stood up to the Shia Muslim group Hizballah as well as its Iranian and Syrian backers. Hizballah is well-financed from Tehran and Damascus; the government–and even less its constituent elements–receive relatively little international help.

Arms pour across the border to Hizballah, as a UN-dispatched force supposed to help stop this flow stands by inactive. True, there is some foreign aid to Lebanon’s armed forces, but that army is led by a man, Michael Suleiman, who might be the Syrian-Iranian candidate for president, and many of its soldiers are pro-Hizballah, too.

The Syrians buy some politicians, like the former Christian patriot Michel Aoun, and kill others who resist, as happened to former prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. The UN has sponsored an investigation into Hariri’s killing that points to high-level Syrian involvement. But after two years of inquiry there is no end in sight and many Western politicians along with several governments are eager to “engage” Syria in dialogue.

Thus, the Syrians have engaged in systematic terrorism in Lebanon and pretty much gotten away with it so far. When a Syrian-backed Palestinian Islamist group, Fatah al-Islam, raised a revolt against the Lebanese government, the world was sympathetic to Lebanon but was largely content to blame it on shadowy al-Qaida forces acting independently. The same happened regarding terror attacks on the UN forces in Lebanon. Meanwhile, of course, no Hizballah or pro-Syrian politician has been assaulted by the moderates.

But even all this is not the most fitting symbol of the “international community’s” dereliction of duty in Lebanon. Here’s what is:

If you stand near the Israel-Lebanon border you will see the blue flag of the UN flying in Lebanese territory. Nearby flutters Hizballah’s yellow flag. A number of people have remarked on this fact, yet none seem to have drawn the logical conclusion from it.

During the summer 2006 war between Israel and Hizballah, most countries — held back for some days by the United States — eagerly demanded that there be a ceasefire. Finally, they got their way. The ceasefire drawn up at the UN mandated a large international armed force in southern Lebanon. Its mission was to keep Hizballah out of the area, ensure control by Lebanon’s government, if possible assist in the disarming of Hizballah by government forces, help stop arms smuggling, and prevent fighting between the two countries that share the border.

It has failed in all these tasks but the last one, and on even that point who knows how long will that be sustained. What is remarkable here is not just the failure itself but the fact that the world does not seem to be particularly agitated about it. Delegations are still asking the Syrians, pretty please, if they might act to stop the arms’ smuggling they are carrying out. And this is so even when Hizballah flaunts its triumph by sticking its flag right in the UN’s face.

So here’s what those two flags mean: almost 200 countries for once went up against Iran and its allies and guess who won? What does this mean for Western credibility? Will it encourage more moderation or more aggression from the radical Islamist side? The answer, unlike those flags, is not blowing in the wind. Being willing to kill people and cause trouble is a weapon so powerful for Hizballah and its friends that the West quails in fear.

Now begins the next round of the Lebanese battle: the election of president which begins September 25. The ostensible Syrian-Iranian candidate is Aoun, whose ambition to become president, or at least mistaken hope he can outmaneuver his allies, has blinded him to the consequences of his dangerous bargain. A possible alternative would be Suleiman, who is already being presented by the Syrians as a “compromise” choice to gullible Europeans. The government side will soon have to present its candidate.

If the two sides fail to reach agreement Lebanon could soon have two governments and perhaps even one civil war. Or it could have a regime dominated by Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Why should Lebanese moderates fight a hopeless battle? How many hundreds of thousands would leave the country? How long would it be before a radical regime in Beirut brought on another war with Israel?

And what about the consequences elsewhere? Wouldn’t Hizballah’s triumph inspire a vast increase in radical Islamist forces in every Arab country and a total victory for Hamas–also backed by Tehran and Damascus–over Fatah in the Palestinian civil war? If Syria concludes it can violently strike at Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel with no costs won’t this increase its aggressiveness? How about Iran, whose claims that the West is weak and in retreat would be thus confirmed?

Those aware of history should be reminded of something by events in Lebanon. In 1936, at an early stage of a different international conflict, a fascist uprising in Spain took place against the elected government there. Western democracies and the League of Nations (the equivalent of the UN today) stayed neutral as Germany and Italy poured in help to the rebels. After three years, the Spanish republic was defeated and dictators in Berlin and Rome took note. The battle that European democrats tried to forestall by passivity was made all the more inevitable.

Today, Lebanon is the main battlefront involving radical Islamist forces and Iranian ambitions, proof that terrorism works and Western determination doesn’t. As such, it is the epicenter of today’s most vital issue. Attention–and a lot more than that–must be paid.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, and author of the recently published The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).

Technorati Tags: Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Israel

California State University, Fresno (CSUF) has been known until now primarily for its excellent business school and its scandal-prone Athletic Department.

Now it is developing a program in Middle East Studies. Today it is only an interdisciplinary collection of courses, but in a year or so it will be possible for an undergraduate to minor in the program, and some day it may become a department in its own right.

The project is being spearheaded by Dean of the College of Humanities Dr. Vida Samiian; one of the co-directors is her husband, Dr. Sasan Fayazmanesh.

In November 2003, Dr. Samiian organized ‘Palestine Day’ at CSUF. Speakers included the renegade Israeli academic Ilan Pappé on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Dr. Saleh Abdul Jawad on “The End of the Two State Solution: Apartheid, Bi-national State, or the Final Stage of Socioside”, the film “Jenin, Jenin” which falsely depicted a ‘massacre’ that never occurred, the film “Gaza strip”, and more. Jewish students who attended said that the atmosphere was not only anti-Israel, but also antisemitic.

And Dr. Fayazmanesh? In a recent interview, he says

the Middle East Policy of the current administration has been determined by the “neoconservatives,” individuals who virtually see no distinction between the “interest” of the US and Israel and might even put the “interest” of the latter above the former. — (The US, Israel and Iran: An Interview with Sasan Fayazmanesh)

He names seven “neo-cons”, six of whom are Jewish, and then goes on to talk about the power of the Israeli lobby in the US. Indeed, he likes to use the expression “USrael” to express the idea that US policy is identical to that of Israel.

It is hard to believe that a program led by these two will present an unbiased view of the Middle East.

We can possibly get an idea of what they have planned by reading between the lines of some of the course descriptions. For example, in a course given by Dr. Sameh El Kharbawy on “Islamic Art and Architecture”, students will learn about

…the historical tensions between Islam and modernity, and explore Islam’s engagement with radical social and political theory; its flirtation with utopianism and mass culture; its encounters with colonialism and war; its flirtation with technology, as well as its changing conceptions of mind and human nature. Contemporary critical issues of post-colonial identity, exile, cultural hybridity will also be studied through art and architecture. The goal is to re-orient the historiographic project of modernity within Islam’s regional, pan-Islamic, and cross-cultural contexts, exposing the course participants, in the process, to their role in the construction of modern identities.

It isn’t hard to imagine the discussion sessions.

Technorati Tags: Fresno, CSUF, Samiian, Fayazmanesh

The teenage daughter of a friend of mine recently returned from a 6-week trip to Israel. She went with a group of American and Israeli Jewish kids, of various backgrounds — secular, liberal, and orthodox. They traveled all over the country and met all kinds of people, including settlers, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians.

Someone asked her “if there is one thing that you learned on this trip that you would like to tell us about, what was it?”

She said something like this: “Beforehand, I thought that all we had to do to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was to get the two sides to understand each other’s point of view. Now I see that it’s much harder than that — it goes very, very deep”.

Indeed. This young woman has been active in interfaith activities. I’m sure that the emphasis was on understanding, listening to the other side’s point of view, and getting to know each other as individuals, not as stereotypes.

And probably what she heard was that if it were possible to prevent “a few extremists on both sides” from stirring up hatred and violence, the conflict could be solved by reasonable people talking, listening, and compromising.

But, as she found out, it’s not that easy. There are several kinds of basic disagreements between Israelis and Palestinians that can’t be settled this way. Here are just a few of many that inform the conflict:

• Disagreements about what happened in the past. Did the Zionists dispossess Arabs? Did the Arabs commit pogroms against the pre-state yishuv? Did the Palestinians and the Arab Nations attack the Jewish State in 1947-48 or did the Jews try to drive the Palestinians out? Why did the Palestinian refugees flee? Why did the Jews flee from Arab countries at the same time? What was Nasser’s true intent in 1967? Why did Oslo fail? Were most of the Lebanese casualties of the 2006 war civilians or Hezbollah soldiers? How many were there, anyway? Who shot Mohammad Dura (if anyone)?

• Disagreements about what is happening now. Are Palestinians in Gaza suffering from the international boycott of Hamas, or is Hamas getting plenty of aid and using it for a military buildup? Does Fatah represent anyone other than the US? Is Palestinian terrorism justified resistance to illegal occupation, or aggressive warfare against a legitimate state?

• Disagreements about intentions. Is Israel building the security fence primarily to keep out terrorists or to steal land? Does Fatah (assuming that it represents anyone) really intend to abide by a two-state peace treaty, or would they consider a Palestinian state in the territories merely a stepping stone to the conquest of Israel?

And the most difficult kind of disagreement of all,

• Disagreements about principles and ideology. Can Muslims live in a Jewish state? Can a Jewish state also be democratic? Can there be a Jewish state in the Middle East at all? Do Jews have a historic right to live in Judea and Samaria? Should the 1929 Hebron pogrom or the 1948 ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem be allowed to stand? Who must have authority over the Temple Mount? What should be the rights, if any, of descendants of refugees?

None of this is easy, and it is all connected, with the historical narratives serving as justification for today’s ideology. And there is one whole additional dimension of the conflict, which actually has little to do with Israelis and Palestinians:

• The meddling of outside interests. What are the goals of Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the US, the EU, Egypt, Syria, etc.? And what do they all expect to get out of the conflict?

Technorati Tags: Israeli-Palestinian conflict