TO: PALESTINIAN, AND OTHER ARAB, MUSLIM, AND CHRISTIAN LEADERS

FROM: TOM GRIFFITH, a.k.a. ABU TOMA

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

SUBJECT: ARAB LEADERS MUST USE THE HEBREWS’ OWN SCRIPTURES AGAINST ISRAELI INJUSTICE AND THE ISRAELIS’ AGGRESSIVE CAMPAIGN TO CONTROL EAST JERUSALEM

Front pages and TV screens across the United States and the world showed the same heart-rending picture: a desperate Palestinian father futilely attempting to protect his twelve-year-old son from Israeli bullets. Seconds later the boy was killed. Picture after picture was shown to the world of multitudes of Palestinians rioting with no one able to stop them. Two days after the innocent boys needless death, an emotional and almost tearful President of the U.S., who is the most politically powerful man in all the world, appeared on international TV and sincerely stated: They must do everything they can to stop the violence. But there was one very relevant, but OBSCENE, CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WAS NOT MENTIONED BY THE PRESIDENT. HE PURPOSELY DID NOT MENTION THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN ISRAEL, A MAN WHO HAS WORKED TIRELESSLY TO EARN THE HOSTILITY, RESENTMENT AND DISGUST OF ALL PALESTINIANS. MOTHERS, FATHERS, SISTERS, BROTHERS, UNCLES, AUNTS AND MOST CHILDREN KNOW THAT THIS ONE MAN COMMITTED A SYMBOLIC, VERY VISIBLE ACT THAT HE KNEW WOULD INCITE THEIR DESPERATE PEOPLE TO VIOLENCE.

Our President, with great emotion, spoke into the TV camera the words "...they must do everything they can to stop the violence" without publicly stating that a certain powerful man in Israel clearly calculated how to get the violence started. To leave out this relevant and evil fact was biased, and clearly protected the guilty side.

This one man, with the acquiescence and support of a significant percentage of Israelis, made a highly visible and well-advertised visit to a very religiously sensitive area of Jerusalem, with four self-serving agenda. But he himself would publicly admit only to his first two agenda items.

- He admitted he was protesting his own government’s proposals to share sovereignty of the Muslims third holiest site, which is built over the ruins of the Jewish temple, and abuts the Western Wall.

- He admitted that he wished to publicly assert Israeli sovereignty over the site, in opposition to Ehud Barak’s proposals to possibly share control of the site with the Palestinian Authority.

- He wished to enhance his own political position in Israel so he could win a future election.

- He knew, because of his past leadership in deadly violence against multitudes of Palestinians, that he was so hated by them that his visit would incite violence. Further violence would then interfere with the peace process that he intensely hates.

But his philosophical and calloused reply to those who blamed him for his key part in unleashing deadly violence were the casual words, "I have no part in unleashing people’s evil nature." But, if his past evil activities are to be considered at all relevant to the deadly riots, this mans foremost purpose was to incite to violence multitudes of Palestinians who are painfully aware of the large quantities of innocent blood on this man’s hands. For our President to purposely ignore this person’s significant part in inciting the violence makes his own public statement about both sides working to stop the violence glaringly superficial and probably hypocritical. The time has come for at least some high-ranking U.S. official to be as open and forthright in condemning the immoral crimes against humanity of Israel’s Ariel Sharon, as they have been in openly condemning Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic for his crimes against humanity.

The carefully orchestrated actions by the man who is sometimes referred to as the "Great Butcher" were as anti-Semitic against Arab Semites as any anti-Semitic actions against Arabs have been since the cruel Crusades. Nevertheless, with many complicated motives involved, including wanting his Vice-President and his own wife to win elections, our President did not attempt to hold any Israeli accountable for the innocent victims that Ariel Sharon’s casual but premeditated actions caused to be killed. In fact, after doing what he purposely did to incite the violence, Sharon denied any responsibility for the violence, and brazenly blamed others. For our President to not hold that man accountable, especially before the eyes of the exploited Palestinians and confused Israelis, is blatant, though partially unintentional, racism. Instead of ignoring the obvious incitement, which ignited the riots, a wise but honest and bold pledge by our President was and is needed. Such a pledge is long overdue to the Palestinian people. It must assure Palestinians that though the U.S. has largely ignored the blatant racism that is being practiced against Palestinians by especially Ariel Sharon, and by numerous racist Israeli policies, the U.S. will no longer ignore or minimize these realities. Our President must also openly acknowledge to the Palestinians, to the Israelis, to the world, and to ALLAH, that our nation will seriously attempt to eradicate unintentional or international racism from influencing U.S. policy, with its consistent result of favoring Israeli interests over the welfare of the Palestinians. Also, our highest leaders must do more to publicly assist and encourage those Israelis of integrity who thanklessly labor behind the scenes to accomplish as much as they can to lessen the influence of racism in their society.

WHERE ARE THE TRUE STATESMEN OR STATESWOMEN?

I suppose that these suggestions have little chance to be realized. It would take a true statesman to openly acknowledge and try to eliminate the racism which permeates the attitude of many Israeli and American leaders toward Palestinians. Consequently, the accommodation to racist attitudes seriously undermines the possibility of anything close to a just peace being established. This is the sad case, even though much of the prevailing racism may be unintentional and subconsciously motivated. Regrettably, no U.S. leader would risk offending the leaders and people of Israel, who we see as representing U.S. interests in the Middle East. Nor will our leaders risk offending Jewish voters in our own nation. It is sad that our nation is suffering from a desperate vacuum in true statesmanship that has been provided in other situations by leaders with bold visions and courageous personalities, such as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Even though our President did not appear to have the will to even publicly criticize the man who worked hard to incite the violence, at least then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had the integrity to make a mildly critical, politically acceptable, comment about the symbolic visit to the sensitive area by the "Great Butcher". Referring to his visit in which he took with him numerous other like-minded Israeli hawks, with enormous Israeli police protection, in politically correct understatement she reportedly called his visit "counter-productive".

Though our President refused to demonstrate leadership openly by condemning the destructive visit to the holy sites revered by both Muslims and Jews, U.S. State Department personnel were not so reluctant. They predicted before the well publicized visit that it could trigger severe problems. After their worst predictions had been fulfilled, they publicly acknowledged that their ignored warnings had been correct.

LARRY KING’S PRO-ISRAEL GUESTS

To my mind, one of the most vivid public exhibitions of racist attitudes occurred on CNN’s popular "Larry King Live" show, which is broadcast internationally. This was his show of October 12, 2000, the day that out-of-control Palestinians violently killed two Israeli reservists who reportedly took a wrong turn into Ramallah. It was also the same day that seventeen American sailors were tragically killed in Yemen by the surprise attack against the guided-missile destroyer Cole. 

Even though these tragedies had occurred, I was shocked as I heard one senator after another, and the New York mayor, make comments so strongly in favor of Israel and its leader, and so strongly against Palestinians and, especially, against Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. Praise was showered on Prime Minister Barak, even after he had shortly before announced to Christiane Amanpour of CNN that he would form a partnership with the hated Israeli leader who had made a conscious decision to incite the deadly violence: Ariel Sharon. Of course, there is a strong possibility, if Prime Minister Barak is a man with a conscience, that he had no choice but to join with the "Great Butcher". But that the Prime Minister suddenly announced his partnership with this hated man on International CNN appeared to be a vengeful threat to Palestinians, one which he intended to be inflammatory.

TWO CRIMES WHICH ARE NOT COMPARABLE

As horrible as it was that two helpless Israeli reservists were ruthlessly lynched by out of control Palestinians, their crime cannot be compared with well-contemplated crimes of Sharon. For instance, he has with careful premeditation done such things as blowing up many Palestinian families, including children, women and older people, as they huddled helplessly in their homes. Immediately after Barak suddenly announced his partnership with such a man, which he knew would further incite the desperate Palestinians, he purposely added more fuel to the fire. The Prime Minister self-righteously declared to the rioting Palestinians and to Yasser Arafat that it was their responsibility to immediately stop the violence, or they would suffer the consequences. Of course, the Palestinians understood his warning to mean that Israel could choose to crush the mostly unarmed and rock-throwing Palestinians with its deadly war machine that has been created with the enthusiastic assistance of America.   The person who brought balance and understanding to the Larry King discussion with the senators was Christiane Amanpour. Her comments either before, during, or after the King program strongly hinted that no one was acknowledging or condemning the role that Ariel Sharon had in inciting the riots that have brought death and injuries to some Israelis and to multitudes of Palestinians. What few Westerners seem to acknowledge is that, at that particular point in the conflict, approximately 100 Palestinians had been killed, with hundreds wounded, as contrasted with less than five Israelis killed, with four captured, and a few injured. In fact, the great amount of sympathy and indignation in the U.S. media over the deaths of Israelis, compared with almost no publicly expressed indignation over the deaths of Palestinians, leaves no doubt which group America favors. The two exceptions in the media are when Palestinians or other Arabs are being interviewed, or when a child is killed. Of course, Americans have experienced a prolonged, not-so-subtle conditioning of our minds by the words used in most news accounts. Palestinians killed or wounded are called terrorists, or stone throwers, or just "Palestinians." You seldom hear the term "Palestinian civilian." But when Israelis are killed or wounded, they are "civilians": mothers, fathers, soldiers, reservists, etc. So our minds have been taught that Israelis who die are "good" people, and when Palestinians die, they are "bad" people who without provocation are trying to kill the good people. So the relatively small number of good Israelis killed is much more significant than the much larger number of bad Palestinian people who are killed.    If any Arab Senator or political official in the U.S. would ever heap derision on leaders of Israel the way the Mayor of New York spoke derogatorily of the Palestinian Authority, the next day’s newspaper would have inch-high headlines about the person’s anti-Semitism. But no one in the media or the government condemns the anti-Semitic remarks against Palestinians by this mayor, and to a lesser degree, by the other senators. The emphasis by especially the Mayor of New York was so extreme about how Palestinian leadership was not the "moral equivalent" of Israeli leadership, that it held an appalling anti-Semitic tone toward the Palestinians. His term "moral equivalent" rings especially hollow, since the election of a man who has well-documented blood on his hands, as the recently elected Prime Minister of Israel does. To calmly proclaim to an international audience that Palestinian leadership is not, and will not, be the moral equivalent to Israeli leadership is anti-Semitic against Arabs. If conditions were to prevail where any Arab-American official would similarly denigrate Israelis on the Larry King Show, the show would be taken off the air. It was indeed refreshing that after that evening’s show, an American Palestinian woman, who has worked for understanding between Israelis and Palestinians, gave a very thoughtful and balanced view of why it was totally inappropriate to hold Yasser Arafat responsible for the violence of thousands of out-of-control, agitated, and desperate Palestinians.

SHOCKED!

A particular incident on the Larry King Show especially shocked me. It was the bizarre, seemingly well thought-out comments by the Senator from Nebraska whom I had previously respected. At first, he acknowledged how "volatile" the Sharon visit had been that had incited the Palestinians to violence. He then justified that visit in the same calloused and irrational way that Sharon had justified his calculated plan to provoke Palestinians. He said that Sharon had a right to visit any place in Israel that he wished to visit. Did this usually rational senator realize what he was saying? His justification of Sharon’s evil action was similar to justifying the action of a mature adult suddenly standing up during a quiet moment at a crowded football (soccer) game, and shouting through a battery-powered microphone that a large hidden bomb would explode in the stadium in one minute. Would this otherwise intelligent senator actually excuse such a person’s evil behavior? Would he argue that this man’s right to free speech made it okay for him to cause countless men, women, and children to be trampled to death as people tried to escape an explosion that they expected to occur? If an Arab had done what Ariel Sharon did, the U.S. Congress, and the usually calm senator, would have been enraged. But Congress either remains mute about the actions of Sharon, or they say that the violence would have occurred anyway, or that Sharon was well within his moral and legal rights. I respectfully suggest to all Congressmen that this double standard is at least subtle racism, if not blatant racism. To vociferously condemn Yasser Arafat for not stopping the violence, while not strongly condemning Sharon for deliberately and with extreme malice starting the violence, is premeditated hypocrisy, if not outright racism.

DOCUMENTED MASSACRES

In order to give further detail and documentation to past crimes against innocent Palestinian civilians by Ariel Sharon, I will quote from the book The Fateful Triangle, written by the respected, but sometimes hated, Jewish intellectual and linguist, Noam Chomsky. He reports that in October 1953, an Israeli military unit commanded by Sharon "attacked the Jordanian village of Qibya in alleged reprisal for the killing of a mother and her two children in an Israeli village." The respected Jewish intellectual, Chomsky, quotes United Nations observers who arrived on the scene two hours after Sharon’s men had completed their work.

"Bullet riddled bodies near the doorways and multiple bullet hits on the doors of the demolished houses indicated that the inhabitants had been forced to remain inside while their homes were blown up over them… Witnesses were uniform in describing their experience as a night of horror, during which Israeli soldiers moved about in their village, blowing up buildings, firing into doorways and windows with automatic weapons and throwing hand grenades."

If such an example of murder is not enough to demonstrate the callousness to human life of Ariel Sharon, it must be remembered that as Defense Minister, he was in charge of the ruthless 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. There, even hospitals and orphanages were reportedly bombed. Not only was there shocking disregard for human life during this invasion, but the Israeli military under Sharon’s command openly allowed what were Lebanese militia who could be considered Israeli mercenaries, to massacre an estimated two thousand human beings in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The majority of those massacred were non-combatants, many of whom were women and children. Is it any wonder that the man in charge of such carnage was fired from his position in the military because of total disregard for the value of human life?     This man Sharon, who was in charge of these documented massacres, is the same man who my very own President, "Honest Bill," refused to publicly acknowledge had any part in igniting the violence which has ripped apart multitudes of lives, and has almost destroyed the fragile peace process. This is also the same man that the Nebraska Senator absolved from moral responsibility for igniting violence all over the Middle East, by the Senator’s proclamation to an international CNN audience that Mr. Sharon "has a right to visit any place in Israel that he wants to visit". Did the Senator also mean that this man had a perfect right to take more than a hundred Israeli armed riot police with him wherever he goes in Israel and commit an act which is considered by Muslims to be a deliberate provocation and a desecration of a holy area? If this "nice" man were only making a peaceful symbolic visit, as he claims, and did not think it would cause any disturbance, then why did he take more than one hundred armed policemen with him on his peaceful visit?

SHARON ENCOURAGED ARAFAT’S ASSASSINATION

The man who in 1953 supervised the massacre in the Qibya village is also the same man who, in the late eighties, was reported to have not so subtly encouraged the assassination of Chairman Arafat. He publicly proclaimed, "There will be no peace in the Middle East as long as Yasser Arafat is running around alive."     Even though Sharon wanted and encouraged Chairman Arafat’s assassination, I strongly believe that there are at least three reasons that it would be a tragedy for Sharon to be killed:

-     It would be morally wrong to kill him;

-     This would make him an undeserving martyr;

-     ALLAH may yet redeem this man through ALLAH’S Own Risen Messiah.      

Though I am personally quite opposed to Sharon being killed by anyone who might think that the killing of a person who kills others is justifiable, I do have several strong recommendations:

-     That very soon the government of Israel make a courageous decision to place Ariel Sharon under house arrest, totally cut off from being able to communicate with others, so that he cannot continue to spread his evil influence;

-     That the government of the United States tie any further financial aid to Israel with Israel’s willingness to have Ariel Sharon exert no more influence in their government;

-     That in view of the UN’s own documentation of the merciless, bloody massacre of defenseless women and children by soldiers who were receiving orders from Sharon in the village of Qibya in 1953, and in view of open knowledge of his responsibility for the human slaughter that took place in Sabra and Shatile refugee camps in 1982, that the UN pass a resolution holding Israel responsible for any more human carnage they may allow this man to cause; I suggest that this resolution say something similar to the following:

"Due to Ariel Sharon’s repetitive disregard for the sanctity of human life, and because of documented, irrefutable evidence of his many crimes against humanity that span an extended period of time; and in view of his highly visible leadership role in inciting lethal violence in order to sabotage the peace process: we hereby resolve that the Nation of Israel take whatever steps necessary to prevent this man from having any further influence in that nation’s government and in its policies."

Even though Ariel Sharon may be the Prime Minister of Israel by the time this paper is available, and though the UN may refuse to take steps against his consistent violations of accepted norms of decency, the Palestinians must still make a concerted attempt to draw international attention to this man’s unfitness for public office. It makes no sense to draw international attention to the crimes of Slobodan Milosevic and not draw similar attention to the crimes of Ariel Sharon, unless Yugoslavian lives are thought to be of more value than Palestinian lives.

THE HEBREW PROPHET HOSEA USED THE WORDS "FOOTPRINTS OF BLOOD" TO

DESCRIBE SUCH BEHAVIOUR

I find it quite hypocritical that Israel is acclaimed in the West for being so much more enlightened than the other governments of the Middle East. Yet, there is almost no one in Israel or Palestine who does not know that this man’s well thought out visit to "the most contested holy site in Jerusalem" ignited the violence. That this same violent, unscrupulous man was invited to be included in the emergency government which was commissioned by the Prime Minister to stop the violence, which Sharon himself started, is a travesty. None of the present Middle East Governments would so flagrantly violate international standards of human decency as to appoint a man who is known to be so hateful to such a responsibility. The proverb "A hungry fox should never guard the chicken-house" does not adequately describe the danger in allowing Sharon to be a government appointee to stop the violence. In the words of the ancient Hebrew Prophet, Hosea, it appears that the path of Ariel Sharon is " stained with footprints of blood ". For the Israeli Knesset to continue to allow this man to spread his hate for Palestinians throughout the Nation of Israel is a severe discredit to its integrity and reputation. To summarize what I think God’s historical perspective may be on what the present leaders of Israel should do:

All Israelis who have knowledge of the Scriptures know that their forefathers in Jerusalem had a deep hatred for God’s Prophet Jeremiah. They also know that he was put in a deep muddy well to die, and that leaders of that day used as an excuse for their evil act, that Jeremiah was aiding the enemy. But now the current leaders of Israel have an opportunity to atone for the evil crime of their forefathers against God’s righteous Prophet. With integrity and clear consciences, contemporary Israeli leaders can place under house arrest the man who has been proven to be a violent murderer of Palestinians.

THE BIASED VIEW OF A FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE

"Our Friends Israel"

Additional evidence of openly admitted favor to Israel and strong antipathy toward Palestinians was made on the aforementioned Larry King program that turned out to be strongly anti-Semitic against Palestinians. One of the senators, but not the senator from Nebraska, introduced into the discussion the moral authority of a former Secretary of State under President Reagan. (This particular former Secretary is especially remembered for his enthusiastic willingness to run our country when President Reagan was wounded). The senator explained with enthusiasm how this former U.S. Secretary had suggested openly that the United States should drop all pretenses about being a neutral broker between the Palestinians and Israelis. The General reportedly said that "we should openly declare ourselves on the side of our friends, Israel". Of course, by his phrase "on the side of our friends Israel", he implied that especially Palestinians and potentially all Arab are the enemies of the U.S.

Of course, this former Army general is not known for his subtlety. Perhaps his childlike honesty is actually refreshing, though what he said reveals very openly what appears to be a conscious and sub-conscious sentiment in Congress, which is a horrible reality for Palestinians to deal with. Though I am convinced that this apparent reality is quite displeasing to ALLAH/GOD and may bring judgment upon my own nation from ALLAH HIMSELF (not man), the general’s honesty is preferable to the destructive cat-and-mouse game our government plays with Yasser Arafat and all Palestinians.

If each of these noted American leaders who appeared on this Larry King show were only junior high school class officers trying to impress their peers and girlfriends, then their strongly biased statements could be attributed to over zealousness, youthful enthusiasm, emotion and over active hormones. But these unwise statements were from experienced U.S. senators, a former U.S. secretary of state and the mayor of possibly the most influential city in America. When what these men of such stature say (or are quoted as saying) is broadcast to an international audience, their words represent the power structure of America. Consequently, this Larry King show contained ominous implications for the entire Arab world.

Since we do have a Congress that overwhelmingly favors Israel and almost acknowledges looking down on, if not despising, Palestinians, this is a reality that ALLAH and the courageous Palestinian people will deal with. However, if some members of congress have a different sentiment that considers dealing even-handedly with Palestinians as an option, then courageous representatives from both houses of Congress must make their voices heard, which includes appearing on CNN’s internationally known, if not internationally respected, "Larry King Live."

THE HONEST BROKER AS DESCRIBED BY A NEW YORK SENATOR

To understand, the strong bias of congress toward helping Israel, it is important to gain perspective on how hypocritical it was for "Honest" Bill Clinton to represent himself as a honest peace broker at the Camp David II negotiations which considered the future of Jerusalem. Therefore, we will consider parts of an interview in the December 2000 Issue of the prestigious Middle East Quarterly. It is significant that these revealing comments from Charles Schumer, a U.S. Senator from New York, were spoken to Daniel Pipes, the editor, on July 21, 2000 – just a few days before the Camp David II talks ended in failure. Senator Schumer inadvertently makes it very clear, that President Clinton, rather than being a honest peace broker, was totally on the Israeli side, even though our president had the arrogant audacity to blame Palestinians, and not the Israelis for the breakdown of the talks. In reply to the question "What’s the net effect of Israel’s two failed negotiations, with Syria and the Palestinians?" This was the Senator’s revealing reply:

"Barak won two promises from Clinton early on, that have, to the best of my knowledge, stayed in effect up to today. He got Clinton to admit publicly that all of Jerusalem will remain Israeli, and that Israel need not go back to the 1967 boarders. That was smart and strategic: those were the two most important, obtainable things he could get out of Clinton, and he got them".

PRE-CAMP DAVID II – CLINTON PROMISED ALL JERUSALEM TO BARAK

These promises of all of Jerusalem, and of the continued possession of all occupied land, were promises the supposedly neutral peace broker had already made to Israel before the peace negotiations began. In other words, the president of what is temporarily the most powerful nation in the world presumptuously presented himself as having the moral and legal authority of the United Nations, International Law and Geneva Conventions. How could this president possibly consider that ALLAH had bestowed on him this authority? Also, how could Prime Minister Barak, senator Schumer and the Jewish Community assume that President Clinton had the moral right to give away someone else’s territory when the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations and International Law is unanimous that this is against the law? By such arrogance this unwise president was not only sowing the seeds for the certain descent from power of our own nation, but was also contributing to a corrupt and degraded foundation for the Nation of Israel.

Other relevant revelations in this interview from this United States Senator were:

-     "Democrats were pro-Israel but only a small number of Republicans. Because of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich… the Republican Party is now also a pro-Israeli party".

-     In answer to the question of how much longer Israel will need financial aid from the United States, the Senator changed the emphasis from financial support to military aid: "If the Israelis should want it (financial aid) ended, then within a decade. Military technology is a different issue; that will have to go on much longer".

Senator Schumer also declared that if the peace process breaks down, and a state is declared by the Palestinians, Israel would respond by annexing those parts of the West Bank that she already controls, and that the U.S. would stand by Israel and protect her from the Arab and International pressure that would result.

The only optimistic comment for the Palestinians from this extremely biased senator was that Al Gore would be far more pro-Israel than the current president, George W. Bush. Now we must ask ourselves a significant question. Which brought more shame on the former deceptive leader of the United States? Was it his immoral behavior in the White House with a young woman, combined with his futile attempts to convince one and all that he had done nothing more than to have used bad judgement? Or, was it his immorally deceiving a tormented, oppressed people by manipulating them to trust him as a neutral and just peace broker? He deceptively misrepresented himself as neutral even though he had deep personal needs to be thought well of by influential Jewish voters and powerful Israelis. Additionally he had strong pro-Israel biases that had already led him to make promises to the Israelis, which obviously made it absurd for him to represent himself as neutral and unbiased. To have deceived a desperate, oppressed people in this way was truly more immoral and more shameful than any shame he had previously brought both upon himself and upon his prestigious office.

If the Jewish senator from New York deliberately or inadvertently misrepresented what President Clinton promised, then in this circumstance my own characterization of the former President’s lack of integrity may be partially incorrect. Yet, Senator Schumer very openly claimed that: "Reagan and Clinton are pro-Israel in their heart – Bush and Carter are not…"

The following is the Senator’s revealing answer to a direct question about the Clinton administration’s Middle East record.

"Very good. It is solidly pro-Israel. …the Clinton administration stands out as the one that in its heart and soul and mind has been thoroughly pro-Israel."

Despite the fact that the senator considered candidate Bush as more favorable to Middle Easterners than candidate Gore, President Bush’s over one hundred days in office must have left all Arabs wondering how his responses and lack of response could have been any more unfavorable to Palestinians then they were. Not only has he allowed himself to be broadcast on international television as he sat comfortably with the present leader of Israel, whose reputation can be compared with Slobodan Milosevic, but he has publicly given the cold shoulder to both Yasser Arafat and to Palestinian requests for US and UN involvement to bring about peace. Though President Clinton was not near as neutral as he pretended to be, he did use his office to further the peace process. He did not publicly snub the Palestinians. It is also unlikely that he would have been so publicly cozy with a person whose footprints are so covered with the blood of innocent women and children.

A CRUEL JOKE

This public confession by a distinguished Jewish Senator during the very time Camp David II was occurring reveals the absolute absurdity of President Clinton representing himself as a neutral peace broker. When Senator Schumer can publicly boast that Israel has the President of the United States as well as the Democratic and Republican parties so strongly on its side, it becomes a cruel joke that this president was trusted by the Palestinian and world communities for the important and sensitive task of being a neutral peace broker. If a people ever deserved to be treated with dignity and fairness rather than with cruel mockery, it is the displaced and coerced Palestinians. To use an American metaphor, this pro-Israeli senator, during the negotiations was describing Israel as having the President and the whole Administration in its hip pocket. Yet Clinton deceptively represented himself as being neutral. It seems appropriate to use an expression from Shakespeare to describe the unfairness that was occurring to the Palestinians at Camp David: "There is something rotten in Denmark." There was something rotten at Camp David II. That American political leaders are so openly biased against an exploited, oppressed people who are the victim of apartheid policies is truly a shame on our nation. Additional evidence that we are complicit in the crime of helping a nation build its foundation on the blood of its victims is this: We openly supply the latest technology so that the Israeli military can, with minimal risk to their own soldiers, assassinate from a distance those Palestinian leaders who resist their policies and who work for peace, such as the respected dentist Thabit Thabit, a long time associate of Yasser Arafat.

Of course, both Israeli and American leaders justify all Israeli assassinations of Palestinians by labeling every person that Israel murders as a terrorist who deserves to be killed. Yet, while these leaders resort to such cover-ups, both American and Israeli schoolbooks glorify "patriots" in their own history who were involved in more terrorism in their battles against what they considered British tyranny than many of the Palestinians who are being assassinated by U.S. technology. It is Allah who will be the final Judge of who is a terrorist and who is courageously resisting tyranny.

There should no longer be any doubt whether the man who falsely represented himself as a neutral peace broker was actually quite pro-Israel. If there are such doubts, President Clinton did everything he could during his last hours in office to remove them. Even New York Senator Schumer, who is not reluctant to share his own strong pro-Israel bias, was shocked at the pardon that President Clinton granted Marc Rich during his final moments as president. In fact, three of President Clinton’s closest advisors testified to a government investigating committee that they had each strongly advised the President against pardoning this fugitive financier who was a billionaire commodities trader. Mr. Rich, whose name symbolizes his financial status, was accused of evading millions of dollars in taxes in addition to other serious crimes which involved other people’s money.

MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ISRAEL

But none of his serious U.S. crimes were a problem for Israel, because this billionaire not only gave millions of dollars to Israeli causes, but it has been reported that he also spied for the Israeli spy agency, the Mossad.

The significant question is: what was the final stimulus that caused the then-president of the United States to pardon a fugitive from justice who the president’s most trusted advisors strongly urged him not to pardon? According to the then White House chief of staff, John Podestra, it was one personal persuasive phone call from the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, with whom this supposedly neutral president had formed a close personal relationship.

Though Mr. Barak’s personal relationship with then-president Clinton was of great benefit to Israel, his personal relationship with this wealthy fugitive was also of great benefit to his nation. So the former prime minister used his personal relationships with two close friends of Israel to make a phone call in order to arrange for one friend of Israel, President Clinton, to pardon another, Mr. Rich.

A relevant question is, does the reason this pardon was so strongly pursued by the Israeli Prime Minister have a direct connection with Mr. Rich’s abundant financial contributions to that nation? Also, this very controversial pardon was granted even though a strong case can be made that these gracious contributions to Israeli causes were from money Mr. Rich had fraudulently taken from others as well as from taxes owed to Mr. Clinton’s own government. Do we dare ask if President Clinton would have so willingly further damaged his already damaged reputation to pardon a Palestinian Arab fugitive from justice if Yasser Arafat had made a similar request as that made by the Prime Minister of Israel?

PART 2

HEBREW SCRIPTURES WARN AGAINST ISRAELI INJUSTICE

It is now important to clarify a linguistic misconception which directly relates to why some Westerners stereotype Palestinians and other Arabs as being inferior. Part of this prejudicial thinking is because many think that Muslims worship ALLAH, a God, who they think is different from the God of Jews and Christians. Many actually think ALLAH and GOD are in conflict. This is faulty thinking. The name ALLAH is simply the Arabic word for GOD, whether a person is Muslim or Christian. ALLAH is GOD, and GOD is ALLAH, so in this paper I use the two names interchangeably.

It is also important to realize that historically Islam has shown much more compassion to Jews then Christendom. There has never been anything close to an Islamic equivalent of the Catholic Inquisition or the Holocaust of Hitler’s regime in what was considered Christian Germany. Also, few westerners realize that there have been circumstances where Muslims have opened the doors of their countries to Jewish refugees fleeing persecution. The following presentation is not intended to cause more tension between Arabs and Israelis. I personally realize that for these two groups to finally relate peacefully, The Merciful’s desire is that they will learn to have a relationship characterized by mutual brotherly love. I acknowledge, however, it may sometimes appear that instead of promoting peace, I am encouraging antagonism. From my perspective, until certain issues regarding Israeli injustice and the unbalanced support by the U.S. for Israeli interests are openly faced, any peace that is achieved will be unbalanced and superficial. So this paper does not attempt to present both sides, but does attempt to bring certain relevant issues into the open that have not been adequately addressed. I am convinced that this approach is more constructive than to optimistically, but naively, pretend that major inequities do not exist. So it is necessary for my own country, the United States, to more openly acknowledge that, due to a variety of factors, we treat Israeli issues and Palestinian issues very differently.

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA

Here is a short explanation as to why the Hebrew Scriptures are not used as an important source by Arabs in their public relations battle with Israelis for international and U.S. support. Like the majority of the Western World, Arabs have been misled by prevailing Jewish and Christian propaganda. They have been influenced to accept the false belief that these Scriptures generally support Israel in about anything Israel wants regarding occupied Palestine and Jerusalem. Therefore, Arabs avoid referring to the Bible because of their concern that certain religious Jews will then use these Scriptures even more than they now do to assert that the Bible validates their claims to certain land.

A FUTILE HOPE

Arabs put futile hope and trust in UN resolutions, international law, and internationally recognized Geneva Conventions, which make it clear that Israel is occupying Palestinian land illegally. Because of the obvious justice of their cause, Arabs hope that especially the U.S. will finally wake up to its moral responsibility to put more pressure on Israel. If we put enough pressure on Israel, Arabs hope that Israel will finally respond to its own legal and moral responsibility to honor UN resolutions, International Law, and Geneva Conventions. However, the passage of time should have adequately demonstrated to Palestinian leadership that Israel will only partially honor the dictates of these three internationally recognized institutions, while the Arabs are being so badly defeated in their battle with Israel for the minds of men and women and for U.S. support.

A DISTORTED UNDERSTANDING

Yet, there is definite hope, if Arab leaders are willing to make a strategic shift in their tactics by using the Hebrews’ own Taurat (Old Testament) to more clearly present its true teachings. There is a very important reason that it is absolutely necessary that this occur. It is necessary because at this time a distorted understanding prevails as to what these Scriptures do and do not teach. So this unbalanced understanding has polluted the minds of all of us. Therefore, at least in their subconscious minds, even agnostics think that these influential Scriptures give preference to the people of a Hebrew heritage, and denigrate people of an Arab heritage. Consequently, without leaders realizing it, they have been influenced by Scriptures that they may never have read, and end up favoring Israelis over Arabs without realizing that they are doing so. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that a more balanced view of key teachings in these Scriptures reach the awareness level of both influential persons and the general public. For instance, it is quite important that both Arabs and the world become aware of the significant leadership role which Arabs and other non-Hebrews had, as described in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.

THE ISRAELI DEBT

To begin with, it is imperative that both Israel and the West realize that these Scriptures reveal a great debt the people of Israel owe to the descendants of the Prophet Abraham’s first son, Ishmael, who was a member of God’s covenant of circumcision before Abraham’s second son, Isaac, was even conceived. The West and Israel must also acknowledge how God reveals in these Hebrew Scriptures His unequivocal stand against racism. They must connect the current devaluing of the worth of Arabs, and especially Palestinian Arabs, by both Israel and much of the Christian West, with the uncompromising warnings contained in the Hebrew Scriptures toward those who embrace racist attitudes.

GOD’S OPPOSITION TO RACISM

U.S. leaders and the U.S. public must be helped to become aware that the Scriptures reveal that God is totally opposed to racism in the pre-Christian Scriptures, and in the Christian Scriptures and remains totally opposed to racism as it is practiced in Israel today. To an objective observer, it is evident and undeniable that both Israel and the U.S. practice racism in our Middle Eastern policy by the way the needs and claims of Palestinians are consistently devalued, and the interests of Israelis are placed above those of Palestinians.      Though racism must be exposed, it is important to not degenerate into labeling any particular person or group as racist. Rather, it is much more constructive to first identify racist acts and attitudes, then expose them to the public, and finally, take the necessary steps to eliminate both the racist behavior and the racist attitude. (It is commonly assumed that an attitude must be changed before there is a change in behavior. However, if there is enough external pressure to change a negative behavior, the more positive attitude will often follow the elimination of the behavior). Of course, if the Arab is to be taken seriously when exposing racism by the Israeli side, then he must also be attempting to rid himself of any racist attitudes which may influence his own actions toward Israelis. For Arabs and Israelis to make true progress in their mutual desire for peace, Arabs must realize the importance of emphasizing this dimension of helping Israelis understand the ethical dimensions emphasized in their own Scriptures. When Arabs begin to openly attempt to make this an emphasis, of course there will not be smooth sailing. There will be much resistance to racism being focused on as an issue. There will undoubtedly be vociferous denial and counter-charges, etc. But a calm focusing on actions and attitudes that show evidence of the kind of racism which is exposed and punished in their own Scriptures, will eventually produce results. This may seem like a risk to many, but it is difficult to envision the situation becoming more disadvantageous and desperate for the Palestinians than it has been for them for more than half a century.  In my own nation we have been taught by people like the late Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior to want to eliminate racism wherever and whenever it raises its ugly head. We have not been totally successful, but we have definitely made progress by acknowledging that the problem exists and, by this, taking steps to eliminate it. Of course, a good part of Dr. King’s success in helping to expose the ugliness of racism was his ability to influence the Black victims to not respond to their oppressors with violence. It must be recognized that the majority of Palestinians during the first Intifada came very close to this ideal by using only stones to resist the bullets and the weapons of the Israelis. However, in the current Intifada, they have in some cases resorted to the use of weapons in response to Israel’s overwhelming military might.

EXPOSING RACISM WILL PAY DIVIDENDS

I sincerely believe that a consistent, rational focus on exposing racism will pay dividends. So we must calmly identify evidences of racism, and convince both leaders and the public that steps be taken to eliminate racism’s influence on the peace process and on Israeli policies. This focus is a practical step to be taken, instead of continuing to focus on whether the disproportionate control of the media and of the entertainment industries by Jews in the U.S. gives them a public relations advantage that cannot be overcome. Constant emphasis on the latter focus has not produced results, so it should be acknowledged that a new emphasis must occur for there to be progress.  What I suggest may appear to some to be only a new focus on slightly different words; that I am only suggesting semantic changes with little substance. But words, and how we use them, are extremely important in influencing response. For instance, in the United States’ marketing industry, diners at restaurants were not very interested in eating the seafood known as squid. It did not sound tasty. So the marketing industry stopped calling it "squid", and now call it by its Spanish name, "calamari". With its new appeal to the public because of the change in names, the price has gone up considerably. Yet, it is exactly the same seafood, but it now has a more appealing name. Some people even think that "calamari" tastes better than "squid", because they do not know that the two different names stand for the same food.

AN EXAMPLE OF CONTEMPORARY RACISM

Here is a significant case in point that some may think is insignificant. It concerns the former American Secretary of State, who is considered by many as a woman of principle, and whose hand Yasser Arafat is sometimes photographed holding or kissing. I think that it would not be fair or helpful to label this Secretary of State as racist. But if the press is correct, she made a very racist observation at the Camp David II peace talks. She is reported to have said that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat will have "a sense of sovereignty" when he is allowed to have an office in East Jerusalem and control the Muslim sites there. Is she the one to decide that this leader’s ego is the issue? Are we to think that if he is allowed to have some insignificant office space in East Jerusalem and to exercise control over Muslim sites, that this should satisfy his need for control of Muslim sites? But Yasser Arafat is not negotiating to satisfy his own needs, but is representing millions of Muslims who consider Al Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem to be Islam’s third holiest shrine. To demean Arabs and Muslims by making such personal comments about Yasser Arafat, while not acknowledging the perspectives and aspirations of millions of Arabs and other Muslims is racism. It is wrong that it not be recognized as such. The devaluing of Arabs must be rejected as a part of any negotiations, and it is especially necessary to eliminate racial discrimination in the peace process.

A MAGNANIMOUS GESTURE?

Does the U.S. Secretary of State actually consider it a magnanimous gesture to offer the leader of Palestine an office in the land that legally belongs to his people, so that he will "sense" that he has sovereignty in his own land, when he really does not? What kind of neutral negotiator would make such a suggestion? Definitely the demeaning of the worth of Arabs plays a part in such comments. To ignore the counter-productive overtones of such comments is to imply that the attitude behind such a comment is acceptable.

A DOUBLE STANDARD

Because of my own early training from my mother and father, I find it difficult to be critical of a woman. Also, it becomes even more difficult for me when that woman is trying hard to do something constructive, like stopping the violence that was triggered by the Israeli "Bulldozer". But if one has trouble acknowledging that there was a double standard by the U.S. Secretary of State when dealing with Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, let us consider the following event. When Chairman Yasser Arafat was strongly protesting the exclusion of Egypt and France from a fact-finding investigation into the causes of the September-October violence, he reportedly felt humiliated and tried to leave the discussion being held in Paris. But it is reported that Secretary Albright followed him out and was heard to say, "Shut the gates! Shut the gates!"

Now, let us consider whether there would have been an outcry throughout Israel and the United States if Prime Minister Barak would have tried to leave, and our Secretary would have ordered the gates to be closed on him. Of course, some would say that a strong mutual respect exists between the Secretary and Chairman Arafat, which allows such behavior. But if a similar personal bond existed between the Secretary and the Israeli Prime Minister, would the U.S. Secretary dare to close the gates on the Prime Minister of Israel? Of course not! Some may protest that Chairman Arafat secretly thinks of the Secretary as a sort of mother figure. However, even if he were to secretly call her "Momma Madeleine" or "Um Yasser", it is insulting to all Palestinians that she should treat an adult leader of a nation as if he were a small child, while not being willing to treat the Prime Minister of Israel with equal disrespect. Chairman Arafat has many legitimate reasons to feel that he and his people are being humiliated. Therefore, he has a right to openly express that feeling by walking out of a humiliating situation. Is it not a racist and humiliating policy that allows illegal settlements to continue to be established on land legally owned by Palestinians, but illegally occupied by Israelis? Of course, it is.    Is the sad reality that Israel has never even officially apologized to Palestinians for their many horrendous crimes against them, including driving tens of thousands of Palestinians from their land, not a vivid example of racism? Of course, it is.    Is it not racism when the home of the Prime Minister of Israel is on land reportedly legally owned by a living Palestinian; now in a refugee camp? Though it may not be personal racism by former Prime Minister Barak himself, it is a loud symbolic message that the legal rights of "unimportant Palestinians" do not count for anything compared to the "much more important rights of Israelis". You would truly think that the government of Israel would have had sufficient time to pay this man for his property. Of course, his situation represents thousands of situations similar to his, in which Palestinians have had their legally owned land stolen from them.

Are Israelis obeying God’s Scriptures, which clearly command them to treat foreigners with love and justice, when they bulldoze and ruthlessly rip up hundreds, if not thousands of precious Palestinian olive trees? Their deceitful excuse for their calloused and needless destruction of both the food and livelihood of multitudes of Palestinians is that such extreme steps are necessary to provide for the security of Israel. Their deception may indeed deceive biased U.S. government officials and a significant part of the American public. Regretfully, the eyes of most Americans never see the vivid pictures on Arab TV, showing powerful Israeli bulldozers immorally uprooting carefully cultured olive trees, which provide the only employment for many desperate Palestinian farmers and laborers.

Like a horrible stench from an open sewer is the wicked prevarication by Israeli leaders about why it is necessary to destroy thousands of valuable olive trees legally owned by Palestinians. For they forget that our Just God knows the wickedness residing in their hearts when they refuse to fear Him. Allah’s Justice will finally compel His Holy Judgement to visit all who perpetuate this evil destruction. Yet today, like ravaging savages, certain Israelis plunge their daggers into the hearts of vulnerable, oppressed, exploited Palestinian farmers and laborers who, to the Merciful are an integral part of a beloved people – people whose cries of desperation Allah hears – whose tears of anguish Allah sees.

Every knowledgeable Jew is quite familiar with the bloody and extensive judgement which was visited on the Israeli King Ahab and his evil wife, Queen Jezebel and their descendents (first spoken of near the end of the book of First Kings). Their crime, which caused the entire family to experience a vividly-described bloody judgement that only ended with the violent death of all of Ahab’s descendents, is when the King and Queen stole the legally owned vineyard of one poor, defenseless farmer. If Allah brought such extensive judgement to a King’s family and its descendents for illegally seizing one vineyard through the murder of its owner, how much more severely will current Israeli leaders be judged for destroying the livelihood of a multitude of impoverished Palestinians?

A POTENTIAL TO UN-BRAINWASH

When the truth of certain neglected, but quite relevant, passages of Scripture are understood, and other Biblical truths are emphasized, there is great potential to un-brainwash many American people and leaders. This should lead to exposing as wrong our unquestioning, subconscious and conscious patriotic loyalty to Israel. Then American leaders and others will be more psychologically free to be more objective regarding East Jerusalem, and more likely to support binding UN resolutions and internationally recognized Geneva Conventions. Understanding the truth of what the Bible truly presents will also help prevent many with a Christian or Jewish heritage from unconsciously considering Jews as superior to Arabs, and as more important to God than Arabs. Regretfully, much of the American community, whether it is Christian or not Christian, has been subtly conditioned by a faulty understanding of what the Bible actually teaches about what has occurred in the past regarding occupied Palestine, and what may or may not occur in the future. Because a strong selective bias, which includes deep guilt and regret about what Hitler did to Jews, is brought to the teachings of the Bible by Westerners, the meaning of passages which deserve emphasis is often either neglected or distorted. Therefore, even non-religious persons, such as some congressmen and even presidents, at least subconsciously think that the Bible implies that Jews are superior to Arabs. Therefore, Israelis are thought to be more deserving than Arabs are.

AMERICAN MANIFEST DESTINY PROJECTED ON ISRAEL

Many of us subconsciously favor Israel over Arabs in any situation that forces us to make a choice. Also, at least subconsciously, due to what many think the Bible teaches, or due to manifest destiny, many think that the Hebrew people are destined to control Jerusalem and the entire land of Canaan. (For those not familiar with the term "manifest destiny", it was the term that was used by early Americans to justify Americans dominating the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific. They felt that it was the obvious destiny of America to control this particular large section of planet Earth. So once our nation had played the mental gymnastics of convincing ourselves that possession of this land was our pre-determined destiny, it became a very easy step for us to devalue the lives of North American Indians, so that we could deceive and murder them in order to steal their land). Also, our mental ability to devalue people who were not White enabled us to justify less than honorable ways to take over land that was previously in the possession of the Mexican people. So today our leaders feel compelled, concerning their policy toward Israel, to cooperate with what they think that the Bible teaches, or with what they are convinced "manifest destiny" has destined.

AN UGLY PART OF THE AMERICAN HERITAGE

For many Americans, it is nearly a psychological necessity to subconsciously justify whatever the Israelis do to obtain land as almost not wrong, because taking other people’s land is an ugly part of our own national heritage that we have almost convinced ourselves was not wrong. For if we condemn the Israelis for stealing land and killing Palestinians, we condemn our own heritage for similar gross injustices. Regrettably, to admit the evil of our own past crimes is not as easy for us to do, as it is for us to make excuses about how our evil actions were not as bad as some people say that they were. Or, we reason that our injustices to others were almost okay; because we say that the United States benefits the entire world, and there would not be a United States to benefit the world if we had not stolen from and murdered American Indians and Mexicans. Those of us who sincerely deny that we have been influenced by what others say that the Bible teaches, or by the doctrine of manifest destiny, have probably also been subtly influenced by additional sources concerning our thoughts regarding Israel. We have at least subconsciously been influenced by our prevailing Jewish, Christian, and American cultural heritage and, in many instances, by false information from some combination of these three sources.        I request your patience while I briefly discuss a few relevant examples of what the Scriptures teach. When the teaching of these examples are treated seriously, along with numerous other examples which I will not take time to mention at this point, together they should weaken the subconscious and conscious commitment which most Americans have for the interests of Israel, over justice for Palestinians.

THE SCRIPTURE’S CURSE ON RACISM

I had never heard, in forty-seven years of listening to Christian messages that the current Israelis are living under God’s curse. But, as I was reading the Old Testament in Amman, Jordan last summer I was also asking God to provide a way for my President to understand that he must be more fair to Palestinians, less biased in favor of the Israelis, and more even-handed regarding the future of East Jerusalem. Then, while reading the fifth book of the Bible, Deuteronomy, I discovered something obvious that had never previously been brought to my attention. Neither had it ever made an impression on me while I was doing my own private Scripture reading. (It seems quite possible that ALLAH brought this to my attention as a partial answer to my prayer for a way to help my leaders be more fair to Palestinians, and less biased toward Israeli interests.) The Bible emphatically teaches in Deuteronomy that Hebrews who would live in the land of Canaan are under God’s curse if they do not treat aliens (the aliens, or non-Hebrews, in the land would represent today’s Palestinians) with love and justice.    

It is quite understandable that a Palestinian now living in his own land would resent being referred to in the Scripture as an alien. Especially is this all the more true, since the word "alien", due to popular TV, has taken on the connotation of being someone from outer space, who usually has a bald head and pointed ears. But, when the Old Testament was written, the word alien had a very positive connotation. It was a word that ALLAH used to protect non-Hebrews when they were living in a land where the power of Israel was dominant. So "alien" was a positive word that God used to warn the Hebrews that they were in deep trouble with Him if they treated individuals or groups of non-Hebrews living in their midst with any kind of injustice.     In Deuteronomy 27, Hebrews who would treat non-Hebrews living among them with any type of injustice would definitely be under God’s curse. Significantly, the person who would withhold justice from the non-Hebrew would be under the same curse as the person who committed such an immoral act as having sexual relations with an animal, and as a person who mistreated orphans and widows.     Additionally, the Prophet Moses quotes God as using shocking and violent language in the book of Leviticus, in order to impress the Hebrews with how strongly He is against those who treat non-Hebrews with injustice. In Leviticus 18:28 and 20:22, God states that the land itself would vomit the people out when they neglected His commands. Today, according to Leviticus 20, repeatedly violating the command to treat Palestinians with justice may actually result in Israel again being vomited out of the land, not by man, but by the land itself:

"Keep all My decrees and laws so that the land where I am bringing you to live does not vomit you out" (Lev. 20:22).

The clear command of God which has been most consistently and constantly violated by the current nation of Israel is emphatically stated in Leviticus 19:33, 34. The law that is almost never kept, so that Israel is in real danger now of being vomited out of the land, is:

"When an alien lives with you in your land, you must not mistreat him. The alien living among you must be treated as your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God" (Lev. 19:33, 34).

Some may protest that the requirement for the Israelis to love and to not mistreat a non-Hebrew applies only to the individual, and does not apply to a large group, such as the Palestinians. But the example God gives them in His Scriptures of the multitude of Hebrews who were severely mistreated in Egypt was obviously meant to help them realize the seriousness of His command to not mistreat people who were different from themselves. So it is very clear from these Scriptures that God commands Israelis to love both individuals and large groups of non-Israelis, and never to mistreat them.

AMERICA DOES NOT OPPOSE ISRAEL’S APARTHEID POLICIES

Does this Scriptural command for love and equal treatment of others sound like the apartheid and racist policies, which Israel is attempting to establish in Jerusalem? It is commendable that the U.S. fought so hard to facilitate the elimination of apartheid policies in South Africa but it is shameful that our nation now works so hard to support Israeli apartheid policies in Jerusalem, in the West Bank and in Gaza.

Is the head of the Orthodox Shas’ party practicing love when he publicly calls Palestinians "snakes", and publicly preaches that they should not have been created? Was the fact that no Israeli leader publicly rebuked the Shas’ leader for his racist comments, practicing love? Was murdering and intimidating thousands of Palestinians, and stealing their homes, lands and orchards at the inception of Israel, practicing love? Is the regrettable reality that Israel has never made even an official apology for all of their theft from and murder of Palestinians, Israel loving the Palestinians as themselves? Is the systematic withholding of building-permits, and callously destroying Palestinian homes, some kind of distorted way of Israelis showing love to their Palestinian brothers?

KING DAVID’S ONE ACT OF RACISM CONDEMNED

God’s stern punishment to his beloved King David for his calloused treatment of one foreigner can help us understand God’s uncompromising condemnation of racism. It is a vivid example of the severe punishment from God, which awaits any Hebrew leader who callously abuses the God-protected rights of a foreigner living among Hebrews. Even though David was beloved by God, and King over Israel, when David exhibited blatant racism toward a non-Hebrew, God was severe in His punishment. For those who say that racism was not part of David’s sin, the Scriptures clearly reveal that it was a major component of his terrible sin for which he received several punishments, and which brought both him and his family prolonged emotional suffering.   The Scriptures repeat again and again when speaking about the victim Uriah that he was a Hittite, emphasizing that he was of a different race than the Hebrews. Does this mean that David was a committed racist because of the way he treated this one foreign man? No! It appears that David’s lust and pride caused him in this one situation to engage in behavior that was out of character for him. But David did, in this one isolated incident, callously trample on the rights of one foreigner in order to satisfy his own needs. Then, when his devious attempt to protect his own reputation ended in failure, he resorted to murder in order to conceal his adultery.         The wording of the message brought back to David by an unnamed employee at the royal palace who was sent to find out about the beautiful woman David had seen taking a bath, also reveals the racism involved in the situation. Regarding her identity, it was told to David, "Isn’t this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" This statement, phrased in the form of a question, implies that her father was a Jew whose name would be recognized by others. As for who the statement says Uriah was, it is as if he did not have a father. So the name of Uriah’s father was not given, even though David himself was known as "son of Jesse". In contrast to David being the son of Jesse, the characteristic of Uriah’s identity was not the name of his father, but that Uriah was a Hittite, and not a Jew. So, as a former enemy of the Jew, he was considered to have inferior status.

Since Uriah obviously was aware that the Jews that he lived among thought of him as having an inferior status for not being a Jew, it is relevant to ask whether he perceived himself as needing to prove he was not inferior. Of course he did. His excessive dedication to his King, to his fellow soldiers, and to his nation, each give indication that he was trying to prove himself as good as, if not better than, the Hebrew majority. The phenomenon of a minority person receiving prejudiced treatment from the majority has permeated most societies, including American society. Also, superior achievements by minorities, at least partially to prove to the majority that they truly do not deserve to be treated as inferior, have permeated our society. Recently, in Seattle there was a Japanese-American who proved himself to be a brave hero in World War II, but was a victim of prejudice for over fifty years after his heroic death saving others. William Nakamura was recommended for the U.S. Medal of Honor; but probably due mostly to racial prejudice, his family waited long years after his death for him to receive the honor due him. However, because of the long wait, he is now having a courthouse named after him, as partial admission of the guilt of not honoring him when he should have been honored.   Also, other minority groups in America, including Blacks, North American Indians, Jews, and Chinese, have accomplished amazing achievements for our nation, but with little recognition due to their belonging to a minority race.

WHAT IF URIAH HAD BEEN A HEBREW?

Would King David have seduced the wife of Uriah if Uriah had been born of a father with a recognized Hebrew name, instead of from a no name Hittite father? Probably not. Would King David have murdered Uriah if Uriah had been a recognized Hebrew? Almost certainly, not. Did the devaluing of Uriah because he was a Hittite, and not a Hebrew, make it easier for King David to decide to murder him? It most certainly did. The majority of us who admire David are willing to admit that David did commit murder, but we are unwilling to acknowledge that racism made it easier for him to murder. This is due to our subconscious belief that racism is worse than murder. Consequently, most of us will not admit when we have racist attitudes. It is similar to saying that it would have been better for David to murder an innocent man, than to acknowledge that the devaluing of a human being, which even today permeates most societies, had some influence on David’s committing the murder.  Another cruel element in this regrettable affair is this: imagine Uriah, who knew he was considered a second-class citizen, striving day after day to prove his worth to the first-class Jews he lived among. Then imagine how proud he must have been when his commanding officer informed him that the King himself wanted Uriah to inform him about how the battle was going. He would have thought to himself, "Even my King, the great slayer of the giant Goliath, now recognizes this Hittite’s achievement." Little did he know that the only thing this King now recognized was his own need to cover his own sin, and to deceive and exploit the foreign husband of his partner in adultery. Yes, as soon as the King realized that the woman he lusted after was the wife of a Hittite, he knew that her husband was a member of a people group, which the Israelites had been ordered to defeat in war. But to a compassionate and just God, even a beloved King could not claim privilege as a King and trample on the rights of one human being. This was still true even if that one person represented Israel’s defeated enemy. Also, to allow that exploitation to occur then without stern punishment, or to allow it to occur today without stern punishment, is to contradict the warning of God’s own Scriptures, which promise severe punishment for unjust treatment of foreigners.     There is another reason that Uriah’s being a Hittite gave King David what he could consider to be another excuse to devalue Uriah. David as King was very knowledgeable about the backgrounds of the enemies of Israel. Therefore, he knew from the first book of the Scriptures that the Hittites were descendents of the grandson of Noah, who was Canaan. David also was aware that Noah had placed this grandson’s descendents under a curse because Canaan’s father, Ham had humiliated Noah. (Noah’s youngest son Ham had seen his father passed out drunk and naked in his tent. But instead of keeping a humiliating situation about his own father private, Ham had told his two brothers about their father’s nakedness, possibly telling his older brothers in the presence of other family members.) For humiliating him in this way, Noah placed a curse, not on Ham himself but on Ham’s oldest son, Canaan, and thus the curse would also be on Canaan’s descendents which would include the Hittites. So David, as a knowledgeable king, knew that his lover’s husband was under a curse from his famous forefather, Noah. But whatever David thought about a family curse on the Hittites through Canaan, it is abundantly clear that the Almighty did not devalue Uriah for a being a Hittite under the curse of his forefather, Noah. Consequently, it is also clear from God’s extensive punishment of David for David’s flagrant sins against Uriah, that the curse of Noah on the Hittites, absolutely gave David no moral or spiritual foundation to devalue Uriah the Hittite.

THE ERROR OF MISINFORMED CHRISTIANS

Similarly, I have actually known of very misinformed Christians who have thought Israelis had a right to kill Palestinians because of Palestinian’s relationship to the ancient enemies of Israel, the Philistines. Such wicked justification is totally wrong for at least two reasons:

1.   Scholars tell us that, though the words in Arabic for "Palestinians" and "Philistines" are the same or very similar, there is not a direct relationship between the two people groups;

2.   Even if there were a relationship, the Scriptures are emphatic that Israel will be judged for treating any foreigner with less respect than they have for other Hebrews.

God hates racism. He declares it totally wrong for even a beloved King to devalue the worth of one person because he considers that person’s race as inferior and less deserving. In the sight of God, for David to consider his own race to be superior was not only wrong, but it was evil. So God severely punished King David for his racist attitude in this situation, and for the additional crimes to which his racist attitude led.

THE SEDUCTION OF THE WIFE OF A FOREIGNER

The one circumstance that led to all this crime was that the King, from the roof of his palace, saw a beautiful woman bathing. From one man serving the King, he learned that she was the wife of a foreigner, a Hittite soldier whom the King knew. Though David was aware that she was the wife of a man who had earned his respect as a brave soldier, he committed himself to committing adultery with this beautiful woman. So he invited this wife of a foreigner to his palace and seduced her. When he soon discovered that she was pregnant with his child, he brought her husband home from his military duties. Through deception he attempted to manipulate this loyal soldier, Uriah, to sleep at least once with his wife before he returned to his fellow soldiers to once again fight for his King and his nation. David desperately needed the husband of his pregnant lover to spend this night at home with his wife. If he did so, both he and everyone else would not question how she became pregnant. For others were sure to assume that in the short period her husband was home, he had spent a night of passion with his lovely wife. So there would be no question of how the beautiful Bathsheba became pregnant. All would assume that the child to be born would be her husband’s child. So no one but she, King David, and God would know that this beloved King had manipulated the beautiful wife of a loyal soldier to break her sacred marriage vows and commit adultery with her King.     But this loyal foreigner’s deep commitment to God, to his King, to his adopted nation, and to his fellow soldiers, caused the King’s deception to fail. On David’s second attempt to manipulate Uriah to go to his home, he even served him drink after drink, fully expecting him to stagger home and fall into the waiting embrace of his lovely wife. But Uriah was such a dedicated soldier that his sensitive conscience would not allow him to lie with his wife while his fellow soldiers were not able to enjoy such a pleasure as they camped in the open fields.   When both of King David’s attempts to manipulate this loyal foreigner to return to his own home near the palace ended in total failure, the King changed his strategy from deception to murder. In order to cover up his own self-indulgent adultery, he decided to make certain that this loyal soldier would be killed in battle. But what was the key factor that allowed a good King, who as a young shepherd boy had protected many young lambs from being killed by wild animals, to decide to murder a totally innocent man? Was it only because he could not control his lust, and wanted the man’s wife for himself? No. David was ready to have Uriah be with his wife again. Was it because David was so proud that he could not endure the people knowing he had committed adultery? No. David knew that he was so powerful and so beloved by the people that, in time, they would forgive him and would also forgive his lover.

A COGNITIVE EXCUSE TO DEVALUE A PERSON’S WORTH

The key factor that changed King David from being a man with a sensitive conscience, to becoming a murderer, was that he found a cognitive excuse to devalue the worth of the one man who had become a temporary obstacle to his own recognition by others as a righteous King. Since this man was a Hittite, and not a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the King was able to convince himself that something very evil was, actually, acceptable behavior. Due to his lust, the King originally decided that it would not be a serious crime to sleep with the beautiful wife of a man whose land the Hebrews had taken in war. If his forefathers had taken this man’s land, why should not he, the King, be able to take the man’s wife to bed? Then, when his adultery was in danger of being discovered, he again invented an excuse for further devaluing the man. If the King’s own forefathers had killed many Hittites while taking possession of their land, why should he not be able to kill only one Hittite, so he could take possession of his wife, and protect both her reputation and his own? Additionally, David could excuse himself by reasoning that Uriah’s death would be connected with the curse that he was under as a Hittite.

A HEBREW PROPHET CONFRONTS A KING’S RACIST BEHAVIOR

Though David was able to convince himself that devaluing a foreigner so that he could steal his wife was almost acceptable behavior, both ALLAH, and His faithful Prophet Nathan, did not for one second lower their own standards as to what was evil and what was good. God’s stern rebuke of David was swift, and His punishment severe. The Almighty immediately sent His fearless Prophet Nathan to confront David regarding his evil actions. Humbly, David listened to Nathan as he explained the severe judgment that must come upon any leader of Israel who ignores God’s commandments about how to treat people who are not Hebrews, but are living among them. In this whole series of regrettable events, it was not difficult for the Prophet Nathan to observe one circumstance that stood out. This one foreign victim had a much higher sense of integrity than the beloved King of Israel. God’s Prophet soon helped King David understand that when he murdered Uriah, the Hittite foreigner, it was more than racism, lust, adultery, deception, and murder that had occurred. His crimes were tangible evidence that a King who had been anointed by God had himself despised God’s Word. But another sad fact truly wounded the usually sensitive conscience of David. Nathan informed him that his evil deeds had revealed that he had actually despised the Almighty God by what he had done against one foreigner.

DEVALUING THOSE WHOM GOD VALUES IS DESPISING GOD

So it is with Israel today. Once Israeli leaders and significant numbers of its people take the cognitive step of devaluing those whom God values, they have hardened both their hearts and their consciences. Once they have become hardened to the value of life, they are ready to commit many more evils against man and against God. When they murder and abuse Palestinians and steal their land, they are, as the Prophet Nathan told David, despising God’s commands as revealed in His Holy Word. But even more serious, as David was told, they are despising God. Therefore, they will eventually endure the certain consequences of their evil activities, just as King David endured the painful consequences of his sinful actions. Harsh and prolonged punishment from the Almighty was the terrible price David paid for devaluing one man from a foreign group of people who had been defeated by the Hebrews in war. So God will Himself bring painful punishment to the Israelis for their devaluing of the Palestinian people, whose land they conquered in war. Yet, the consequences may be much less if there is deep repentance. Possibly God will even now decide that the price they have already paid will be enough if they now will take seriously justice for the Palestinians. But the punishment will come from ALLAH Himself, and is not to be manipulated by even those who have been the victims of the cruelty that has come to them as a result of being devalued.

RACISM’S TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES

With great sadness, the Prophet Nathan described to David the tragic consequences that David’s sin against God and man would have for both himself and for his own beloved family. First, his son from his adultery would die. After seven days the infant boy died. Next, the Prophet told him, his own wives would have sexual relations with someone close to him in circumstances so that all the people would see that his wives were being publicly violated. This would happen openly, so that what David had done in secret with Uriah the Hittite’s wife would occur in public to David’s Hebrew wives. The person close to David whom the prophecy described as doing such a shameful thing to the wives of a highly honored King, turned out to be his own beloved son Absalom. While this son was attempting to take over the throne and kingdom of his own father David, he had sexual relations with his father’s wives. In literal fulfillment of Nathan’s prediction that it would be seen by all, the relations occurred in a tent on the roof of David’s own palace that was visible to all the people. The son chose to humiliate David and his wives publicly, so that all the people would know that David’s own beloved son no longer respected his own father, the King. David’s third punishment was that the sword would never depart from his own family. This painful punishment occurred in the following ways: first, one of David’s sons imitated the lust of his father, and lusted after his own half-sister. He eventually raped her. Then, her brother Absalom avenged the rape of his sister by murdering the rapist, who was his own half-brother. Later, when Absalom attempted to take his fathers’ kingdom, the King gave public orders to his three military commanders to be gentle with his son. This definitely meant that they were not to allow him to be killed. As a last bitter reminder to the King of the horribleness of his crimes against the foreigner Uriah, the Almighty allowed a terrible irony to occur. The commander who had secretly manipulated the murder of the righteous Uriah on the secret orders of David, this time publicly ignored the public orders of David, and openly executed this especially beloved son. This cruel murder occurred while Absalom hung helplessly from a tree; his head had caught in a large oak tree’s low limbs when he attempted to escape capture while riding on his father’s own donkey. The King’s personal orders to his three commanders were that his son’s life be spared. Nevertheless, the vengeful commander ruthlessly and publicly murdered the King’s defenseless son with the complicity of ten of the commander’s assistants.

So the King’s own handsome, ambitious son was ready to have his own father killed in order to take over his father’s kingdom. But, instead of his becoming a king, the King’s beloved son died a humiliating death while hanging helplessly with his head caught in the limbs of a tree. But the heart of his grief stricken father cried out that his son would have lived and it would have been himself that was killed.

The last murder in King David’s family occurred shortly after David’s death. His son, Solomon, had become King, and ordered his men to murder his own half-brother. The new King considered this brother a threat to attempt to take over the Kingdom. So a series of tragic murders in King David’s own family were the horrible consequence of his making the wrong decision to devalue one foreigner.

A SOLEMN MESSAGE FOR TODAY’S ISRAEL

The message from these tragic events to King David then, and to all of Israel now, is clear and emphatic. No leader in Israel, then or now, has God’s approval to exploit even one foreigner living among them, whether the evil deed is done in secret, or in the open.   Thus, the original conqueror of Jerusalem brought great suffering to those he loved the most, because he started on his road to murder by devaluing the sacred marriage vows between one courageous foreign man and one beautiful Hebrew woman. So the King progressed from devaluing a foreigner, to devaluing marriage vows, to devaluing truth, to devaluing life. Today, many in Israel have made a similar progression by the way they have progressed from devaluing Palestinians, to devaluing international conventions and resolutions, to devaluing Scriptural commandments, to devaluing life.    Possibly the cruelest aspect of David’s degeneration into the abyss of sin was the way that the deceitful King ended this loyal soldier’s life. Without Uriah knowing what he was carrying in a sealed envelope, the King sent a secret message to Uriah’s commander to make certain that he died in battle. Therefore, for David’s secret use of the sword of the enemy to kill a loyal foreign soldier, David was punished by having his own sons openly killed by the swords of their own family members and the sword of an Israeli army commander. Yet, God’s Prophet had accurately predicted that this judgment would occur.

EXPOSING ISRAEL’S RACISM IS A KINDNESS TO ISRAEL

If the greatly beloved King David received such extremely severe punishment for the murder of only one foreigner, is not God holding today’s Israeli leaders responsible for their multitudes of murders and other crimes against Palestinians, which they have secretly and openly committed? So now is the time for all of us to help the Israeli leaders to stop devaluing Palestinians. David, after he progressed from devaluing Uriah to murdering him, undoubtedly wished that God had rebuked him sooner. If this had occurred, his rebellion may not have reached such enormous proportions, so that his punishment would not have been so extensive and so painful. So, openly rebuking Israel now will not only be a service to Palestinians, but it will be a kindness to Israel. For their own Scriptures are clear. If they do not soon stop devaluing of Palestinians, they will pay a more tragic price than they already have paid.

PART 3

HEBREW SCRIPTURES WARN AGAINST ISRAELI INJUSTICE

We will now consider the question of whether the Israelis’ defeating so many people groups by originally conquering Canaan might indicate that the Bible reveals the Hebrews as superior to all other people in the Middle East. This supposed superiority is absolutely not true. When the Old Testament is carefully read, there are numerous examples such as we have already observed, where non-Hebrews have either skills or positive character traits, when Hebrews lack those qualities.

Other Relevant Observations:    1. For those who wrongly suggest that God as revealed in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures actually revealed tendencies toward racism, and therefore the Israelis today are only behaving similarly to Joshua, their suggestion is wrong. Without going into detail, I submit that the particular people groups that Joshua defeated in war, or sometimes destroyed, were people groups who, according to God’s Prophets, had totally thrown off restraint and were involved in practices totally against humanity, such as infant sacrifice. So, it was not the people that God was against, but it was the irredeemable depravity to which they had sunk that brought their defeat or destruction. It was not their race. To suggest that the defeated or destroyed people have any similarity to Palestinians today is an absolute distortion of the teaching of Scripture. Also, in a case where a people group tricked Joshua into a treaty, he honored that treaty, even when Israelis had to risk losing their lives to defend that people group.

NO EXCUSE IN THE SCRIPTURES FOR TODAY’S INJUSTICE TOWARD PALESTINIANS

2. There is not one verse in the entire Bible that teaches or implies that in the last days, when the scattered Hebrews would return to the land where they had once lived, that they would have the right to practice any type of injustice toward the residents who, were already living there. So, driving out the residents of the land (the Palestinians) so the Israelis could establish a relatively racist state has absolutely no support from the Scriptures.       3. The first and only message that the Messiah Jesus preached in his home synagogue of Nazareth exposed entrenched Jewish racism. Yet in over forty years of listening to Christian messages, I have never heard this fact mentioned even once in a church or in a Christian meeting. The Messiah shocked his Hebrew audience by giving two illustrations from the Old Testament where God, through His prophets, did not heal or help Hebrew people, but did come to the aid of an Arab man and an Arab woman. Two details emphasized by the Messiah made the people especially angry as he presented two vivid examples of God’s love for people other than Jews.

WHY WAS THE MESSIAH ALMOST MURDERED NEAR HIS OWN SYNAGOGUE?

Jesus (Isa) made it clear that it was Namaan the Syrian who God healed of leprosy. Every Hebrew of the Messiah’s time knew that Namaan was not only a non-Hebrew, but was a hated Syrian military officer. The other significant detail emphasized was that, when the Arab widow was fed and the Arab man was healed, it was Hebrews who were not helped or healed. When the Messiah emphasized this fact, the entrenched attitudes of his own Hebrew synagogue were openly exposed by the way the people raged at him. They could not restrain their rage toward him for openly talking about God’s merciful acts towards non-Hebrews when Hebrews did not receive that same mercy. So an angry group from his home synagogue tried to murder him by pushing him off a cliff near the edge of town. But at the last moment, he was able to pass through their midst unharmed (Luke 4).  4. No woman in the entire Bible had a more meaningful and prolonged conversation with the One who Hagar, the Egyptian mother of the Prophet Ishmael, identified as God Himself. Also, not one woman throughout the entire Bible had a deeper experience of God revealing Himself from heaven, than did the second wife of Abraham, Hagar. But this persecuted former-maid of Sarah had such an experience, not one time, but twice. Westerners may generalize that in the Old Testament God consistently favored the Hebrews over the Arabs. This does not prove to be true when the facts are examined.

THE PROPHET ISHMAEL’S SPECIAL HONORS

5. No teenager in the entire Bible had a more wonderful statement written about him than was written about the first son of Abraham, Ishmael: that Gods Presence was with him as a young person. "God was with the boy as he grew up." His own father was not there for him, but ALLAH was.      6. No other person in the entire Bible, except for the Messiah, was given a name by God Himself that is a more wonderful spiritual promise than the name God gave Ishmael. His name means "God hears."  7. God promised both the Prophet Abraham and his second wife Hagar that from Ishmael would come a great nation. (A compelling case can be made from the Scriptures that Islam at its Zenith fulfilled the prophecy of Ishmael’s descendants becoming a great nation.)    8. There are verses in both the Old Testament and New Testament about Ishmael whose interpretation have been either distorted or misunderstood. Consequently, these verses are often wrongly used to demean Ishmael’s descendants. However, when understood correctly, instead of demeaning his descendants, these verses actually enhance the value of this people’s service to God.

ISHMAEL’S DESCENDANTS SAVED ISAAC’S DESCENDENTS

9. The grandsons and nephews of Ishmael had a significant role in saving the life of the Prophet Joseph, who in turn saved the whole nation of Jacob’s descendants, who became Israel. Consequently, today’s Israel has a great debt to pay to the descendants of Ishmael, who in effect saved the Israeli nation from starvation by saving Joseph.   10. Significantly, the young Ishmael was circumcised into the important covenant of circumcision between Abraham and God, before Abraham’s second son Isaac was even conceived. So there is a strong possibility from what the Scriptures reveal that the following is true: that if there is indeed a promise of land for today’s covenant descendants of Abraham, the descendants of Ishmael are to be included in those covenant promises.

ANOTHER GREAT DEBT

11. When the twelve spies returned to Moses and reported their findings to the people, each representing a tribe, only one spy originally demonstrated significant faith in God. So only one spy spoke up about how the Almighty would enable Jacob’s descendants to conquer the land. (Later, Joshua would join that one believing spy.) Each of the other spies not only lacked faith to believe they could conquer the land, but they said everything they could say to discourage the people from believing in God’s power. Consequently, the majority became convinced that Moses could not lead them into the new land. For a punishment for their unbelief and disobedience, all of the adult people of that generation died before they entered the land, except for the two believing spies, who were Caleb and Joshua. But a significant reality which few realize is this: the only spy who originally had faith, Caleb, was not a Hebrew, but was an Arab Kenizzite. His father Jephunneh had apparently married into the tribe of Judah, the tribe from which the Messiah descended. As a reward to this Arab man Caleb for his great faith in God, he received a special allotment of land for his family and his descendants. Today, the entire community of Israel owes a great debt to this one Arab man. But some may ask, "Why?" Because this one man’s faith gave God more reason not to destroy the Hebrew people and create a new people through Moses, which God spoke to Moses about doing.       God was extremely angry with the Hebrew people for their refusal to believe His promises. But God’s case against the Hebrews would have been much stronger if Caleb had not been able to silence the loud complaints of the majority of the people against Moses and Aaron. Caleb steadfastly insisted that they would be able to take the land. Nevertheless, God still discussed with Moses the possibility of destroying all the Israelites and starting a new people through Moses. So, it was through Moses’ intercession and Caleb’s faith that the Israelites were saved. This one courageous Arab’s unique faith in God, when the Hebrew spies and the majority of the people all lacked courage and faith, enabled a new generation of Hebrews to eventually enter the new land. Have any Israeli leaders ever acknowledged Israel’s great debt to this courageous Arab? Probably not. Of course, if there is any land to which the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Ishmael will ever have any special right, Caleb’s land should definitely belong to Caleb’s Arab descendants.  12. Though God often spoke directly to Moses, He used Moses’ Arab Midianite father-in-law to instruct him on how to delegate responsibility. This fact is exceptionally significant. If Moses had not been helped by either God or his father-in-law to learn to train others to aid him in his enormous responsibilities, his body and his immune system could have easily been worn down by such great stress. If this had occurred, Moses would have experienced a much earlier death and would not have led the people to the new land. Also, if this had happened, Joshua would not have been sufficiently trained to lead the people.    But why did God Himself not speak directly to Moses in order to give him advice on how to delegate responsibility? One reason is because God’s way is usually to use faithful persons to accomplish His purposes. Another reason is that it built a stronger relationship between Moses’ people and his father-in-law’s people, the Midianites (who were closely interrelated with the Ishmaelites), and Moses’ Hebrew people. A third reason was that it provided another opportunity for future Israelites to demonstrate integrity by acknowledging their indebtedness to the descendants of Isaac’s older brother, Ishmael; because the Midianites were as much descendants of Ishmael as the Ishmaelites. (Please see the passage in Genesis 37, where Joseph is being sold to the Ishmaelites for them to take him to Egypt. In verses 25 and 28, the terms "Ishmaelites" and "Midianites" are used interchangeably.)

AN ARAB MIDIANITE LED ISRAEL THROUGH THE WILDERNESS

13. Moses pleaded with his Arab Midianite brother-in-law for him to guide the Hebrew people through the unknown wilderness. At great personal sacrifice, Moses’ foreign brother-in-law consented to remain with the Israelite community to guide them by being their eyes (Numbers 10:31). Once more, the descendants of Isaac are indebted to the descendants of Ishmael for their very significant help to them during their time of great need. Have leaders in Israel ever expressed official appreciation for this help? Of course, they have not. If they did, they are afraid that they would be acknowledging to the Arabs that they owe them a debt which most Israelis are unwilling to acknowledge or to pay. 14. When God desired to give the descendants of Isaac an important example of familial loyalty of a daughter-in-law to a mother-in-law, it was not a descendant of Isaac whom God chose to use. Rather, it was a Moabitess, Ruth, who reveals this excellent and needed quality in a book by her name, written about her in the Old Testament. This non-Hebrew Moabitess was further honored by being the grandmother of King David, from whom the Messiah Jesus (Isa) descended.       15. Not once in the entire New Testament is there any teaching that God’s intention is to give the Hebrew people exclusive rights to Jerusalem, or to any other land.

SPRITUAL SONS OF ABRAHAM

16. A strong case can be made from the New Testament book of Galatians that the true spiritual sons of Abraham are no longer the physical descendants of Isaac and Jacob, but are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, through their faith in ALLAH’s Messiah. Therefore, according to Galatians, if there are promises regarding land which apply today, these promises are no longer for the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac, Jacob, and Ishmael. Rather, they are for the spiritual sons of Abraham, who are the believers in the Risen Messiah, whether these believers are Hebrews, Muslims, or Christians.  17. The New Testament puts no emphasis on a physical Jerusalem, but only on a spiritual Jerusalem which will come down from heaven. Therefore, the present Israeli emphasis on an undivided Jerusalem, controlled by Israelis, is an emphasis from man, and does not have support from God’s Scriptures.

THE RACIST ATTITUDE OF ONE HEBREW PROPHET

18. Few Christians realize that the Old Testament book of Jonah, which contains the fascinating story of a great fish swallowing a man, is a story exposing the racist attitude of a Hebrew prophet. Some scholars are also convinced that in the way the story is told, it is intended not to expose just one man’s racial prejudice. Rather, the story exposes the radical arrogance of many Hebrews of Jonah’s time, who considered other races much less valuable to God than their own.

GOD’S ENDURING COMPASSION FOR TODAY’S IRAQ

This story’s main focus is the lack of compassion of a disobedient prophet toward the Ninevite people who once lived in today’s Iraq. This self-indulgent prophet cared much more about his own reputation, welfare and comfort, than he cared about a foreign people for whom his God had deep love and compassion. So, if current Israeli leaders consider Palestinians less worthy or less important to God than Israelis, the book of Jonah has a powerful message for them: God does not tolerate racism. This relevant and sad account of the callousness of which God reveals that we are all capable, must force us to face the tragic reality of what is occurring in Iraq today. In that very same land that the Eternal ALLAH chose to be the location where He once vividly demonstrated His immeasurable compassion for all people, there is occurring one of the most preventable man-made tragedies in history. My own nation, the United States, callously rationalizes that the political situation in Iraq presents insurmountable obstacles which prevent its people from having adequate food, drinkable water, and needed medicine. But the political excuses of U.S. government officials are not acceptable to the Judge of All. For us to allow tens of thousands of children to slowly die of malnutrition and disease is undoubtedly much more displeasing to the Compassionate Judge of All the Earth, than any racism demonstrated by His disobedient and stubborn Prophet Jonah, despite our shrewd ability to lay one hundred percent of the blame on Saddam Hussein. American leaders must soberly ponder the awesome reality that they will one day individually stand before this Judge to answer for their genocide against the people of Iraq.

ARAB WISHFUL THINKING A WASTE OF TIME

Oh, Arab leaders! Your present strategy of wishful thinking about U.S. and Israeli attitudes and conduct possibly changing, has not worked in the past; it is not working now, and it will not work in the future. Do not be reluctant to confront popular, but incorrect, understandings of what the Bible teaches. Misconceptions about what the Bible contains, which demean and devalue Arabs, and give undeserved privilege to Jews, are not only inappropriate and counter-productive; but these misconceptions allow injustice and suffering to be perpetuated. Truth demands that many contemporary Israeli policies be exposed for the blatant racism they perpetuate, which the Hebrew Scriptures again and again expose and condemn.   There are examples in the New Testament of the Messiah and the Rabbi Paul each confronting racist attitudes. We have already considered a powerful example of God sternly punishing a beloved Hebrew King for his grievous sins which all began with a racist, demeaning attitude. You will not speak about particular people being racist, but about certain acts and attitudes being racist. Please do not be concerned about being accused of anti-Semitism when you are exposing specific acts of racism. It is evident that particular Israelis encourage other Israelis toward racist acts, and promote racist attitudes which lead to racist policies. Let those who commit these acts and who promote such policies, futilely attempt to defend their actions, for there is no excuse for racist behavior by Arab or Israeli.

TO CALL PALESTINIANS "SNAKES" IS BLATANT RACISM

For example, Palestinians or other Arabs, should not be reluctant to proclaim that it is racist for the leader of the Orthodox Shas party to call the Palestinians "snakes" and to say that Palestinians should not have been created. When this religious leader, in the same speech, openly demeaned Jews regarding the Holocaust, of course Jewish leaders were right to openly criticize him, as they did. However, when these same leaders were publicly silent about his racist comments regarding Palestinians, their silence was racist. The Shas leaders’ comments were racist, and Israeli leaders’ lack of public criticism of his racist comments was also racist.

RACISM MUST BE OPPOSED

Why do Arabs believe they must be so polite and refrain from labeling racist acts as racist acts? How can the Israelis destroy Palestinian homes, and no one openly proclaims that their acts are racist? This is language that Americans understand. When Arabs are so polite and will not use explicit language to expose racism, in effect the evil of evil acts is being minimized without being exposed.

AN AGREEMENT TO THEIR OWN RAPE

A well-respected female Palestinian statesperson said that in the Camp David peace talks, when President Clinton asked the Palestinians to accept very unreasonable terms on East Jerusalem, it was equivalent to asking the Palestinians to agree to their own rape. When a particular group is being symbolically raped by the racist policies of another group, it is no longer the time to use polite words. When this astute Palestinian woman boldly used the word "rape", that word finally got the attention of the American mind. During the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., certain evil acts toward minority groups were labeled as racist without apology. This honesty and explict language helped the American people to finally realize the evil which was occurring to Blacks. As a result, there was tangible progress.Today is the day of press releases, TV interviews, the fax machine, E-mail, long distance phone calls, an efficient mail service and, we must not forget, the printing press. When Arabs use the oil weapon to influence U.S. policy, it ends up creating hostility toward Arabs, de-stabilizes the world economy, and creates more support for Israel. In contrast, when vivid and explicit language exposes the rampant racism of many Israeli policies, Americans can relate to that language. Then, racist acts can finally be labeled for what they are, and public opinion will be influenced accordingly. Now is the time for indignation, instead of artificial politeness.      My prayers are with you, and my heart aches for you. The battle is for the minds of men and women, and at the present time, the Palestinians are losing that battle. Do you have any more to lose by trying the fresh approach of aggressively exposing racism, than you have already lost? Until more racism is exposed for what it is, racism, the kind of humiliation which occurred to Yasser Arafat in Paris when he was locked in a compound by Madeleine Albright, will be repeated. When racism is finally being exposed, there is an important reality to keep in perspective. There are Israelis of integrity and compassion. So it is important that the exposure of racism be specific, and not general. It makes no sense to alienate the Israelis of integrity who are sincerely attempting to bring healing. For Palestinians to alienate those Israelis of compassion and integrity would be similar to a wounded man harassing a doctor who is trying to heal him.The following is a practical example of how the Arabs’ message about the realities of the illegal Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem is not penetrating the minds of either the American public, or American leaders. The American Democratic vice-presidential nominee suggested our waiting to make a decision on whether to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to West Jerusalem. Many, including our leaders, seemed to think that, since he is Jewish, his proposal was especially magnanimous. That this person, though known to be ethical, would be willing to postpone something for which Israel is pushing, caught many Americans and even some Arabs by surprise.

REWARDING CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

The reality that so few seem to grasp is this: it is criminal behavior by Israel when they continue to ignore binding United Nations resolutions, and to defy internationally recognized Geneva Conventions, which declare the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be illegal and, therefore, criminal behavior. The fact of the illegality of this occupation is not penetrating either the minds of our leaders, or the minds of the general public. If it were, we would acknowledge the immoral implications of our rewarding criminal behavior. We openly approve of criminal behavior when we seriously consider moving our embassy to West Jerusalem. To move it would be blatant racism, for we would be devaluing Palestinians and placing more value on the Jews of Israel. So the Arab community must help us realize that such a move is racist, whether the words are uncomfortable or not.

It is certainly racism when we reward the illegal behavior of the group that we favor, and penalize the victims who are out of our favor. It amplifies our racism when we chastise the victims, when those victims are desperately trying to restrain the violence which so many feel is justified by the gross injustice being perpetuated against Palestinians. Of course, frustration and anger grow when someone who is expected to mediate, such as our President, instead blames. Who will defend legal and human rights if the one nation that boasts of aiding the oppressed, turns against the oppressed? Our U.S. leaders superficially reason that, since West Jerusalem is not being illegally occupied, it is perfectly okay to have our embassy there, even though Israel is criminally occupying the other part of the city.

THE PARABLE OF THE WONDERFUL BANK ROBBERS

I have written the following analogy in an attempt to expose the twisted logic that reflects our leaders’ reasoning regarding moving our embassy to West Jerusalem. Suppose some criminals have robbed the same bank several times, and the authorities know that these criminals are keeping the stolen money in their home in an upstairs bedroom. However, due to a legal technicality, the money cannot be recovered, and the criminals cannot be arrested. Even though the mayor and the city council know that these criminals robbed this bank more than once and are keeping the stolen money in an upstairs bedroom, they accept an invitation from the criminals to come to a series of dinner parties in their home.   The city’s leaders truly know in their hearts that it is wrong to openly support those involved in criminal activity. But, on the other hand, they feel that in this unique case, there are extenuating circumstances which justify their support of blatant illegal activity. Their justifications are:

-     The parents and the grandparents of the robbers endured much suffering and injustice.

-     The robbers are not the kind of persons that you would expect to rob banks.

-     These particular criminals maintain a very nice house in a respectable part of the city.

-     The city officials have a much stronger personal relationship with the bank robbers than they have with those who own the bank that was robbed.

-     The bank management has made statements which have offended the city officials.

-     The officials would not be eating in the part of the house where the stolen money is being kept, but would be eating in another part of the house.

-     The bank robbers are such impressive people that the city officials do not think that it should be against the law for these particular robbers to rob this particular bank.

-     The bank robbers could do certain favors for the mayor and city council like being tough with bank personnel or any of their friends who might give the city officials a hard time.

-     One of the members of the bank robbery team had grown up in the same neighborhood as the city officials, spoke their neighborhood dialect, and had impressed the officials when he had spoken at their meetings. This was in contrast to the bank personnel who were all total strangers to the city officials.

-     The mayor and city officials could not appreciate the style of clothing worn by the bank manager. But they liked the clothes worn by the bank robbers because they were so much like their own.

-     The bank robbers and the city officials had such a close symbiotic relationship that the city officials had actually given weapons to the bank robbers, for them to use in their robberies.

But this final reason is what totally convinces them that it is right to attend the dinners in these fine criminals’ home:

-     They think that ALMIGHTY GOD favors these robbers over those who have been the victims of their robbery.

Tragically, all those who are close friends of both the robbers and of the city officials agree that the officials’ reasons for accepting the robbers’ invitation to the dinners in their home are very valid. Consequently, it seemed appropriate for the city officials and the robbers to have many wonderful dinners together at the house of the robbers. These friendly dinners continued even though everyone knew the monetary evidence from the bank robberies was piled high in an upstairs bedroom.

Americans must realize that just because West Jerusalem is considered legally owned by Israel, it does not give permission for the U.S. to put their Embassy there when the Israelis are illegally occupying East Jerusalem and continuing to carry out inhumane activities against many innocent Palestinians.

AMERICANS MUST GRASP THIS REALITY

I truly believe that if the American people and American leaders can grasp the reality that Israel is engaged in criminal behavior (breaking the law is criminal behavior), they will become less supportive of Israel’s racist behaviors. At the very least, many will see the immorality of moving our embassy to any part of Jerusalem, until a peace agreement is reached and East Jerusalem is no longer illegally occupied by Israel. So, Palestinian leaders and journalists must break things down to simple terms, so that Americans can grasp the gravity, injustice, immorality, illegality, and racism involved in the situation as it now exists. At this point, American leaders have a deep psychological need to be well thought of by Jewish leaders, while almost not caring what Arab leaders think of them. This is wrong, immoral, and racist. Yet, I am afraid that this is the reality Arabs are facing.        Does some of American arrogance and superficiality toward Palestinians partly relate to how Yasser Arafat dresses? You never know! Sometimes superficial and racist thinking can be very simplistic. Something that caught my attention in the news a couple of months after Camp David II occurred is a reported conversation between Israeli Prime Minister Barak and the United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The two of them agreed that, unless Yasser Arafat was willing to accept from Israel less of East Jerusalem, there could be no peace agreement. I asked myself how it was possible for Mr. Barak to give less of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, when none of East Jerusalem legally belongs to the Israelis for them to give to anyone. By law, it is the Israelis who are dependent on the generosity of the Palestinians who own the land, and not the way that it has been reversed by the U.S. and by the Israelis. It struck me as absurd that a representative of the U.S. and a representative of Israel presume to have the right to decide how much of the Palestinian-owned land that the Israelis are willing to give to them. Yet, possibly, what is equally absurd is that the majority of the world has become convinced that it is right that the Palestinians should do the majority of the giving, and that the Israelis should do the majority of the taking.

THE INVISIBLE ROBBERY

What the Israelis have done to the Palestinian,