Recently a subscriber sent us copies of resolutions that were considered by the 181st Convention of the Diocese of the Episcopal Church of North Carolina. Portions of two of these resolutions are printed below. Please understand that we are not trying to single out the Episcopal Church for criticism, but to give an example of the latent anti-Israelism and the biblical ignorance present in so many of our mainline denominations.

          Resolution No. 29. On Affirming the Holiness of Jerusalem to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity

          Resolved: That the 72nd General Convention . . . make known its support for the statement from the conference on "The Significance of Jerusalem for Christians and of Christians for Jerusalem," held in Jerusalem in January, 1996, and be it further

          Resolved: That the Convention affirm that any resolution of the question of Jerusalem respect equally the claims of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to that holy city, resulting in a shared city, and be it further

          Resolved: That the Convention support the establishment of a sovereign state in the Palestinian homeland, with Jerusalem as its capital, and be it further

          Resolved: That the Convention affirm that Jerusalem should serve as the capital for two sovereign and independent states, Israel and Palestine. . . .

[Following is an excerpt from the statement on " The Significance of Jerusalem for Christians and of Christians for Jerusalem" mentioned above:]

          "In Jerusalem, on 22-27 January 1996, over 300 Christians . . . met to consider the theme `The significance of Jerusalem for Christians and of Christians for Jerusalem.' . . .

          The Palestinian Christians stressed their unity with the Palestinian Muslims in striving for peace and the establishment of a sovereign state in their homeland, with Jerusalem as its capital.

          We . . . went to a number of the villages in the West Bank and Israel, so that we could meet and pray with Palestinian Christians who are prevented from entering Jerusalem. We witnessed the effects of 29 years of occupation on Palestinian society: land expropriation, new settlements and the expansion of existing ones, roadblocks preventing free movement of Palestinians, and continued detention of political prisoners (especially the women, the sick, and the elderly). . . . As a result of its illegal annexation by Israel, East Jerusalem has been cut off from its natural surrounding environment and access to it has been denied to Palestinian Christians and Muslims on the West Bank and Gaza. This closure has been strictly enforced since 1993, strangling normal life in East Jerusalem itself and depriving Palestinians of its rich spiritual, cultural, medical, and economic resources.

          In the light of these discussions and experiences, we insist on the following:

1. The government of Israel should remove forthwith all roadblocks and obstacles preventing free access to Jerusalem for Palestinians.

2. There should be an immediate cessation of all land expropriation in the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and in the Gaza Strip, and of the building and expansion of Jewish settlements there, notably the Jebel Abu Ghnoim (Har Homa) settlement.

3. The government of Israel should change its planning policies so that Palestinians have equal rights to build housing in Jerusalem and develop their institutions which have been restricted since 1967.

4. East Jerusalem, as an integral part of the Occupied Territories, should be included in all political arrangements relating to those territories including self-determination, release of prisoners, right of return, and eventual sovereignty. . . .

          The conference participants commit themselves to respect the noble ideals of all religions and dissociate themselves from all fundamentalist tendencies which subvert the dignity of people under the pretext of an alleged divine mandate. The participants repudiate the ideology and activities of Christian Zionist fundamentalist groups and others who seek to sanctify exclusive Israeli control over the Holy City through such campaigns as 'Jerusalem 3000'."

          Resolution No. 30. On the Expansion of Jewish Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza

          Resolved: That the 181st Convention of the Diocese of North Carolina express its dismay at the actions of the Israeli government in encouraging the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, in contravention of the Oslo accords; and be it further

          Resolved: That the people of the Diocese of North Carolina deplore the policies of the Israeli government which make it illegal for Palestinian Christians and Muslims to visit holy sites in their own land, especially those in Jerusalem; and be it further

          Resolved: That the Diocese of North Carolina urge the President of the United States and his Secretary of State to use their influence to persuade the Israeli government to return to full implementation of the Oslo accords, including redeployment from Hebron, and to remove travel restrictions on Palestinians.

The above resolutions pretty much speak for themselves. To refute them point-by-point would take up more space than we have, so I'll address some of the more blatant distortions:

1. These resolutions present only the Palestinian view of the current situation in Israel. The "facts" that are given range from politically biased to total propaganda. An Israeli view of the situation would be almost completely opposite.

2. The resolutions call on Israel to comply with the Oslo accords, but do not address the many violations of these accords by Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. Terrorism and the failure to change the PLO charter are only the start of a long list of violations.

3. Mention is made of the Israelis holding "sick and elderly" political prisoners. Palestinian prisoners held by Israel are arrested on charges of rioting, terrorism, etc., and do not include sick and elderly individuals. Nothing is said of the ongoing torture and killings of prisoners by the Palestinian Authority, or of the PA's numerous security forces, or its midnight courts, or the outstanding fact that it is, like all other Arab governments, a dictatorship.

4. Israel is criticized for blocking the movement of Palestinians, but again no mention is made of the reason for these restrictions: namely, to stop the murder of innocent civilians by Palestinian terrorist groups operating out of territories governed by the Palestinian Authority. Closure is only put into effect following terrorist events in order to counter copycat crimes. The statement that closure has been enforced since 1993 is hogwash. No one is being "strangled"; terrorists are merely being kept out of Israel.

5. Palestinian Christians — comprised of Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, etc. — are prominently featured, but there is no input from born-again Israeli Christians. Why aren't Messianic Jews living in Jerusalem given a voice in these issues?

6. The reference to "fundamentalist tendencies which subvert the dignity of people under the pretext of an alleged divine mandate" totally dismisses anything that the Bible has to say on the subject of Israel's right to the Land. Such disrespect for Scripture and its adherents should not appear in any church document.

7. Claims to Jerusalem are not equal for Judaism, Islam and Christianity. It is the Jewish capital in this world, and will be the capital of the Christian kingdom in the next world. It was never an Islamic capital. Moslems can claim only occupation of the city while its original owners were away. Christians who "respect equally the claims of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity" would be most disheartened at the "respect" Moslems have for Christianity and Judaism.

          We sent a copy of the resolutions and this article to a prominent Episcopal bishop for his commentary. Due to illness and the bustle surrounding Easter, he had not responded by our printing deadline. If he does reply, we will include his response in a future newsletter.

          Fortunately, these resolutions were not passed at the Episcopalian conference. The people behind such resolutions, however, tend to submit them again and again until they eventually get through. It is a sign of our times that our churches have such a skewed view of the world and the focus that Christians should have. God loves Israel and the Jewish people. These are the people that He chose as His own. How can the Church make resolutions against Israel? It is the only country that Jesus visited, and it is the country from which He will rule for 1,000 years.

          God appointed Christians to be the salt of the earth and to spread the light of His Word. We must be His witnesses, not only among the unbelievers, but also among those in our churches. I encourage you to know your Savior, to know the Bible, and to be His ambassador wherever you go.

          During his nine-year tour in the gulag, Natan Sharansky, anti-Soviet hero and now Israeli cabinet member, faced his share of interrogators. But he seemed genuinely taken aback when CNN's Bernard Shaw asked him about the Israeli " settlement" being built in "Arab East Jerusalem."

          After a moment's hesitation, Sharansky explained patiently to Shaw that this was (a) not a settlement but a housing development (b) on a completely barren hilltop (c) between two existing Jewish neighborhoods (d) on Jerusalem land 75 percent owned by Jews, (e) which every government of Israel, Labor and Likud, including that of the sainted Yitzhak Rabin, had declared unequivocally part of the capital of Israel. (He might have added that "Arab East Jerusalem" is majority Jewish.)

          Shaw can be forgiven for parroting the PLO line on Har Homa: Practically every news and wire service was giving the same impression of some alien Jewish colony being planted among the teeming Arab masses of East Jerusalem. It took the television cameras, not normally friendly to Israel, to show that this part of Jerusalem is not "Arab" and quite empty.

          No matter. Yasser Arafat wants it. He wants Har Homa. He wants the Old City. He wants all of that part of Jerusalem from which Jews were expelled when it was conquered by Jordan in 1948. He wants an independent Palestinian state. He wants a flag, a U.N. seat, an army. He wants all of the West Bank and Gaza. He wants an airport and a seaport. He wants, he wants . . .

          And when anything occurs which indicates that he might be denied any of his myriad wants, he becomes quite deliberately, quite publicly agitated and creates a crisis. Hence the only minimally veiled threats of violence coming from Arafat and his aides over Har Homa.

          They talk ominously about how the Palestinian masses might "spontaneously" turn to terror and violence if this project continues. Spontaneous terror and violence that Arafat turns on and off to suit his purposes.

          Indeed, on Monday Arafat pointedly met with four leaders of Hamas, the terrorist group behind the grisly bus bombings that have killed scores of innocent Israelis. He then released from prison Ibrahim Maqadmeh, a notorious terrorist who heads Hamas's "military wing."

          What has been the U.S. response to this ostentatious display of the terrorist card? State Department spokesman, Nicholas Burns: "We have recent assurances from Chairman Arafat that he stands against violence. . . . That is a very strong and important message from Chairman Arafat."

          Blissful ignorance and diplomatic pap will not do. If the Oslo peace process has any meaning, it means that peace is to be achieved through negotiation and not through violence or threats of violence. Arafat made that pledge explicitly, in writing, as part of the Oslo accords.

          But when displeased by Israel not giving him what he wants, he quite literally goes on the warpath, bringing the mob to the gate, the terrorists to his table and the bus bombers out of jail — and the United States offers not a word of criticism.

          Instead, the State Department advises the Palestinians not to resort to violence. "That is the language of the past," says Mr. Burns. But the reason to eschew violence is not that it is old-fashioned or out of date, but because its prohibition is the very heart of the bargain struck on the White House Lawn in September 1993. Land for peace, remember? If peace means peace whenever Arafat is happy with Israeli concessions but war whenever Arafat wants more than the Israelis will give him, then this "peace" means nothing at all.

          President Clinton himself advised the Palestinians against using violence. Why? Because "they wind up losing. They wind up getting hurt" (press conference, March 10). What kind of morality is that? Thou shalt not kill — lest it work to your disadvantage?

          And what if it does benefit them, as it did Arafat during the Jerusalem tunnel riots of last year? What if it serves as excellent blackmail to extort from the Israelis more and more — in the end, even Jerusalem?

          Arafat waves the gun, and what does the administration do? The State Department spokesman commends him for his " admirable restraint." Why is this administration incapable of making the clear statement that

1. the Oslo accords, solemnly signed, prohibit violence, that

2. no violence or threat of violence will be tolerated in what is supposed to be a peace process, and that

3. if the Palestinians nonetheless threaten or perpetrate violence, Oslo must be considered void and Israel released of any further obligation under its terms?

          If President Clinton were to say that, he could be sure that Arafat, a man whose capacity for calculation exceeds even his capacity for duplicity, would call off his dogs. Why doesn't he say it?

Copyright 1997 Washington Post Writers Group
Reprinted with permission
Originally published March 21, 1997

          Israel's critics, who are legion and live in safe neighborhoods, say Israel is being provocative. Actually, Israel's being is provocative.

          On one day, Palestinian violence is said to have been provoked by the opening of a tunnel. On another day, the provocation is said to be the beginning of construction of apartments. But the real reasons for the violence are: Violence has always been part of the warp and woof of Yasser Arafat's politics (remember, he once wore a pistol to the U.N. podium), and there is no penalty for it. Indeed, in the eyes of the "international community," Palestinian violence is self-legitimating: It is proof of Israeli provocation.

          No Israeli government could allow Arafat to veto the construction of apartments on unoccupied land in East Jerusalem owned by the Israeli state. To allow that would be to make a de facto territorial concession, conceding that Jerusalem is redivided, with Arafat sovereign in part of it.

          Arafat released terrorists. Israeli intelligence says that he authorized attacks and that the head of Palestinian Preventative Security organized the Hebron riots. Last Friday, at a rally of 10,000 in Nablus, a speaker announced the "good news" of the terrorist's suicide attack in Tel Aviv, and the crowd cried, "God is great." An Arafat aide said, "The terror of bulldozers led to the terror of explosives." What kind of peace can be made with people who talk like that?

          Arafat's recurring resort to violence refutes the premise of the Oslo accords, which was that land was being traded for peace. Something tangible — territory — has indeed been traded for something intangible — promises, a liar's promises. Everything about Arafat's repertoire — the violence, the rhetoric to Arabic-speaking audiences about "combat" and "jihad" and capturing all of Jerusalem, the refusal to fulfill the obligation to remove from the Palestinian Charter references to the illegitimacy and destruction of Israel — is consistent with the strategy adopted in 1974. That is the "phased" strategy of founding a Palestinian state from which will be launched the final attack on a diminished Israel.

          American diplomats who soothingly refer to Arafat as Israel's "partner in the peace process" visit Arafat's Ramallah office with its wall map of Palestine with Israel's borders erased. Such maps are frequent ornaments of political and cultural programming on Palestinian Authority television. Such maps are used in Palestinian commercial advertising and as jewelry. On the main Bethlehem-Hebron road stands a monument to the Palestinian "martyrs of the Intifada" in the shape of a map of Palestine, including all the land of Israel. The diplomats probably wonder about the "real" meaning of such maps, just as diplomats wondered what Nazis "really" meant when they spoke of the "destruction" of European Jewry.

          Israel lives in a bad neighborhood. One reason it is bad is that the Palestinian people have had a long run of execrable leaders: leaders who supported Hitler in World War II, the Soviet Union during the Cold War and Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. Perhaps things will get better. Perhaps when a full-fledged Palestinian state exists on the West Bank, that 22nd Arab state will be the first Arab democracy. But would those who are asking Israel to bet its life on that be willing to bet theirs?

          Former prime minister Shimon Peres, when asked if Israel could safely consent to be again, as before 1967, 10 miles wide at the waist, blandly said that Israel would still be, in effect, 40 miles deep strategically because "all the land we give back must be demilitarized." But although this Palestinian state does not yet fully exist, it already is militarized with at least 30,000 well-armed soldier-policemen. Will the fully emerged state accept restrictions on its sovereignty that no other nation accepts?

          And who would enforce such restrictions? The " international community" that dithered during genocide in Bosnia and is inexhaustibly "understanding" about Palestinian violence? Should Israel rely on a U.S. commitment? As Golda Meir said to President Nixon when he suggested something similar, "By the time you get here, we won't be here."

          It is said that people hope vaguely but dread precisely. Modern history has provided Israelis a dread that is the premise of their statecraft: No calamity is impossible. So while the "international community" will continue to criticize Israel for the provocations inherent in its existence, Israel's riposte will be Golda Meir's words: Jews are used to collective eulogies, but Israel will not die so that the world will speak well of it.

Copyright 1997 Washington Post Writers Group
Reprinted with permission
Originally published March 27, 1997

          March 4, 1997   Bibi Netanyahu has shown himself quite adept at juggling impossible situations and not losing his balance. From the moment he was elected, his government was shaky at best. Yet he managed to keep it from falling apart, time and time again.

          In addition to his internal problems, he now has created a problem of credibility . . . not only with our "peace partners" but with his constituency, his coalition, his party and even his own cabinet! This article will not attempt to analyze all of the problems of the government. That would take a book. I would just like, for a moment, to examine the implications of the plans to build a new Jewish neighborhood on Har Homa in Jerusalem.

          We remember, too well, the lawless Arab riots in reaction to the opening of an exit to the tunnel under the Western Wall. Rather than smashing the PLO and discarding the Oslo agreement, our "right wing" government accepted outright insurrection, including the murder of Jewish soldiers by their PLO partners in joint patrols, as "an unfortunate mishap."

          As a result of this shameful attitude, today we find Faisal Husseini openly threatening a renewed and more violent uprising if Jews build on Har Homa. Politicians in our government have actually suggested that we refrain from building in reaction to such threats! What is worse is that, in spite of bold statements to the contrary, we have refrained from building. Mayor Olmert said that bulldozers could be on the scene within twenty-four hours of a decision to build. That decision has allegedly been made already and we have yet to see a bulldozer at work.

          What has been done is that Netanyahu went to visit President Clinton, as well as every Arab leader he could see, to " explain" why he wants to build on Har Homa. He then came home and promised to build for Arabs too, in a lame attempt to placate them. Arab leaders have openly threatened a violent reaction should building take place there. Jewish building in Jerusalem has been termed by Arab leaders as "an act of war." Arafat threatened to declare Palestinian statehood, and Bibi counter-threatened to bring the peace process to an end should such a declaration be made. One wonders why our prime minister hasn't already stopped this suicidal process, as Arafat's state is already functioning, declaration or no.

          After the announcement to build was made, the army deployed reinforcements to prepare for violent reactions. Meanwhile, Arafat has been traveling all over the world and getting much sympathetic support for his position. France, the USA and China, to mention but a few, have all expressed their "disappointment" with Israel's decision to build in its own capital.

          As a direct result of Bibi's caution, we have world condemnation for a natural right which we have still neglected to exercise! Bibi has put himself in an irreconcilable position. If he does build, and he should, he will evoke world condemnation and strong opposition in the Knesset. He may even have an Arab revolution on his hands which could well be bigger than he thinks. Aside from dealing with violent armed terrorists, he will find world opinion supporting them! It could even go so far as to evoke intervention on the part of Arab nations and lead to a real war.

          If, on the other hand, Bibi should back down and refrain from building, he will evoke condemnation from most of his coalition; he will have eroded any vestige that yet remains of integrity for his declared policies; and he will have succumbed to Arab blackmail which, in effect, will have succeeded in paving the way for the peaceful demise of the Jewish state.

          He will either have to stop and fight, or continue to surrender. This, of course, has always been the only option. Rather than think ahead at the implications of what they were doing, our leaders have almost always opted to surrender "for peace. " Peace is not any closer and we continue to surrender more and more. The moment we decide to stop, the war we had hoped to avoid will be upon us. The only difference is that we will have retreated from much of our homeland; armed and trained our enemies and given them bases on Jewish soil; and, as a result of our policies, we will have given justification to the nations of the world to side with our enemies. After all, it was Israel who set up Arafat as King of Palestine. How dare we now try to limit his rights to his own homeland?

          This is neither a fantastic or new scenario. It has been visible for tens of years. It is unthinkable that, at this late date, our own leaders choose to pretend that the path they have embarked upon will lead to "peace." The policies of every Israeli government were designed not to solve problems. That would be too painful and difficult. The policies were one of "let's just do the easiest thing and hope everything will work out somehow." In other words, "put off our problems for today, and let our grandchildren worry about it later."

          Well, the "later" is upon us. The problems not only have failed to disappear, but have increased in magnitude. With new, young, intelligent leadership we expected to see at long last a change in direction; a clear recognition that one doesn't make deals with terrorists, and that Arab terror is not a "criminal act," rather one performed out of national and religious motives. As such, no punishment or "negotiation" will stop it.

          The only course for serious Jewish leadership to take is to, once and for all, assert our independence. The unique function of Israel, as the Jewish State, must be openly declared and set into law. It was, at best, wishful thinking, and at worse self-deception, to think that we could welcome our Arab enemies to be equal citizens in a Jewish State. The result of this error in judgment has finally come home to roost, yet we still refuse to even admit we have a problem! We now have a large Arab population which boasts of citizenship and the right to use that citizenship to alter the nature of the state. We have many Jews who support that position. Our own prime minister has consistently supported the concept of Arabs as equal citizens. The founding fathers of the newborn state never intended that the Arabs would ever be in a position to influence the government, and were less than honest in their "magnanimity." Today we even have a movement to permit an Arab to run for prime minister! One need not have a vivid imagination to guess with whom our Arab citizens will side when war breaks out with the PLO.

          Anyone who cannot see where this is leading is simply afraid to open his eyes and look. There is a very real and violent confrontation ahead of us. It will come in any event. If we grapple with it now, from a position of relative strength, we have a chance to avoid much suffering. If we continue to live with the illusion that the problem will melt away by itself, then the confrontation may come a bit later, but it will come. And when it does, all the pretty words and " peace ideology" will melt away like the mirage that it is and we will have no choice but to fight for our existence against our Arab enemies, on their terms, both within and outside of our borders.

Dear Friends,