Shalom from Jerusalem,

Please note that as this newsletter only comes out about four times a year, it is not possible for me to keep you up-to-date on current events in and around Israel. For that type of information sign up for the Intercessors for Israel Friday Prayer Alert which I write, or go to the website and read it online: www.ifi.org.il

God is not limited by time

One of the main reasons that we can completely trust God is our absolute assurance that He knows the future (Isa. 42:9; 46:9-10; Jer. 1:5; John 6:6; 13:19; Acts 15:18). In fact, since He exists outside of time – in what we call "eternity" – all of time is present before Him, and when the Bible states that God knows the end from the beginning, it is speaking to us in a language we can understand. With God there is no past, no present or future, as time does not exist in eternity. All of time exists before God – at the same time!

Yet we do live in time, and face the reality of having to deal with our past, cope with our present and not know what will happen in our future. Often when we are stuck in a crisis, we plead with God to intervene as that crisis seems very desperate to us. But it may not be desperate enough for what the Lord is trying to teach us, and so He does not intervene just yet. I hope the following short teaching encourages us all to trust in Him and wait patiently for His perfect timing – both when it comes to answering our prayers and when it comes in every event in our lives.

Lord – it's 11:59!

The idiomatic saying, "its 11:59," indicates that there is only one minute before midnight when the end, that is a total disaster, will come. I'm also going to use "12:01" to indicate that it is past midnight and therefore all hope is lost. Now let's explore how often God steps in to redeem a situation at the very last minute – at 11:59. There are also times when He intervenes and it is already 12:01. Here are some examples from the Scriptures:

Genesis 22, known in Jewish circles as the Akedah, the binding of Isaac, was a 12:01 situation for Abraham as for three days he thought his son was dead, and as Hebrews 11:17-19 says, he received him back as a type, an example of the resurrection of God's Son. Meanwhile, for Isaac, watching his father raise the knife over him, it was 11:59. Yet God rescued them both.

In Exodus 14, the Jews, just a week away from being set free from Egypt, were now trapped with the Red Sea in front of them and the Egyptian chariots charging down upon them (14:10). Only Moses was confident that even in an 11:59 situation like this God would make a way of escape (14:13-14). In fact, it was God who set Israel as bait in His trap for Pharaoh – and He did so in order that both the children of Israel and the Egyptians would know that He is God (14:1-4, 25; 15:1-3).

In Isaiah 36 we read the story of Sennacherib surrounding Jerusalem. King Hezekiah prayed (37:15-20) and God set the city free in one night (37:35-36). Imagine thinking all hope was lost in the evening and the joy that came in the morning as the king and all of Jerusalem saw there was no enemy army left to attack them. Again, God's people were saved at the very last moment – at 11:59.

Esther tells the story of how God saved through miraculous coincidences – or as a pastor I once worked with called them – "God-incidences." Esther, chosen as queen yet the king was unaware of her Jewish background; her uncle Mordechai overhearing a plot against the king's life; Haman so furious with Mordechai that instead of just killing him, he decides to destroy all the Jews; the king's insomnia is used by God to have him hear about Mordechai's unpaid good deed just as Haman is in the king's house. We know the rest of the story as Haman is hung on the gallows he prepared for Mordechai– and that is definitely an 11:59 situation, for the gallows were already prepared (7:10). Also the Jews were allowed to defend themselves at the very last moment.

And in the New Testament, there is Peter in jail about to be killed the next morning, and the Lord hears the prayers of His saints and sends an angel to set him free – at 11:59 (Acts 12:6-10)!

Lord – it's 12:01!

There are more 12:01 situations than I realized before I researched for this section. Here are a few of them:

In Psalm 124 David is recalling a hopeless situation that Israel found itself in, yet God saved them. He ends with these verses: "Blessed is YHWH who has not given us as prey to their teeth. Our soul has escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we are escaped. Our help is in the name of YHWH, Creator of heaven and earth."

Note that this was already past midnight as Israel was in the snare. A bird in a snare is trapped with no way out. But at 12:01, God Himself broke the snare and set the bird/Israel free. After all, since He is the Creator, He can do what we would consider impossible whenever He wants (Jer. 32:17, 27).

Ezekiel 37, the vision of the valley of dry bones (37:1-2), prophesies of another 12:01 situation. In hindsight this is a picture of Israel's experience in the Holocaust. The Jewish people's hope is lost as their bones are dried and in fact they are already in the grave (37:11-14). But God resurrects even their dead dry bones and creates out of them "an exceedingly great army" (37:10) – that is the IDF as it is known today.

Jonah: Many people who have not read the original Hebrew miss the fact that Jonah called out to God from Sheol (2:2; KJV translates this as "hell"), which in the Tanach is the name for the place of the dead. Jonah died in the belly of the fish and God then resurrected him so that the prophet could finish that which God had called him to do. Since Jonah was dead, this is once again a 12:01 situation when God steps in and acts.

The fact that Jonah dies provides us with a clue to what Yeshua meant when He told His generation that the only sign that would be given to them was the "sign of Jonah" (Matt. 16:4; Luke 11:29). He was telling them that His resurrection would be the sign, the ultimate proof, that He is the promised Messiah. In the book of Acts we see how it was Yeshua's resurrection that was the focal point for the early believers to prove Yeshua is the Promised Messiah. It is mentioned fourteen times in Acts, while His crucifixion is referred to only three times. Here are some of those references: Acts 3:15; 4:10; 13:30, 34; 17:31.

Paul who expounded on the doctrine of the cross declared that a belief in Messiah's resurrection is essential to salvation, yet in that verse he did not even mention the cross: That if you confess with Your mouth that Yeshua is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. (Rom. 10:9) Paul also included Yeshua's resurrection in many other verses. Here are a few of them: Rom. 4:24; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2 Tim. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:21.

Of course, Yeshua's crucifixion and burial was a 12:01 experience to the disciples and all those who followed him (Luke 24:13-49), yet way past midnight – up from the grave He arose!

The Tanach tells of God's past midnight resurrection power through the ministry of Elisha, as he prayed and was heard concerning the widow's son (2 Kin. 4:36) which was referred to later in Hebrews 11:35a, as well as when a dead man touched Elisha's corpse and was also resurrected (2 Kin. 13:21).

In the New Testament, Jarius' daughter (Matt. 9:18-19, 23-26), the widow's son (Luke 7:12-17), and Lazarus (John 11:1-45) are all examples of 12:01 deliverances of people already dead before Yeshua raised them up.

The lesson

I am emphasizing this teaching because I believe that as we draw closer to His return, we will see God's miraculous intervention with His chosen nation Israel, but often not until the very last moment. The victory in the 1967 Six-Day War was a perfect example of this.

For us personally, the above reinforces that teaching, which we in the instant-coffee, microwave generation hate: we need to cultivate patience, or as it could also be translated in the Greek – steadfastness, endurance, long-suffering. Look up these verses to see the emphasis that the New Testament puts on this vital characteristic of His saints – patience: Luke 8:15; 21:19; Rom. 5:3-4; 15:4; 2 Cor. 12:12; Col. 1:11; 2 Thess. 1:3-4; 3:5; Heb. 6:12; 10:36; 12:1; Jam. 1:3-4; 5:7, 10-11; Rev. 1:9; 2:2-3; 13:10; 14:12.

The Bible, religion and free-speech

This issue is more important today than most of us think. While not agreeing with everything that Rabbi Moshe Taragin writes, his challenging essay which came out just before July 4th is a wakeup call of the conflicts that can arise between standing for democracy while trying to serve God.

"This coming week, the United States, the longest-running, most successful democracy, will be celebrating its Independence Day. This ambitious experiment…has both transformed modern politics and profoundly shaped contemporary culture. And yet, because democracy has so dramatically advanced society, it is sometimes over-glorified." Awed by democracy, people "ignore its flaws" and become very cautious when considering "the hazards it poses to religion. Democracy is so fashionable and so revered that it becomes its own religion, blinding us to its own anti-religious demons."

Citizens of democratic nations have been "set free from centuries of repressive totalitarian rule," with every person gaining "individual political liberty and personal freedom," yet democracy's focus on the individual and its freedoms clashes with the Bible's stress on our submission to God and His commandments.

Democracy also "fosters individualism," while "religion asserts collectivism." Religious identity is based on belonging to something "beyond our own selves, such as community and historical nationhood." The religion expressed in the Bible stretches us beyond ourselves and our needs, while "democracy often traps us in narrow prisons of self-interest, locking us in a withered cell of individualism."

Today we are seeing an ugly side of democracy, as when it's stressing "the inalienable rights" of each person it "prioritizes privileges and entitlements over duties and responsibilities. Preservation of rights is paramount, but as a precondition for human well-being, so that, ultimately, human beings with rights can better express their duties." [Chuck: To express this in another way, we are saved and set free from our sin-nature in order that we can serve God in a way that brings Him the glory.]

Taragin continues, noting how in society democracy can twist "moral thinking." It seeks to provide "political equality," so that each citizen has "equal influence in government and its policies. However, political equality is often confused with other types of equality. Just because everyone is equal in the ballot box doesn't mean they are also equal in the moral conversation. This misconstrued notion of equality has produced a confused world, bereft of absolute moral opinions and absent of clear divisions between 'right' and 'wrong'." [cp. Isa. 5:20]

Under moral relativism's spell today, Western society struggles "to assign absolute moral positions." Every point of view must be accepted and all personal perspectives endorsed. "Worse, radical political correctness suffocates free speech and hijacks meaningful conversation. Only 'safe' and meaningless speech is tolerated."

Absolute equality also creates an identity crisis. Historically, societies maintained "rigid political, social, racial and economic hierarchies" with little chances for personal improvement. Of course, these "hierarchies were oppressive, but they also provided clear and unmistakable value systems upon which to build identity."

With the destruction of hierarchies and the growth of freedom, "a crisis of identity has emerged. In a world in which the only indisputable value is freedom," all other values are optional and we begin to ask ourselves "'Who am I?' If religion, morality, nationality, or even gender isn't assumed" and absolute truth is rejected, then "we no longer have clear identity anchors."

He then turns to Israel, where "in addition to pondering the religious and moral challenges of democracy," we have an even more basic question: "Should our State be a pure Democracy?" He does believe that the Jewish State must be based on "a foundation of democratic values. In our daily prayers, prior to petitioning for a return to Jerusalem, we pray for the restoration of a righteous government and for ethical leaders. Our return to Jerusalem, the city of justice, can only be enabled through a moral political system." Yet even though it is very valuable, and this is the vital point, "democracy is not the highest or most supreme value."

Rabbi Taragin writes that at some point, "God will restore our theocracy and install a benevolent monarch," [whom we know is Israel's King, Messiah Yeshua], but until then he sees democracy as "the best and fairest form of government that humans have imagined, and it must serve as the political platform of our historical return." Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people which they have "collectively longed for across time and space. Although every race, religion and nationality must be afforded equal rights, personal dignity and religious freedom, our state must retain its Jewish character."

For many, the very notion "that Israel should not be a pure democracy is heretical." Yet to people who truly believe in God, this is obvious. "Democracy is an indispensable feature of the state we are assembling but it is not the overriding feature. Israel must first be historical and only afterwards, democratic."

At this point, Taragin mentions some cautions of the danger of rejecting democratic forms of government even though it at times can be in conflict with God. He asks if religious people adequately value democracy and stand behind its principles. "I fear that, given all its flaws, democracy is too often taken for granted and even vilified by religious people. If we critique its potential hazards, we must first reinforce our support of it."

While democracy's roots go back to ancient Greece, its modern rebirth was in the 17th century, as mainly British philosophers started "to articulate its principles. In the 18th century, these ideals became embodied in the American and French Revolutions. Initially, democracy drew inspiration from the Bible. God, not Man, is the ultimate authority and He invests every Man with dignity and freedom of conscience…In its ideal form, democracy is a political instinct delivered by God enabling Man to protect the divine potential which God Himself endowed." ("Independence Day: Can you blend religion and democracy?" M. Taragin, JP Op-ed, 1 July 2023)

Israel Today's Aviel Schneider, a believer in Messiah Yeshua, asked, "What is really more important, freedom of speech or the Word of God?" This was in response to Sweden's approval to burn a Torah scroll in front of the Israeli embassy in Stockholm. He then notes that loud protests were "heard from Jerusalem and Israel… But no condemnation was heard from the Western world, from Christian governments and peoples. Is freedom of speech more sacred to them than the Bible?"

The Muslim who asked for permission to do this "said it was a reaction to the burning of the Koran by an Iraqi migrant" outside a Stockholm mosque. After receiving approval from the police, he did not go ahead with it saying that he just wanted to see if "freedom of expression in Sweden was the same for everyone."

Sweden's approval to "allow the Bible to be burned" was severely criticized in Israel. President Herzog, who is not very religious, said: "I unequivocally condemn the permission granted in Sweden to burn holy books. As the President of Israel, I condemned the burning of the Quran…and I am now heart-broken that the same fate awaits the Jewish Bible, the eternal book of the Jewish people. Permitting the defacement of sacred texts is not an exercise in freedom of expression; it is blatant incitement and an act of pure hate…" PM Netanyahu, who is also not especially religious, tweeted: "The State of Israel takes this shameful decision, which harms the Holy of Holies of the Jewish people, very seriously." Other Israeli diplomats and rabbis joined in to condemn this act.

Yet Christian nations and the Vatican were silent. "Where were the Church leaders? Does the Bible belong only to the Jews, or is the Christian Bible a different book than the Jewish Bible? Or did Christian people not feel addressed because the Muslim petitioner spoke of burning the Torah and Bible in front of the Israeli embassy in Stockholm?"

Schneider wonders whether Christians realize that this is also "their holy book," even if the New Testament was not going to be burnt. He thinks most of "Europe doesn't give a damn whether a Bible is burned. From their point of view, the Word of God does not need to be defended, and certainly should not impede freedom of speech. It became very clear which nation alone truly appreciates God's Word and seeks to live it. Again and again, history has shown Israel to be the one nation that 'contends with God', as the Bible speaks of Jacob's confrontation with the Lord, during which his name became Israel."

Of great interest is that "all Israeli newspapers," left and right wing, "were vociferous in criticizing the Bible burning. None of the commentators, journalists, or editors even asked why none of their European colleagues spoke out against it." Israel's Jewish politicians are for the most part not religious, "yet they have defended God's Word." Where were the European politicians? Evidently, to them, "free speech is more sacred than the Bible. Everyone can think, believe and say whatever they want."

The world has borders everywhere, yet most Westerners apparently think that "freedom of expression" must be borderless. Freedom of expression is a human right, "guaranteed in the constitutions of various nations as a fundamental right against state authority," yet there are limits, as you cannot incite hatred, discrimination or violence. "The Bible, even if one does not want to believe in it as God's living Word, is still the basis of love, charity and a healthy society that shaped Western/Christian nations."

Israel is constantly in conflict between freedom of speech and God's Word. The whole upheaval over the current government's judicial reform is basically a battle over different worldviews among Israel's population. "The coalition wants to reform the Israeli legal system to give more weight to Jewish and biblical values. The opposition rejects this and demands more freedom of expression and liberal democracy…" What is occurring in Israel is not just a political conflict, "but also a spiritual conflict."

Schneider ends with this thought: "As long as there is a spiritual conflict within us or within the nation, we are on the right path… God is in our life. And that is why a clear protest against the planned burning of the Bible could be heard from Jerusalem. And just as the Western/Christian nations did not stand up for the Bible…so these same nations will never stand up for 'God's chosen' – Israel." ("What is holier – freedom of expression or the Bible?" A. Schneider, Israel Today, 16 July 2023)

The existential dangers of "ending the occupation"

Moshe Dann, a historian with a Ph.D., wrote that the EU sees, "Israel's occupation of the 'West Bank'," the areas Israel conquered in 1967 and which are biblically known as Judea and Samaria, as a "violation of international law" according to "The Hague and 4th Geneva Conventions," and since its presence there is illegal, "Israel must withdraw to the 1949 Armistice lines." While this is an "effective emotional and psychological weapon against Israel," not many know, or even care, that for the Palestinians, "the occupation" extends "from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea" – which is all of current Israel west of the Jordan River.

Yet the EU's position is based on lies. Early in the 1920s, the League of Nations "recognized the right of the Jewish people to a homeland" covering the area of all of current Israel and most of modern day Jordan. That decision "was incorporated into the UN's Charter (Article 80)." Besides that, the 4th Geneva Convention "defines 'occupation' as occurring between states," and so only Israel qualifies. But the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC] "declared that Israel was guilty of illegally occupying Palestinian territory." And, since the ICRC "has special observer status at the UN and a special position in the 4th Geneva Convention, its decisions are considered authoritative," with both the EU and the UN accepting their at best, distorted opinion.

After signing the Oslo Accords, Israel withdrew from Areas 'A' & 'B' in Judea and Samaria and helped the PA develop its official structure. Then "focus turned to denying Israel's legal and historical claims to Area 'C' where all of the 'settlements' are located." Further territorial concessions were halted "because terrorism and incitement continued unabated." Also, Iranian proxies, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad [PIJ] in Gaza, were strengthened with the aim of annihilating the Jewish State. "The mantras of 'land for peace' and 'the two-state solution' became irrelevant, even for many in the international community."

Many then turned the issue away from "land" and empathized that Israel ruling over others was a "moral issue"; that the "occupation…is not only about territory but about depriving 'the Palestinian people'" of the right of "self-determination." This shift "to a humanitarian argument…vilifies Israelis (i.e. Jews) as persecutors of the Palestinians," who are thus seen as Israel's victims. It also intensifies the issue of "the legality of settlements to include a moral issue, the alleged violation of human rights."

But unilaterally ending the occupation without a real "peace agreement is impossible because (1) Palestinian terrorists are a constant threat, (2) radical Islamists and countries such as Iran are involved in promoting terrorism, and (3) a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Area 'C' and the creation of a terrorist-led Palestinian state is an existential danger."

Thus this use of "legal and humanitarian arguments to justify Palestinian demands…ignores Israel's legitimate claims to Judea and Samaria and its security needs." So Israel finds itself trapped, because if it refuses to allow the creation of a Palestinian State, "holds on to Area 'C', and maintains its anti-terrorism activities," it will constantly be accused of the "occupation" and "persecution" of Palestinians. "Moreover, resistance to 'the occupation' is used to justify terrorism. The dilemma has profound consequences."

The phrase, "Ending the occupation," by establishing a clear "distinction between good and evil," makes it very effective. Regardless of the reality, this "mantra creates a psychological determinism that forces an 'either-or' decision. Once the premise that the occupation is evil is accepted, the conclusion is inevitable. That's why mantras are so powerful: they don't require critical thinking and in fact, prevent it."

The "end the occupation" mantra infers that "Israel is bad and Arab Palestinians are innocent victims. It's a form of brainwashing which, like an addiction, alters perception… Mantras such as 'settlements prevent peace,' 'Israel is occupying Palestinian land,' and is a 'colonialist, apartheid state' are intended to generate empathy and a sense of injustice, whether true or not." Also, this mantra insists that Israel "unilaterally give up tangible assets," territory and security, "for intangible agreements," like diplomatic promises easy to revoke and ignore.

"The only way to fight against brainwashing and addictions is to engage in critical thinking and a realistic evaluation of the situation. The first priorities of a state are to protect its population, preserve its society, and defend itself." Therefore, nations have armies, police and prisons. "Since many Arab Palestinians and others, seek to destroy Israel, Israel is obligated morally and practically to defend itself. Capitulation and surrender to terrorism are not viable options."

The chances of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria becoming "a democratic peaceful regime," is close to nil. Nor will it "resolve the problem of millions of 'Palestinians' who live" outside of any future Palestine. The real threat is "that it would be a failed state run by terrorist gangs and militias…

"As long as terrorism exists there will be 'occupation,' checkpoints, and interventions by the IDF and police… The slogan, 'End the occupation' is not a call to protect Palestinian rights, but to end Israel's existence." ("'Ending the occupation' without a solid peace agreement is impossible…," M. Dann, JP Op-ed, 6 July 2023)

Aliza Pilichowski, an interfaith hospice chaplain in Jerusalem, is also the mayor of Mitzpe Yericho in the Judean Desert in the Benjamin region of Israel. She zeroed in on another anti-Zionist mantra – that "settlers" are an obstacle to peace. As an Israeli and American citizen who lives in Judea, she "was dismayed by US State Department spokesman Miller's recent reaction to Israel's announcement to build more homes for Jews in Judea and Samaria," or as the world calls it, "the West Bank," which is Israel's biblical heartland (Jer. 32:41-44).

Miller had said, "The US is deeply troubled by Israel's decision to promote approximately 4,500 housing units in the West Bank, and by reports of changes in the administration of the settlements that accelerate the planning and approval of construction. We oppose the expansion of settlements and unilateral actions that constitute an obstacle to peace, and make a two-state solution more difficult to achieve."

Pilichowski responded that this wasn't "the first or the last time America will object to homes being built in Judea and Samaria. In fact, every American administration since President Carter, including Democrats and Republicans, has objected to Israel's settlement building, and seen them as unproductive." Many have called them "an obstacle to peace," which is how US President Biden's administration's views the settlements today.

This mantra that Jews living in Judea and Samaria are "the obstacle to peace is based on the misconception that if Jews continue to build on the land of Israel, they are predetermining the final status of borders and will therefore derail the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Yet this reasoning is "intellectually dishonest," and illogical.

"When Israel signed peace deals with Egypt and Jordan," it was obvious that the obstacle to peace was the state of war between these nations. To achieve peace, "the state of war had to end." To facilitate that, "land was exchanged, but no one imagined it was the land that impeded peace. In fact, when Egypt held the Sinai from 1948 to 1967," there was no peace as Egypt was in a constant state of war with the Jewish State.

This is the situation with the Palestinians today. They have "carried out terror attacks and participated in wars against Israel well before 1967 when Israel began building in Judea and Samaria…" The real hindrance to peace is the Palestinians "refusal to negotiate sincerely and their support of terrorism…" If they would stop "all terror attacks and enter earnest negotiations with Israel, a peace deal could be reached. It is Palestinian intransigence that has been the obstacle to peace." [I perceive this as God hardening Israel's enemies' hearts to protect His land from being divided by His pre-saved nation.]

The author continues, "I find the notion that I can't live in Judea and Samaria, the historic heartland of the Jewish people, simply because I am a Jew, abhorrent." A million Arabs live as Israeli citizens, and no one sees that as wrong, yet people are saying that a Jew living next to a Palestinian prevents peace! This is the "danger to peace: the idea that the presence of Jews on their ancestral homeland – which has been their homeland for 3,000 years – that Jews should not live there, that it should be Judenrein [cleansed or free of Jews]?"

Pilichowski sums up her article: "I am proud of where I live. I have followed my ancestors back to the land promised to the Jewish people and where they lived for thousands of years. I am inspired by the Zionist pioneers that came before me and I follow their example… If the Palestinians want to continue using my home and town as a pretext to justify their intransigence and support of terror, that is their mistake, and they will suffer the consequences. My neighbors and I will keep building and developing our towns – and we will create new ones. Time is on our side; the longer Palestinians delay making peace with Israel the more they will lose." ("Settlers are not an obstacle to peace," A. Pilichowski, JP Op-ed, 16 July 2023)

Anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism

Clifford D. May quotes Joseph Stalin who said, "Death solves all problems. No man, no problem," and said that many important people are "applying the Soviet dictator's logic to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict" today, coming to this simple conclusion: "No Israel, no problem."

Iran's rulers openly declare their murderous intentions as the Iranian armed forces spokesman vowed, "We will not back off from the annihilation of Israel…" Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and PIJ boast of the same goal, as does Hamas, the terrorist overlords of Gaza. Palestinian Authority's [PA] president Abbas, which governs areas of Judea and Samaria allotted to them under the Oslo Accords, is not as blunt, yet they give "financial rewards to Palestinian terrorists and their families."

This sickness has infected America, as this past spring the City University of NY's law school graduation speaker was Fatima M. Mohammed, who called for a "fight against capitalism, racism, imperialism and Zionism around the world." On social media, she had written that she desired to see "every Zionist burn in the hottest pit of hell."

May notes that before Israel's creation in 1948, "a Zionist was someone who favored self-determination for Jews in part of their ancient homeland. After 1948, a Zionist became someone who favors Israel's continuing existence." Today, anti-Zionism is very common on US campuses. Mohammed was crude, but others use more refined language. "For example, four well-established professors…published an essay in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious journal of the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]." Elliott Abrams, a Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at CFR, and a discerning analyst, summarized its thesis with his headline: "As Israel turns 75, Foreign Affairs publish a call to eliminate it."

To achieve that, the professors want America to "pressure Israel to grant citizenship to Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank. Jews would then become a minority in Israel, presumably living under the rule of Hamas or the PA." What would happen to the Jews after that is apparently of no concern to these professors.

"Roughly 20 % of Israeli citizens are Arab. A recent poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 77 % of them 'feel that they are a part of Israel and share in its problems'. That percent has been rising over recent years." Israel has not yet reached full equality for its minorities, yet what nation has? "Arab Israelis enjoy more rights and freedoms than do non-Arab minorities – or Arab majorities – in any of the more than 20 states that identify as Arab," or in the more than 50 states that identify as Muslim. "Arab Israelis work as doctors, nurses, lawyers, judges, police officers, business owners, and politicians." Some even volunteer to serve in the IDF. These facts make it clear why accusing Israel of being an "apartheid state" is absurd.

Yet this irrational hatred of Israel has permeated the UN General Assembly [UNGA] and its Human Rights Commission [HRC]. The UN condemns "Israel more than all other countries combined. Regimes that threaten Israelis with genocide are neither denounced nor penalized. To the contrary," in June UN member states elected "Iran as a vice president of the 78th session of the UNGA," and "to a leadership position on UNGA's committee on disarmament and international security." All this while Iran's regime pursues "an illegal nuclear weapons program," exports terrorism globally, attacks its Middle East [ME] neighbors, and oppresses its own citizens.

May then posed some very disturbing questions. "Why don't self-proclaimed champions of the 'Palestinian cause' pressure Hamas and the PA to grant more rights and freedoms to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank [Judea and Samaria]? Why do they ignore the fact that if missile and terrorist attacks from Gaza and the West Bank ceased, counterattacks from Israel also would end? Why do they never criticize Palestinian leaders for rejecting offers of 2-state solutions in 1937, 1947, 2000, 2001, and 2008? Nor do they mention that Palestinian leaders continue to reject even the possibility" of an Arab-Muslim Palestinian state "coexisting alongside the Jewish state" rather than replacing it. A spokesman for Fatah, the PA's military wing, recently said, "We don't want the olive branch. We want the rifle, to fight the enemy of Allah and our enemy." Does anyone really think he would "put down his rifle if Israelis withdrew from" Judea and Samaria? Most Israelis do not since, "in 2005, they withdrew from Gaza…" The results of that attempt were obviously disastrous to this day.

"In the 20th century, those who sought to eliminate Jews called themselves anti-Semites. In the 21st century, those who seek to eliminate the Jewish state call themselves 'social justice warriors', scholars, and peacemakers. Such claims can no longer be taken seriously." ("How antisemitism adopted the Stalinist approach," C. D. May, Israel Hayom Op-ed, 7 June 2023)

Melanie Phillips, a conservative British-Israeli commentator who receives high praise from those who read her columns, shares some of her thoughts on the UN. "In May 2021, after Israel took military action" against PIJ and Hamas in Gaza, who had fired "1,000s of rockets at Israeli civilians, the UNHRC created a commission," targeting not the terrorists "but their Israeli victims. The commission's scope is vast and one-sided, covering the 'root causes' of the ME conflict and alleged 'systematic discrimination based on race'." It is also unique as "it has no end date because the UN's animus towards Israel is never-ending…" The US, UK and 25 other UN nations objected to the commission, stating it further demonstrated the "long-standing, disproportionate attention given to Israel in the council, and must stop." Yet Phillips wonders if it is not time for democratic nations to reject the UN completely.

She says the UN's root problem is that it "contained the seeds of its own corruption right from the start." Created after WWII to "bring the world together to promote peace and justice," it is composed mostly of undemocratic nations who do not "uphold human rights." It is clear that any world body like that would not "promote peace and justice and more likely promote the opposite." And this is exactly what has happened.

In 2023, the UNGA "condemned Israel in no fewer than 15 resolutions compared to 13 for the rest of the world," with only one each against Iran, North Korea and Syria. So the UN "gives most of the world's worst human rights abusers a free pass. More surreal, abusers such as China, Cuba, Qatar and Pakistan actually sit on the UNHRC." And in May, the UNHRC brazenly appointed Iran "the world's most dangerous terrorist state, which beats women to death for failing to wear approved head coverings and hangs gay people from cranes," to be chairman of its social forum…" Meanwhile, the only nation which they have a "standing agenda" to report on is Israel, whom Phillips describes as "the sole upholder of human rights and democracy in the ME."

In May 2023 the UN observed "Nakba Day" – "the day of catastrophe," which is what Palestinians call "the date on which the State of Israel was founded." PA President Abbas was invited to speak and used this event to rehash "the PA's murderous lie that Britain and the US decided 'for their own colonialist purposes' to establish 'another entity in our historical homeland [sic]'," as well as a convenient way to rid their nations of the Jews.

Also, the UN's World Health Organization [WHO], at their annual assembly turned aside "from surveying global public health to hold a special debate singling out Israel." Yet they never focus on "Syria, where hospitals are repeatedly bombed by Syrian and Russian forces; nor on North Korea, which has one of the worst health systems in the world. On the contrary, WHO recently elected North Korea to its executive board."

The UN is also powerless to stop "China's systemic abuses of its population" and to interfere in the Russian- Ukrainian war, as "China and Russia are permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto power."

Also, recently, the UNGA made Iran, "which is racing towards developing nuclear weapons to further its war on the US and its intention to wipe Israel off the map," its vice president. Even more disturbing, "Iran has been made rapporteur of the UNGA's Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Committee. This is despite its persistent violations of the Security Council Resolutions banning its ballistic-missile program" and its lack of cooperation with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

Phillips sums up, writing, "The UN isn't just anti-Israel. It is morally corrupt at its very core…By supposedly promoting global peace and justice but actually promoting those dedicated to war, terror and tyranny while demonizing their victims, the world body has knocked the free world off its moral compass." The free world would be much safer if the UN were dismantled. ("It’s time to dismantle the UN," M. Phillips, Arutz 7 Op-ed, 30 June 2023)

The hypocritical criticism of the nations, and the UN, towards how Israel is allowed to defend itself increases daily. Are we watching God giving these haters of His truth over to a reprobate mind (Rom. 1:28) as well as casting strong delusions on them so that they actually believe the lies they spout (2 Thess. 2:11-12)? I'm inclined to answer "yes" and recall that in the last years of Eliyahu's life he also wondered whether God was fulfilling 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 before our eyes.

Naya Lekht was born in the former Soviet Union, where she received a Ph.D. in Russian literature and wrote her dissertation on Holocaust literature. She came to the US in 1989 and is today part of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, and an educator specializing in Jewish history and the Holocaust.

She said that for decades "American Jewry has been doing mental acrobatics trying to prove to the world that anti-Zionism is antisemitism," as there is a definite "link between Jewish identity and the Land of Israel." She has watched as Jewish professionals tried to convince college administrators about this truth. University officials struggled with this connection as anti-Zionism did not prevent Jews from practicing their faith, yet celebrating Israel's Independence Day was baffling to them. "Why would American citizens be so overjoyed on May 14?" They saw this as a political statement, therefore "anti-Zionism was merely a political position."

Lekht then explains why it is anti-Semitic. First, the argument that "anti-Zionism is only criticism of Israeli policy" does not hold up under careful inspection. "Any serious student of Jewish history will tell you that Jew hatred is an age-old virus that mutates." French Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henry Levi said, "Antisemitism is a very special form of madness, one of the features of which has always been, at every step in its history, choosing the right words to make its madness look reasonable." Lekht: "Keyword: the right words. Yes, the anti-Semite is a wily creature who markets this age-old hatred in such a fashion as to offer the civilized world a reasonable reason to hate the Jews…

"Understanding the shapeshifting profile of Jew-hatred, we identify three distinct historic eras…In the era of 'Judeo-phobia' the Jew was hated for his religious character; in the era of 'antisemitism' he was loathed for his racial impurity…and in the era of 'anti-Zionism,' the Jew, vis-à-vis Israel, is hated for violating human rights." Once this pattern is seen, we "realize that anti-Zionism is a form of Jew-hatred," and we should stop using terms like "anti-Israel," because it really means "anti-Jewish."

Whether one believes in a God who has given His people the Land is not the issue. Today, in an "era of anti-Zionism, Jewish identity is being tried. Are we a religion, a race, a nation? If we are a nation, we originate from a place." For example, the Irish are a nation not because of "their Catholic faith," but from their "shared history that originates from Ireland. The sooner we all agree and embrace our Jewish nationalism, the faster and more efficient we will be in uniting around the basic idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitism."

Again, "anti-Zionism is not an attack on the Jewish faith; at its core, it is an attack on Jewish history, the notion that Jews constitute a nation, which does not merely have a historic, but a sovereign connection to the Land of Israel," where Jews constituted "a kingdom with secure borders and laws. This, then, is the heart of Zionism: Jewish nationalism because Jews are a nation."

Israel's first president Chaim Weizmann said that in order to understand Zionism, one must "comprehend the deep connection between the people of Israel, the God of Israel and the Land of Israel." ("Anti-Zionism: A blessing in disguise?" N. Lekht, JP Op-ed, 11 July 2023)

Prophetic implications

Israel has become one of the world's leading nations – which considering its size and that it is only 75 years old (give or take 3,000 years) – is a sign of God's quiet fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:13. The JP's Herb Keinon wrote an article which backs this up, although I doubt he is aware of it. "Few headlines succinctly capture the remarkable journey of Israel and the Jewish people over the past 75 years better than this one from Reuters last week: 'Germany moves ahead with plans to buy Israel's Arrow-3 missile defense for €4 billion'."

This headline is astonishing when one considers it in "the context of recent history…First, the Jewish people survived the Holocaust. Second, it established a state after the Holocaust. And third, this state, once so desperate for arms that it agreed to take them from West Germany in 1958 despite fierce internal opposition to the idea on moral grounds, is now able to sell state-of-the-art weaponry to Germany…without any significant internal debate about whether" this is proper or not.

Israel has bought weapons from Germany for self-defense, "including nuclear-capable submarines, considered a key component to ensuring the country's physical survival," and it has sold weapons to Germany in the past, yet it never has sold this type of cutting-edge weaponry with this high of a price tag.

"The reversal of fortunes reflected in this sale" is much broader than just Israel-Germany relations, as it shines a light on how far Israel has come as a nation. In the recent past, its main export was Jaffa oranges "and the Uzi submachine gun. Today, it provides missiles that shoot down other missiles in the stratosphere, software that drives industries, and is on the cusp of exporting natural gas to European countries looking to reduce their dependence on Russian oil."

Israel's defense exports have sky-rocketed, with sales to many European nations as well as to Arab nations involved in the Abraham Accords. These sales "strengthen bilateral ties. If Israel is providing a country with weapons that keep it safe, that country… will relate to Israel in a fundamentally different way than if there were no arms sales in the relationship."

Also, these sales enable Israel "to conduct the research and development to produce the weapons it needs for its own survival." Israel's weapons industry's main goal is to create weapons which the IDF needs. Some "must be tailor-made for Israel's unique circumstances; others, Israel simply cannot get elsewhere." Because of this, it "needs to export 70% of the weapons and systems it manufactures to pay for the research, development and production of the weapons it needs for its own survival."

The result of Israel's ability to give nations what they need, "from weapons systems to irrigation expertise to medical innovations to lifesaving intelligence," increases its value to the world, which is seen in the explosion of "Israel's diplomatic ties over the last 15 years," most of which have been under Netanyahu's leadership. "From India to the UAE, from Greece to Rwanda, Israel's diplomatic situation has improved, corresponding to an appreciation of the tangibles Israel brings to the table."

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has increased Israel's value to many EU nations, who now see "the need for strong military defense." As one Israeli diplomat said, "What they get from Israel is technologies that work because we have [battle] tested them, and they are also getting it from an ally and a friend. In some cases, there is no good substitute for Israeli technology." ("What the Arrow-3 sale to Germany says about Israel," H. Keinon, JP Op-ed, 16 June 2023)

An article in Israel Today looked at the current trend of the US-Israel relationship: "The mantras that 'the US-Israel relationship is rock solid' and 'the US has Israel's back'," are often heard in both countries, yet they may be "wearing thin in Israel." With America cozying up to Iran while pulling back from its leading role in the ME, with China trying to fill that vacuum and Russia reinforcing "its presence in Sunni and Shiite states alike, Israel is understandably hedging its bets." It continues to engage "in diplomacy with Russia and China," and has a strong "defense industry alliance with India."

History has taught that America never really had Israel's back. During its 1947-1948 War of Independence, "the US imposed an arms embargo" making it very difficult for the newly created Jewish State to defend "itself against the heavily armed Arab armies invading it. In the 1956 Suez War, the US forced Israel to withdraw from the Sinai and Gaza" after its victory over Egypt. "In the 1967 Six-Day War, the US pressured Israel to halt its advance on Damascus. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, US fear of Arab criticism led to delays in resupplying Israel." In the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict the US temporarily halted arms shipments, showing Israel once again that it could not depend on American resupply in a war. The US was against "Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981" and Syria's nuclear program in 2007, while today it is not stopping Iran's nuclear weapons development.

From its rebirth "whenever Israel defended itself…the US intervened to force Israel to back off," blocking pivotal victories which might have discouraged future conflicts. So the "claim that Israel can always count on American military support is a fiction" that both nations maintain. The US does it in order to calm its Jewish citizens, and "Israel does it so its enemies will see Israel as that much stronger."

While Israel values US support, in reality it does not need it. IDF Chief of Staff Halevi recently told Army Radio, "It is good for the US to be by our side, but it is not essential." Many other experts and military men have "also discounted the importance of US aid," which amounts to about $4 billion a year, yet it is a mixed blessing as there are strings attached. Israel must spend most of it buying "US arms that don't always provide value for money." Even worse, this aid causes "many Americans to believe Israel should be accountable to the US, giving Israel's critics license to interfere in Israeli affairs."

In reality, "Israel needs the US less and the US needs Israel more than many detractors would like to believe. While the IDF could make do without US subsidies, the US military's ME capabilities would be severely compromised without Israeli resources." Gen. Keegan, former head of US Air Force Intelligence, said that "the intelligence Israel provides the US is equivalent to five CIAs." Gen. Haig and Adm. Zumwalt stated, "Israel is the largest US aircraft carrier, which does not require American soldiers on board, cannot be sunk and is deployed in a most critical region…sparing the US the need to manufacture, deploy and maintain a few more real aircraft carriers and additional ground divisions, which would cost…some $15 billion annually."

While past US administrations "have been high-handed in their relations with Israel, the Biden administration has been especially discourteous, reflecting increased hostility towards Israel from America's progressive left. It has referred to the Israeli government as extremist, scolded Israel on all manner of issues and refused to invite PM Netanyahu to the White House." Today, this relationship is not "rock-solid." If in 2024, a Republican administration comes in, that will likely improve. Yet if "Biden or a Democratic progressive be elected, Israel might reassess the value of being tied too closely to an unreliable and often fickle ally. If it does so, the US will lose what is arguably its single greatest foreign asset." ("US is losing Israel," Lawrence Solomon, Israel Today, 20 July 2023)

Messianic meditations on the New Testament

Acts 3:18-21 But those things which God had proclaimed through the mouth of all His prophets that Messiah should suffer He has fulfilled (Isa. 50:6; 53:5). Repent therefore; turn back that your sins may be wiped away when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord, and He shall send Yeshua the Messiah, who was proclaimed to you, and whom the heaven must receive [+ take] until the times of restoration of all things which God has spoken through the mouth of all His holy prophets since the beginning of the world.

Obviously, the prophets of God whom Peter was referring to were the prophets found in the Tanach. Also, obviously, part of that "restoration of all things" must include the restoration of the Jews to their land and the salvation of "all Israel".

Acts 20:26-27 Wherefore I [Paul] testify to you this day that I am pure from the blood of all me, for I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel [+ purpose] of God.

Where would Paul find God's counsel other than in His Word which consisted only of the Tanach at that time in history? So Paul testified to the body of mostly gentile believers at Ephesus that he had proclaimed to them that which was written in the Tanach. How many preachers in today's modern Western churches can honestly say the same to their flocks?

Acts 24:14-15 But this I confess to you [Governor Felix], that after the way which they [the Jewish leaders] call heresy, so I worship [+ serve] the God of my fathers (Ex. 3:15), believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets, and I have hope [+ expectation] toward God, which they themselves also admit, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead (Job 19:25-26), both of the just and unjust (Dan. 12:2).

Many modern day Christians want to have the faith of the Apostle Paul, yet they struggle to believe what he believed in – which is that "all things" written in the Tanach are still valid and true – including the hundreds of times the God of Paul's fathers, who is now our God, promised His land to His people. This rejection, even of only parts of the Word of God in the Old Testament, is a major reason for why so much deception has crept into Messiah's Body for it indicates that the faith of many rests on a very unstable and unbiblical foundation.

Your words were found, and I did eat them;
and Your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart,
for I am called by Your name, YHWH God of hosts.Jer. 15:16

Chuck Cohen, Jerusalem, Israel