This post is written by a member of the Messianic community in Israel or guest contributor. The opinions and views expressed are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of Kehila News Israel.

What does it mean that “All Israel will be saved”?

One For Israel Staff 

Jan 15, 2017

Share on Facebook

Tweet on Twitter

Praying at the Wailing Wall, Jerusalem

Paul assures us in Romans 11:26 that, “All Israel will be saved”. That’s quite a statement! What does he mean, exactly? Who is included in “All Israel”? There are four main views regarding the identity of “all Israel” in Romans 11:26. We favor the latter view, and will explain why, by looking carefully at the meaning and context of the words that Paul uses in Romans 11.

The four views are that “all Israel” means:

  1. The Jews – Every Jew ever lived is “all Israel” and therefore automatically saved.
    Although rarely believed in today, according to this view, any Jew ever lived, who considered himself as a Jew according to the Law of Moses and the traditions of the Rabbis, is saved. This view is not only far-fetched, but also stands in complete contradiction to what Jesus thought about God and Himself.

  2. The church – Jews and Gentiles deemed to have been saved throughout all generations.
    Otherwise known as “replacement theology”, this view equates “all Israel” to the church, as “the Israel of God”. However, this view becomes hard to maintain in the light of Romans 11:28, if the use of the pronoun “they” is followed through to its logical conclusion.

  3. The chosen remnant – all Jewish believers within ethnic Israel that have been saved throughout history.
    This notion indicates that the hardened stance of the Israelite nation is partial and thus a remnant portion among the Jews will continue to face God’s salvation until the end of the modern times.

  4. Ethnic Israel – the people of Israel will receive salvation at the end of days.
    This interpretation asserts that the existing hardening of Israel (albeit partial) will continue till the culmination of this age, at which point, they will turn to Christ and accept His salvation in accordance God’s faithfulness to fulfill his covenantal promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Simply put, despite the majority of Israel being in rebellion, God will not forget His people. Instead, God will pour His Spirit on Israel at a specific point in time, in agreement with the covenantal promises. At that specific time, all of Israel will accept the Messiah.

Does it mean every Jew who ever lived?

In his book “Post-missionary Messianic Judaism”, American Messianic Jewish believer, Dr. Mark Kinzer, asks what we should make of the past 2,000 years of Jewish traditions. He concludes that Israel’s “no” to Yeshua (Jesus) is actually a “hidden participation in the obedience of Israel’s Messiah”[1]. According to Kinzer, although Israel has rejected Yeshua, He “continues to live among them—though in a hidden, obscure fashion”. What Kinzer is really saying is that Jewish tradition (that includes the rejection of the Messiah) is God’s wish for the Jewish people at this time: “a divinely sanctioned religious tradition appointed for the purpose of preserving the Jewish people”. This view is based on the idea that when some Jews answered Pilate “All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!” (Matthew 27:25), God considered Jesus’ blood to covered them and their sins. While I have never met with Dr. Kinzer, I have no doubt that he dearly love his own Jewish people. The problem however is that he loves the the Jews so much, that his love for them is in competition with the gospel, and contradicts what Yeshua himself taught about salvation.

Judaism’s rejection of Jesus is based on Judaism’s rejection of Moses, and the prophets. Dead traditions cannot give life nor change our heart for the better, only faith in Messiah can. The outcome of religious traditions that I’ve encountered so far is mainly characterized by pride, legalism and self-justification – nothing that can “save” you.

Did Paul mean the Church?

Herman Ridderbos maintains that, “The church … as the people of the New Covenant has taken the place of Israel, and national Israel is nothing other than the empty shell from which the pearl has been removed and which has lost its function in the history of redemption.” [2] Similarly, Waltke maintains that the church and the New Covenant have permanently supplanted the Israelite nationality together with her law.” [3]

By their rejection of the gospel and the Jesus, has nation of Israel eternally lost her status? Or does the nation of Israel have a hopeful future concerning God’s liberating plan of redemption? Will they “all” be saved? And who are “they”?

The meaning of Paul’s statement in 11:26 can be better appreciated by taking a closer look at some of the words used in the surrounding context. For example, Paul’s use of the words mystrion (mystery) andachris (until) in verse 25 kai houtos (and thus) at the start of verse 26, and they in verse 28.

Rom 11:28 has a particular importance because it bears directly to the identity of “all Israel”. Paul asserts that “all Israel” are viewed as enemies from the gospel point of view. However, from God’s point of view, they are much loved because for the sake of their forefathers. Paul uses this verse to lay ground and make strong prediction concerning the salvation nature of “all Israel.” Despite verse 28 being asyndeton and lacking a proper connection to with the aforementioned content, there is a forged implication used to supplement the subjects touched in verse 28. The use of “they” in verse 27 is not used in its original context and thus need to be supplemented using “them” in the same verse. It seems to be referring to Jacob in verse 26, which then refers back to “all Israel” as evident in verse 26.  The importance of this concept is seen in the fact that verse 28 describes the same group of individuals similar to the one denoted by the term “all Israel” in verse 26.  In other words, Paul has helped to establish an identity of “all Israel” through his words in verse 28 and his description in verse 26.

Paul refers to the subject or the people by describing them as “enemies for the sake of you.” Due to the fact that Paul continuously uses the pronoun “you” to reference the Gentiles, the noun “enemies” must be referring to the ethnic Jews. Verse 28 has Paul summing up the main theme by claiming that the non-believers who made up ethnic Israel were perceived as God’s enemies. This, according to Paul, was for the betterment of the Gentiles. Simply put, from the gospel’s point of view, “they” refers to the ethnic Jews while “you” refers to the Gentiles.

The other reason that presents problems for “the church” view is when analysing verse 28 is that the two clauses used in the whole verse are difficult to use when describing the church. The table below shows the parallel comparison of the two clauses in relation to verse 28:

kata men to euangelion


di’ hymas

“as per the gospel”


“for your sake”

kata de t‘n eklog‘n


dia tous pateras

“as per election”


“due to the fathers”

The two clauses above reveal two distinct revelations; individuals categorized as “all Israel” as defined in verse 26 are treated as enemies of God while on the other hand, God still show some love for them. They are treated as enemies from the viewpoint that they have rejected God’s gospel as evident for the case of the Gentiles. However, those same individuals are beloved by God since he has chosen to elect them as he promised to the fathers. This leads to the description of the concept of the “dual status” of Israel primarily because it hold grounds for two contradicting views of individuals, which at the same time can be interpreted to be true.

In simple terms, it is quite impossible for the two clauses to be referring to the church. How could we define the Body of Christ as “God’s enemies”?

Yet in verse 28 Paul asserts that this group of individuals are seen as enemies from God from the Gospel’s standpoint. This is specifically due to the fact that the gospel and those who believe in it are notdeemed God’s enemies. Romans 11:28 disqualifies interpretation of the Church as Israel.

The chosen remnant?

“The chosen remnant” view is that “all Israel” refers to the believing remnant of the Jewish community. Supporters of this view will insist that verse 28 offers a description of individuals whom God regarded as enemies but have now received salvation and God’s love. Similarly, as noted by Hendriksen, the pronoun “these” used to qualify “enemies” and the “beloved ones” apparently points to the same group of people, who happen to be the elect. “These people were initially unreceptive of the gospel but through magnificent exhibition of God’s mercy, they were able to be beloved.”[4]

The argument is that he first clause of 11:28 refers to the elect in their unsaved state, while the second describes their status after receiving God’s salvation. There is an obvious difficulty with Romans 11:28 and the remnant view, based on these two clauses. They offer two distinct interpretations of “all Israel,” which interestingly appear to be true at the same time. This is supported by Paul’s use of the conjunction “on one hand” and “on the other hand”: They are described as enemies and beloved simultaneously, and not first enemies and only becoming the beloved after some time.”

If Paul had intended to refer to people who had initially been enemies but who have now become beloved (and not enemies any longer), he would not have used the correlative conjunction “on the one hand” and “but on the other hand”, but rather “formerly” and “but now.” Paul’s writing often uses contrasting elements to highlight the differences between the state of affairs between the pre-conversion and post-conversion state. [5]

In Rom 11:28, Paul use the correlative conjunctions to illustrate the existence of simultaneous state between the pre-converted past and the post-converted present state of affairs. It is thus difficult to use Romans 11:28 to denote individuals who were enemies in the pre-conversion past but are now beloved in the post-conversion present. Consequently, “the remnant” view is not credible enough to offer a good interpretation of Romans 11:26.

The ethnic state of Israel

The fourth view maintains that “all Israel” actually means the whole ethnic state of Israel. This interpretation asserts that the existing hardening of Israel (albeit partial) will continue till the culmination of this age, and that the whole Israelite ethnic nation will ultimately turn to Christ and accept His salvation.

Proponents of this view argue that the salvation of the Israelites ethnic nation has its root in God’s faithfulness to fulfill his covenantal promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Despite the majority of Israel being in rebellion, God will not forget His people. Instead, God will pour His Spirit on Israel at a specific point in time, in agreement with the covenantal promises. At that time, all of Israel will accept the Messiah en masse.

This my own view. The “ethnic Israel” view offers a perfectly fitting interpretation of the dual status of “all Israel” in sharp contrast to those offered by other views. Romans 11:28 portrays “all Israel” as the whole nation of Israel.  The first half of verse 28a, 28b, and 29 provide ample support for this statement.

Verse 28a
Based on the “ethnic Israel” view, the current state of the nation of Israel is that of a hardened one at least as per Romans 11:25. The majority of the Israelites do not demonstrate a liking for the Messiah, as described in verse 11 with the use of the terms “their transgression” and in verse 15 as “their rejection.” In the first clause of Romans 11:28 Paul offers a distinct description of the hardened state of the nation of Israel by denoting the nation as being the enemies of God. These are people who stand in enmity with God and among whom God harbours much displeasure. The use of the preposition kata is used to designate the accepted way in which judgement will be accorded. It offers a definition of a rule upon which God’s have managed to establish a relationship with the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel are seen as God’s enemies when viewed from the perspective of their rejection of the gospel.

In the first clause, Paul reiterates the issue of enmity by writing that the people are enemies for the sake of “you.”  The believing portion of the gentile community is described using the second-person pronoun. Here, Paul implies that the by rejecting the gospel, the nation of Israel was working towards the benefit of the Gentiles who ended up receiving salvation – much to their advantage. In the present context, “all Israel” still equates to God’s enemies although that rejection has resulted in many Gentiles finding salvation. The dual status in the first half of verse 28 is reiterated by the statement that the Jewish non-believers that comprise the nation of Israel are perceived as enemies as per the gospel and also for the Gentiles’ sake.

Verse 28b
Paul writes that non-believing Israel are God’s enemies yet that they are also beloved at the same time. First, Paul writes that the nation of Israel are beloved by God “according to election”. The preposition katais used in a similar manner to the first clause to assert the normative form of the way in which judgement will be accorded. “The same is used to arrive at a definition of the rule of determining God’s relationship with the Israelites.” The term “according to election” should thus be interpreted to denote the notion that even though these people are recognized as enemies at least in regards to the gospel, they are still beloved from the perspective of God’s irrevocable choice. This is shown by God’s decision to elect the nation of Israel to be his solely appointed nation. Murray goes on to add that, the term “beloved” denotes “that God  has not ignored or forsaken his good relationship with the nation of Israel because he views them as his own people and wants to maintain the covenants made with the forefathers. Even though the present nation of Israel is hardened, God still sees them as the elect and beloved nation. The second prepositional phrase used Paul to emphasize this point is illustrated though the use of the clause “because of the fathers”… The term “fathers” refers to the main patriarchs of Israel and include Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It also has a special reference to the covenant promises that God made to them. Morris further writes that Paul is seen to make more appeal to the covenant made between God and Abraham as well as the one made to his descendants throughout their lifetimes.[6] The importance of the second clause is that when perceived from God’s perspective of electing the nation of Israel, “all Israel” is beloved by God primarily because of his desire to fulfil the covenant made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Verse 29
Paul uses verse 29 to assert and provide support for the argument that God still loves the nation of Israel and still views it as his chosen nation. In verse 28b, Paul asserts this by writing that the gifts and calling made by God cannot revoked. Despite failing to exclusively define the notion of the “gift” in this context, there is the likelihood that the usage of the word is meant to provide a summary of the good things and privileges accorded to the nation of Israel as indicated in Romans  9:4–5. However, the term “calling” is clearly defined as the process of God’s choosing to elect the beloved Jews. Simply put, it refers to the act of God calling the nation of Israel and electing them to be his own people whom he would stand with, thus fulfilling his promises to the fathers.”

Paul’s focus in verse 29 is upon the term “irrevocable”, which is used to describe something or a situation in which it is impossible to revert or go back to.[7] It is difficult to know whether readers of Paul’s scriptures would be in a position to ascertain whether God still considers the nation of Israel as beloved, especially when viewed from God’s perspective of them being his chosen people. The gifts and the calling to the nation of Israel are irrevocable based on the fact that God does not backtrack on his promises. Moo goes on to add that Paul had a reason for emphasizing the term “irrevocable “at the beginning of the verse indicating that the word of God “has not failed.” God still has a plan for the nation of Israel due to His faithful nature.” [8] Put simply, while Israel rejected God’s Messiah, God has not backtracked on the promises made to the fathers, and equally, those promises have not been annulled by Israel’s lack of faith.

Paul’s assertion of Israel’s dual status in v. 28 succinctly summarizes the dilemma that drives the whole argument of these chapters: the Israel now at enmity with God because of the gospel is nevertheless the Israel to whom God has made irrevocable promises of blessing. In broad terms, as 9:30–10:21 has elaborated the former, negative side of this dilemma, so 9:6b–29 and 11:1–27 have explained the second, positive side. [9]

In a similar context, Murray reiterates that the people of Israel are perceived as both being “enemies” and “beloved” at the same moment – enemies in correlation to the gospel while simultaneously beloved in correlation to their election. This contrasting element indicates that by rejecting the gospel, the nation of Israel was put to the side while the gospel was delivered to the Gentiles. Nevertheless, by virtue of being elected and in accordance with their connection with the patriarchs, they are beloved. The term “beloved” thereby implies that God has not relented but remains faithful in his relationship with the nation of Israel, and still regards them as his chosen people, fully committed to the fulfilment of the covenants made with the fathers. God still shows dedication and peculiar relationship with the nation of Israel despite them being unfaithful to him. This relationship is destined to be illustrated and justified in the eventual restoration (see Rom 11 verses 12, 15, 26).

Romans 11:28 provides a description of “all Israel” that indicates the unbelieving nature of the nation of Israel. It also points out the entire nation of Israel will one day be restored. The refusal of the nation of Israel to accept the gospel of the Messiah did not prevent God from honouring the specific promises he had made with the Fathers. Using Bloesch’s words, God’s rejection of the nation of Israel was only provisional implying that the entire nation of Israel would be saved. [10]


The analysis of Romans 11:28 makes it clear that the dual status of “all Israel” is well interpreted using the view that “all Israel” is the ethnic state of Israel. This is because the interpretation in this view sufficiently envisages a situation whereby the two clauses of Romans 11:28 can be said to be simultaneously true in the present state concerning the “all Israel.” In the same scenario, the unbelieving Israelite nation is perceived on the one hand as the enemy of God, while on the other, still very much beloved. At the end of it all, God has not and will not abandon His chosen nation, Israel.

[1] Mark S. Kinzer, “Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People” (Brazos Press, 2005) p.225-228
[2] Herman Ridderbos, “Paul: An Outline of His Theology” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) p.354-355
[3] Bruce K. Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual” (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988) p.274
[4] Karl Barth, “The Epistle to the Romans” (Oxford University Press, 1968) p.418-419
[5] For instance: Rom 11:30, Gal 1:2,  Eph 5:8, Col 1:21-22, 3:7-8, Philemon 10-11. In other instances, Paul, utilizes a different combinational technique to illustrate the temporary contrast between the pre-conversion and post-conversion state of affairs. For instance in Romans 7:5-6, he utilises the active indicative pronoun “we were” and combined with “but now.” He also demonstrates the same element of establishing temporal contrast by using the combination of “at that time” and “but now” as evident in Galatians 4:8-9: “However, at that time …. But now….?”
[6] Morris, “The Epistle to the Romans”, p.423
[7] Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, “A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,” 3rd ed (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000) p.53
[8] Douglas J. Moo, “The Epistle to the Romans (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)”, (Eerdmans, 1996) p.732
[9] ibid p.729-730

This article originally appeared on One For Israel, and reposted with permission.





One For Israel Staff

One For Israel Staff

ONE FOR ISRAEL strives to be the leading organization in sharing the Gospel of Yeshua the Messiah with Israeli Jews and Arabs in the Hebrew language. Our staff is comprised of both Jewish and Arab Israelis, with the shared belief that true peace in the Middle East can only come into existence under Yeshua.




Global powers are dealing with the Middle East as they remember it 100 years ago. Their state of denial not only misreads evolving Israel-Arab relations, but also a century of God's intervention to upend Western sabotage. Not surprisingly, the two are intertwined.

Hannah W

Jan 19, 2017

Share on Facebook

Tweet on Twitter


French President Hollande greets US Secretary of State Kerry at Paris Peace Conference, January 15, 2017 (Photo: screenshot/Reuters)

Part 3 of 3: The Reality. Why God is laughing

Parts 1 and 2 of this series reviewed how and why Western powers obsess over “managing” Israeli-Arab relations. Colonial attitudes tend to resurface with frustration, and after the Jewish return to Zion, Middle East events became exceedingly frustrating. Even secret British promises to divide Israel’s land among all Arab neighbors who agreed to attack in 1948 (a fool-proof plan, considering the U.S.-led ban against arming the Jews), inexplicably failed when those blasted Jews won.

Still, that was 70 years ago. How can colonialists still exist today? Simple: in 1960 the UN narrowed the definition of colonialism to withholding self-governance. Once territories received political independence, global players returned to “developthem, controlling the inhabitants through other forms of dependence (a strategy called neo-colonialism, practiced by capitalists and communists alike).

Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nachshon hit a nerve in his remark last summer about this Paris Peace Conference resurrectingghosts of a colonial European past”. The EU reacted with self-righteous outrage. After all, they spluttered, the conference is offeringan unprecedented package of political, economic and security supportto deepen the dependence of both sides.

The game is both lucrative and addicting. For decades “friendship” has allowed the U.S. to give Israel generous military aid that brings big American profits, while “state-building” has allowed the EU to fund Palestinian violence that keeps Israel needing more military aid. British intelligence warned that Israel is a “threat to the region, while its government earned billions from military sales to Israel. And when Israel gets weapons, so do the Arab neighbors.

But despite this careful cultivation, Western control is faltering. Middle Eastern nations have discovered common interests in fighting the newest White-House allies, Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS-affiliated Hamas and nuclear-fixated Iran. That makes Israel a worthwhile friend, the West (particularly America) a dubious friend, and Palestinian statehood a side-issue dwarfed by the real regional problems. This three-fold reversal of 20th-century perceptions is reshaping the Middle East in ways that worry the West.

Jordan’s treaty with Israel was always characterized asa truly warm peace [because] they have no need for international peacekeepers.In 2014, Al Jazeera enviously commented that “this realpolitik has paid off.”  Now Jordanians are working to bring that message to their streets, highlighting friendship with Israel minus “Palestine”. The largest Arab nation, Egypt, has been similarly warming up to Israel while growing correspondingly cold toward America. President al-Sissi’s public rejection of Obama’s legacy was no surprise to those who remember his warning to Obama in 2013: “You turned your back on the Egyptians, and they won’t forget that.

The Arab world’s condemnation of Hamas for starting the Gaza War showed that already in 2014, Arab anti-Zionist rhetoric was being eroded by reality. The subsequent cooperation of Israel, Jordan and Egypt in military and intelligence efforts started a trend among other Arab leaders to form practical alliances with a Jewish state that was no longer embarrassed about winning wars. Outspoken Arab Zionism became a media phenomenon, not just in Israel but in several Middle Eastern countries.

Even Palestinians, despite constant indoctrination for war against the Jews by Western-financed education, are showing signs of mutiny. East Jerusalem residents are quietly requesting Israeli citizenship. Palestinians are buying homes in Jewish “settlements, not to displace Jews but to coexist with them. Several years ago a one-state solution under Israeli sovereignty was seriously discussed by Israelis and Palestinians.

The weak link in that chain of defiance is the Israeli government, with a history of sacrificing its own interests in attempts to make friends. [They] have said to you, ‘Lie down that we may walk over you.’ You have even made your back like the ground, and like the street, for those who walk over it.” (Isa. 51:23) The recent American-British-French “friend” song, accompanied by UN Israel-bashing background vocals, was orchestrated to arouse the traditional Jewish dread of isolation, making Israel more receptive to its pre-assignedAuschwitz borders. (Those who think “Auschwitzis melodramatic can survey the reality here.)

But the arm-twisting backfired. Instead of groveling before the global decision to outlaw Jewish settlements, Israel hit back with diplomatic reprisals against the UN and the promoters of Resolution 2334 (which notably did not include even one Middle East sponsor). What’s worse, America’s public elected someone who has resolved to let Israel steer its own future. President Trump, supported by a sensible Congress, might actually demote Israeli settlement projects from global threats to administrative decisions already proven to be lawful.

All this is bad news for the benevolent plan to squeeze Israel back into the 1949 ceasefire lines (conveniently misidentified as “the June 4, 1967 borders) as the starting point for further Palestinian demands and attacks. Any day now, the unwelcome geopolitical changes could produce another Emir Faisal, eager to lead an Arab-Jewish coalition in rebuilding the Middle East… with full U.S. backing in a partnership that respects national sovereignty.

It’s a neo-colonialist’s nightmare.

Driven by this Faisal-phobia, the 2017 Paris Peace Conference was convened for no other purpose than to keep Mahmoud Abbas in power. The PA president whose term expired in 2009, the worshipful fan of terror “pioneerHaj Amin, the statesman who shows no interest in building anything besides his personal fortune, is the only Arab leader who survives completely on Western support. His dependency guarantees his submission. It would never do to let him be replaced by real Palestinian state-builders who want to forge a real peace deal, the kind Jordan and Egypt enjoy. Thus the conference’s only discernible achievement was making Abbas personally available for “meetings with foreign ministers.

What would they talk about? Among other things, their agreement to eject Israel from one specific “settlement. Palestinian violence has long focused on Jerusalem, repeating the incitement several times a day. Now Western obsession is also locked onto Jerusalem, mentioned four times in UNSC-2334, and the focus of a private “meeting of senior officialsbefore the conference even started.

The shift from 100-plus towns to one city is not random, nor is the U.S. response to that shift. Obama’s abstention on UNSC-2334 gave a silent nod to global rejection of Israel’s ownership rights anywhere in its 3000-year-old capital. How do we know that’s the end-goal? Think: If Jerusalem is really to be shared in the two-state solution, relocating the U.S. Embassy to western Jerusalem cannot possibly be a “dangeror “threatto that plan.

But nobody explains the contradiction, or cares. The Daily Beast columnist Maajid Nawaz (a Pakistani Muslim) gave this wall-to-wall denial a spiritual dimension, calling it The One Ring that binds us all. It is the sacred god that must not be questioned.” All doubt regarding the god’s identity was removed when the PA warned that Trump’s non-conformity would “open the gates of hell.

Indeed, Scripture predicts that the world will gather against Jerusalem under spiritual provocation. But that attack won’t be controlled by the UN, the EU or Israel’s great friend in Washington. Satan himself cannot give the order. It will follow God’s timetable, period.

Yet in order to understand what’s coming, we must revisit the prophecies. God through Zechariah promises two such confrontations, which are sometimes mistaken for one. Chapter 12:3 describes a global gathering against Jerusalem as though to move an impossibly “heavy stone, while Zechariah 14:2 foretells another gathering for “battle. In between those two incidents (Zech. 12:4-14:1) God will work vital changes in Israel: territorial restoration, newfound boldness, military valor, and most importantly a national awakening and repentance: They will look to Me whom they pierced, and they will mourn for Him.” (12:10) After this a fountain will be opened for cleansing” in Jerusalem, and all idols and false prophets will be removed throughout Israel (13:1-6). The survivors of a huge worldwide persecution of God’s flock will also be purified and confirmed as His people (13:7-9).

Only then does the international war against Jerusalem take place, which God Himself initiates. In the first global gang-up, although God provokes the world with the issue of Jerusalem, He allows the nations to decide whether to injure themselves by tackling it. The second gang-up is beyond their control altogether: “For I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for battle(14:2). That war will end abruptly with YHVH descending bodily on the Mount of Olives with His saints (v.3-5), ushering in the great “Day of YHVH(v.6-9).

This raises a concern for believers like the New Zealanders, who are already asking: Will entire nations suffer for their leaders’ anti-Israel actions? Can the righteous in those countries make a difference?

God is just. He does not “sweep away the righteous with the wicked(Gen. 18:23). Although Western leaders are elected by their people, once in office they might disregard the people’s will. This was clearly seen when American grassroot support for Israel was overridden by Obama’s personal decisions. Even during the 2014 Israel-Hamas War, for which Israel was widely condemned by Europe, British and French citizens took to the streets to support Israel. Nor are all the Arab peoples blind Israel-hating sheep as portrayed in their government-controlled media. This especially applies to news coming from Palestinian territory, where violent censorship dates back to pre-Oslo days.

In fact, the Israeli Body of Messiah is aware of many ex-Muslim Arab Christians who support Israel, as well as Palestinian believers who reach out with love to Israelis. This is part of a wider revival engulfing the Muslim world, often driven by direct revelation from Yeshua. Its impact on Muslim leaders is unknown, but the spiritual influence of untold millions embracing Israel’s God and His Messiah – an estimated 3 million in Iran alone – could realign their countries with God’s plans for the Middle East. Such changes, when they do happen, are routinely kept quiet until years later.

If the recent unforeseen shift in Arab sentiments toward Israel is a result of Arab prayers, then there is hope for the saints in post-Christian nations. It’s God’s way:But many who are first will be last; and the last, first.” (Matt. 19:30)

That’s what the future holds. For now the two Paris Peace Conferences, separated by almost a century, produce a sense of Déjà Vu both in goals and futility. In 1919 Paris, Jewish claims to Jerusalem were met with silence; the British and then the UN sneakily reassigned it to international control. But they have been unable to take possession for over 90 years. What’s stopping them?

Jerusalem is the only city on earth that God repeatedly chose for Himself by name (1 Kings 11:13, 32, 36; 14:21; 2 Kings 21:7; Zech. 1:17, 2:12, 3:2; Matt. 5:35). He designated it as Israel’s territory. He restored His Mandate in 1967, mocking the global resolutions. The kings of the earth [led by America] take their stand…” (Ps. 2:2), declaring in 1962 that even western Jerusalem was not Israel’s capital… and poof!in 1967 the entire city drops into the hands of the Jews… who (in the words of the late Yitzhak Rabin) were themselves “truly shakenby the turnaround.

Fifty years later, world leaders still don’t get it!

The Paris Conference has now come and gone, dragging failures behind it like a string of clattering tin cans, and causing some of its backers to back away. God has ensured that this latest effort to rewrite His plan for Jerusalem will be remembered as an exercise in futility – either embarrassing or entertaining, depending on the viewpoint of earth or Heaven.

Stay tuned for the Epilogue, which will give some examples.





Hannah Weiss

Hannah Weiss

Hannah Weiss lives in Israel with her husband Hillel, their three children and two grandchildren. Besides writing on issues relevant for followers of Yeshua, she also works as an English writer, editor and translator for Israeli exporters and academics. Hannah is part of a small home fellowship, Restorers of Zion, which serves the Body of Messiah by focusing on neglected or dysfunctional areas of Scriptural teaching and practice.



****A big, untold story! ****

online videos of Jews explaining why they believe Jesus is the Messiah have been viewed more than 23 million times. Here’s the latest. (Update)

January 9, 2017 By joelcrosenbergin Epicenter


“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” — the Apostle Paul (Romans 1:16)

With so much bad news in the U.S., Israel, Russia and around the world these days, I thought it might be good to kick off 2017 with some very good news.

Here, then, is an update to a column I published on September 22, 2015 about “a big, untold story” that “the media isn’t reporting” but is very much “worth examining.”

“Millions of Jews have begun a quest to find the Messiah,” I wrote at the time, based on conversations with key Messianic Jewish ministry leaders in the U.S. and Israel. “For reasons I cannot fully explain, Jews are suddenly searching for answers to the deepest and most important questions concerning life and death and God and atonement and eternity, in numbers unprecedented in history. Some are searching through the Hebrew Scriptures for answers. A stunning number are actually reading the New Testament, most for the first time. They are searching on Google for information about the Messiah. They are even watching a new series of videos by Jews who claim to have found the answers. The videos — some of which have gone viral — were produced and posted on a new website called”

The numbers as of September 2015 were nothing short of astonishing. “More than 10 million people have watched these [English-language testimony] videos just in the past few months,” I explained, while “more than 900,000 Hebrew speakers have watched the Hebrew-language versions of these videos in just the past four months.”

Since then, however — despite the stigma in the Jewish community against consider the claims of Jesus — the videos have continued to go viral and are surging beyond anything I would have imagined.

Eitan Bar, a native Israeli and a devoted follower of Yeshua, heads a team that is producing the videos and helping to develop digital evangelism strategies for two ministries, One For Israel (based in Israel and led by Dr. Erez Soref) and Chosen People Ministries (based in the U.S. and led by Dr. Mitch Glaser). Recently, I asked Eitan if he had updated figures.

Here’s what he told me (and has now posted in an online report):

Eitan’s online report also includes numerous encouraging quotes by Jews who have been watching the videos and either started their own spiritual journeys to figure out who Jesus (Yeshua) is or who have actually become His followers.

A few examples:

  • “Finally, I have reached the destination I was looking for, for years! …I considered myself to be an atheist for a long while, resisting any kind of explanation of God. Until, I came across your video about who Jesus is, that you did in Jerusalem. My jaw dropped. So I decided to keep away from your videos so not to fall for it. But, like a cat who is drawn to the taste of cream, I wanted more. Everyday I would visit your websites to watch more and more of your video teachings. I found truth and endless love that I never came across in Judaism. Thank you so, so much!” — a Jewish woman in her 40s who lives in central Israel

  • “I found Yeshua on YouTube, through one of your advertised videos about the falsehood of the rabbinic oral law. I felt that I had to check what it is all about and found a whole new world!! Yeshua changed my life and I’m thankful to Him and to you because of it. I feel that my life was saved. All the information in your videos is so rich in content, pleasant to watch, and the way you explain things is so good that I came to that moment in my life of understanding who Yeshua really is. I thank you from the depth of my soul! I want more Jews to know the truth, which is that Yeshua is the Messiah who we’ve been waiting for all along!” — a young Jewish man who works in Jerusalem

  • “First, I have no words to thank you (Eitan) and Moti for the articles and videos. I saw your video-ad on YouTube a year or two ago, but when I realized that it’s all about “Christianity” and “Jesus”, I switched it off. Lately, I came across your videos once again, and it grabbed me so I decided to read the prophecies in the Old Testament. I was surprised to find out they all point to Yeshua . Then I wanted to find out about the lifestyle of Messianic Jews – how do you live your lives – only to realize that it’s not about what we do, but about what’s inside, the change is inside the heart.  …I found our Messiah and two days ago gave Him my heart.” — an Orthodox Jewish man

It’s amazing to think how few Jewish people have ever examined the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the most famous Israeli in all of human history. Fortunately, that’s changing now.

As a Jewish follower of Yeshua myself, I am thrilled to see the Lord using these websites, videos and social media to spread the Gospel so broadly and so rapidly throughout Israel via Hebrew and throughout the English speaking world.

While surely many Gentiles are watching the English language videos, many Jews are watching them, too. What’s more, we can be confident that the vast majority of those watching the Hebrew language videos are Jews. This suggests the possibility that in a world of about 14.5 million Jewish people — including about six million Jews in Israel — more Jewish people have been exposed to the Gospel of Yeshua the Messiah in the last two or three years than in any other two to three year period in human history.

Would you be praying for each and every person that has watched, that the Lord would be drawing him or her to His heart? Would you be praying for all the people that work for these and related ministries for continued boldness, wisdom and discernment, and the Lord’s spiritual and physical protection? Also, would you share these videos on your Facebook pages, and through Twitter and other social media so that they are seen by even more people in 2017? Might you even consider giving financially to such ministries?

Thanks so much — may the Lord bless you and your family as you give Jews and Gentiles the opportunity to hear the Gospel for themselves and make their own personal decision for or against Yeshua!







This post is written by a member of the Messianic community in Israel or guest contributor. The opinions and views expressed are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of Kehila News Israel.

The Paris Peace Conference Déjà Vu (Part 2)

The upcoming Paris Peace Conference bears an eerie resemblance to its 1919 namesake, which sowed the seeds of conflict for the next century. Repeating that failed effort is insanity… unless peace is actually not the goal.

Hannah Weiss 

Jan 12, 2017

Share on Facebook

Tweet on Twitter


French President Francois Hollande at Paris summit, June 3, 2016 (Photo: screenshot/YouTube)

Part 2 of 3: The Mystery. Why the West keeps derailing Israeli-Palestinian peace

Part 1 of this analysis reviewed the two-state solution that almost materialized in 1919, until a Paris Peace Conference and its follow-up at San Remo sabotaged it. The decades of bloody conflict that followed, while not entirely the fault of the West, were definitely aggravated by a continual Western misreading of the region, and repeated mediation which pasted wishful Western thinking over complex Middle Eastern realities.

Eventually Britain and France were joined by others eager to manage Arab-Israeli relations, especially America. After PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat failed to honor his Oslo obligations, they all developed amnesia about its terms… especially America. Gone was Oslo’s reversibility in case of failure, not to mention its broad range of protectionsfor Israeli settlements. The Western peace obsession fossilized into efforts to force additional Israeli surrenders to “revive” a nonexistent peace process.

If these efforts had been from naiveté, the spectacular failures would have prompted an overhaul long ago. Instead, the 2017 Paris Peace confab will offer the same Palestinian concessions Israel purchased repeatedly over the past 23 years: recognition of the Jewish state, renunciation of violence, education of its population for peace, and removing from its Charter the calls for Israel’s destruction. With Abbas demanding an apology for the Balfour Declaration, no one can imagine that he will recognize the Jewish right of return. We must find another explanation for Western involvement.

One clue is that the double-dealing hypocrisy practiced at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference has returned with its 2017 reincarnation. Controversy raged over secret Sykes-Picot-style meetings between America and the PA, with Britain playing mediator by drafting a condemnation of Israeli settlements acceptable to both sides. When Egypt refused to sponsor UNSC-2334, Britain (oblivious to the irony) pressured their New Zealand settlers to present it.

Also relevant is Western backing of Palestinian demands for Jew-free territory, which was defended with arrogance disguised as benevolence. U.K. Prime Minister Teresa May, amidst high praise for Israel, defined “true friendshipas telling Israelis that they are “wrongto take the Balfour Declaration seriously by resettling their heartland. In his Dec. 28 speech outgoing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delicately called for “advancing the process of separation now(known elsewhere as apartheid), to get Palestinians “ready for serious negotiationsover whatever land might still contain Jews. Kerry mentioned the annulled Oslo Accords repeatedly, insisting that foisting them on Israel is likewise a friend’s obligation. After echoing May’s admiration for Israeli democracy, he called the government elected by the Israeli people “the most rightwing in Israeli historyand therefore unacceptable.

Kerry’s incompetence as a peace-broker was clinched by his argument against Israel’s settlement enterprise: “The Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israel’s laws. Does anyone really believe the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine?The PA declaration that no Israeli will be allowed to live in Palestine is common knowledge, as are the laws banning even anti-settlement Israelis from visiting Palestinian universities, and Palestinian celebrations of terror attacks on (presumably) undisputed Israeli land. Kerry’s audience was left to decide which was more offensive: his pretended ignorance, or his assumptions about the average Israeli IQ.  

But Kerry, representing a nation that views Israel as its vassal state, neither noticed nor cared. His declaration, “Friends need to tell each other the hard truths,” was a nicety to justify condemnations from Washington to Jerusalem. Netanyahu once took that principle literally and reminded the U.S. of some hard truths, causing President Bill Clinton to privately fume, Who the f**k does he think he is? Who’s the f**king superpower here?” And although U.S. presidents feel entitled to manipulate Israeli elections (an “extraordinarily controversialhabit traced by researcher David Weinberg back to the 1980s), Netanyahu’s expressed preference in the 2012 American elections earned him a smug warning in Slate that reinforced Clinton’s attitude: If Obama wins in November, Netanyahu had better hope that the president doesn’t carry a grudge…. This time, he really does need to remember who the superpower is.”

Sure enough, during his second term Obama’s personal animosity toward Netanyahu increased, qualifying as the most dysfunctional relationship between an American and Israeli leaderon record. Obama’s team stooped to calling Israel’s prime minister “a chicken-s**t [sic]” for authorizing new homes in Jerusalem, while simultaneously calling him a “cowardfor refusing to bomb Iran.

In short, America’s appreciation of Israel carries the aristocratic egotism of a by-gone empire, like the Duke of Wellington’s appreciation for his soldiers: The mere scum of the earth… it really is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are.” Woe to the Israeli leader so ungratefuland “impudent that he dares to lecture his Western benefactor on Middle East complexities – he is forgetting who made Israel the fine country it is!

Britain is likewise living in the colonial past. The disability was exposed by Theresa May’s rebuke to the U.S. for obsessing over the Israeli settlements as the obstacle to peace, after her government expressed the same opinion and drafted a UN resolution forcing the issue. The Brits’ schizophrenic diplomacy, which offended the Americans and confused everyone else, was an echo from the Mandate era. But there is a method to their madness. After being summoned to Israel’s Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem over UNSC-2334, the U.K. embassy reasserted British control by subtly relocating Israel’s capital: “…we’ll certainly continue to have those conversations in Tel Aviv [sic].”

As for France, contempt for Israel’s prime minister was politely masked until the 2011 faux pas, when President Nicolas Sarkozy and Obama discussed their common disdain for Netanyahu, unaware that journalists were listening. Later Sarkozy sent Netanyahu a letter compensating for the insult by reaffirming French “friendship” – a patronizing response accepted as an ‘apology’ by Israel. However, French friendship didn’t protest the banning of Jews from any area coveted by Palestinians; the French envoy hailed UNSC-2334 as “the first time that the Council had clearly stated the obvious. The 2017 peace conference hosted by President Hollande is reportedlythe product of frustrationin Paris at Netanyahu’s continuing opposition to “the obvious, and at U.S. failures to unseat him, as France so ably did to Faisal in its 1920 Mandate.

Today colonialist attitudes (other than the Islamic variety) are frowned on. Thus Western powers have resorted to inviting and advising, rather than dictating terms. But the New York Times saw through the veneer, observing that Kerry had “deviated from the traditional U.S. message that foreign powers shouldn’t impose a solution.(The unspecified target is Israel, since no one ever imposes anything on the PA.) Similarly, a British source told the Jewish Chronicle that London’s heavy-handed UN initiative was “a new strategy towards Israel by Mrs. May, who believes Israel’s friends must make their opposition to settlements clearer if they are to carry any weight with the Palestinians.

It’s not new, it’s Déjà Vu: a repeat of the 1919 divide-and-conquer strategy. Now as then, the driving motive is every colonizer’s nightmare: losing control of a valuable colony.

Israel’s value to the West would require a separate article. For now, a look at the 1916 Sykes-Picot map will suffice. Whereas Iraq, Syria, Transjordan and Arabia were quickly created with ruler-drawn lines, the Jewish homeland of swamp, stones and sand was haggled over inch by inch. A century later, Israel’s astonishing development has exponentially increased the profits for any country that can demand something in return for “friendship”.

But for that to work, the competition (less costly friendships) must be eliminated or compromised. This applies to Israel’s peace partners, who also suffer from Western double-dealing.

Jordan’s 1994 treaty with Israel did not demand Palestinian statehood as a condition. On the contrary, former Israeli diplomat Yoram Ettinger reported that during those negotiations, top commanders of the Jordanian military urged their Israeli counterparts to stop short of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, ‘lest it destroy the [pro-US] Hashemite regime east of the River.’ …Jordan is considered by the PLO to be Palestinian land.” This is still the position of PA leader Abbas, whose extensive terrorist resume was included in Ettinger’s article. Writing in 2009 about Obama’s Middle East policy, Ettinger then posed a good question: Why would the US support the Hashemite regime on one hand, but doom it to oblivion by promoting a Palestinian State on the other?”

In 2013 Egyptians saw  Obama’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood’s abuse of power after being elected, and were similarly wondering

why the U.S. government is supporting an organization that has openly declared jihad against the West, engaged in threats of war with Israel and Ethiopia, demolished dozens of ancient historic churches, set hospitals on fire, and murdered Christians in the streets.

The Muslim Brotherhood has no respect for the rule of law, but the Obama Administration treats the Egyptian military that removed the group from power as a threat to democracy itself.

This peculiar inversion is kept alive by American media. Huffington Post recently called Muslim Brotherhood “a force for democratization and stability in the Middle East,” while US News criticized the decisions of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Bahrain to declare it a terrorist organization, hinting that they misunderstood what MB means by “jihad.

Added to this is Obama’s aversion to the growing alliance between Israel and Sunni Muslim states, which has American analysts perplexed. All can be explained by the fear that Israel’s isolation in the Middle East is ending, robbing the U.S. of the leverage used repeatedly to keep the Jewish state submissive.

The possibility that President-elect Trump might grant Israel independence has the colonialists worried. The anxiety showed up in the Reuters report on the 2017 Paris Peace Conference, quoting a French diplomat: The source said that with uncertainty surrounding how the next US administration would handle the issue it was more important than ever to deal with the issue. ‘You can see that it’s even more justified in this context,’ the source said.

As the Yiddish proverb goes, Der Mensch tracht und Gott lacht.” Man makes his plans… and God laughs. That’s a Biblical observation (Ps. 2:2-4), and we will explore its relevance to the West’s Middle East agenda in Part 3.




Hannah WeissTwitter

Hannah Weiss

Hannah Weiss lives in Israel with her husband Hillel, their three children and two grandchildren. Besides writing on issues relevant for followers of Yeshua, she also works as an English writer, editor and translator for Israeli exporters and academics. Hannah is part of a small home fellowship, Restorers of Zion, which serves the Body of Messiah by focusing on neglected or dysfunctional areas of Scriptural teaching





This post is written by a member of the Messianic community in Israel or guest contributor. The opinions and views expressed are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of Kehila News Israel.

The Paris Peace Conference Déjà Vu

Hannah Weiss 

Jan 6, 2017

Share on Facebook

Tweet on Twitter


Council of Four at the WWI Paris peace conference, May 27, 1919 (L – R) British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Italian Premier Vittorio Orlando, French Premier Georges Clemenceau, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

The mess created by Western powers in the Levant was nearly solved by Jews and Arabs in direct talks 98 years ago… but a Paris Peace Conference torpedoed the agreement. This January the saboteurs return for an encore.

Part 1 of 3: The History. How the West repeatedly derailed Middle East peace

On Dec. 22, 2016 Reuters reported that the postponed Paris Middle East Peace Conference will take place on Jan. 15, 2017. This conference has provoked months of controversy, which only intensified as its sponsors attempted to justify its illogical aspects. For one thing, despite the desperate conflicts raging across the region, killing and displacing millions, this conference has only one “peace” goal: getting the century-old Israel-Palestinian stalemate to move another inch toward the Palestinian goal-line.

For another thing, despite allegiance to “the necessity of a two-state solution, the two states in question are not among the 70 countries invited to this conference. They did not attend its preliminary conference last June either. Reuters blamed Israel’s exclusion personally on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who “repeatedly rejected the conference proposal. It failed to relay Netanyahu’s reason, namely that only direct talks could bring peace. That context was hidden in a separate report which carried the blaring headline, Israel says ‘no’ to Middle East peace conference in Paris”. There we also discover (paragraph 12) that the PA says “no” to direct talks unless Israel grants all their demands first. But Reuters showed no interest in why the Palestinians, although heartily “in favor of the conference, were likewise not invited.

Instead, Paris “will invite the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to meet separately at its conclusion,” when President Francois Hollande will privately tell them what the world decided in their absence. If that meeting doesn’t materialize, Times of Israel reported that France will send conference representatives to Jerusalem and Ramallah, to deliver the script written for the two sides.

The absurdity of this Middle East strategy is underscored by comparison with another conference almost a century ago, where a real two-state solution was proposed, concluded… and then systematically sabotaged. Ironically, it carried the same name: the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. That conference was dominated by four nations – France, Britain, Italy and the U.S. – three of which are again calling the shots in its 2017 namesake.

The 1919 gathering had wider ambitions: drafting punitive treaties with the nations defeated in World War I, and restructuring the vanquished Ottoman Empire. But a tangled web of double-dealing was already producing Middle East friction. Two years before (1917), Britain’s Balfour Declaration had publicly promised Palestine to the Jews (including Jordan, which did not yet exist). Still earlier, before the Allies won the war, another British declaration had privately promised Syria, which then included Palestine (and Iraq, which did not yet exist), to Hashemite Emir Faisal Hussein, in return for rebelling against the Ottomans. But overriding both was the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret arrangement between Britain and France that divided these same lands between themselves, arbitrarily drawing borders that would separate Arab clans and force bitter rivals into artificial nations. They splintered the Jewish homeland into a handful of tiny districts, none of them allotted to the Jews.

When the duplicity was leaked, both Arabs and Jews responded with a healthy pushback. Emir Faisal, supported by his British comrade-in-arms T.E. Lawrence, appealed to the Paris Conference to honor the British promise of an independent Arab kingdom in Syria, which he already ruled but was now claimed by France. Meanwhile, World Zionist Organization leader Chaim Weizmann (who eventually became Israel’s first president) also appealed to the conference to honor the Balfour Declaration and grant the Jews the right of return to their ancestral homeland.

Emir Faisal I and Chaim Weizmann (left, wearing Arab headdress as a sign of friendship) in 1918. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)Emir Faisal I and Chaim Weizmann (left, wearing Arab headdress as a sign of friendship) in 1918. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Amazingly, these two leaders arrived not as rivals but as partners. Weizmann and Faisal had pledged Jewish-Arab coexistence the previous year, and they were at the conference to lobby for it. They brought with them an agreement they had already hammered out and signed on January 3, 1919, two weeks before the Paris conference even opened. It was a de facto two-state proposal – an Arab nation in Hejaz (Syria-Iraq-Jordan) and a Jewish nation in Palestine (Israel-Judea-Gaza).

The text is remarkable. It called for “immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale and as quickly as possible.” The Zionists promised to develop both the Jewish and Arab states, anticipated by Faisal to greatly improve living standards for the existing Arab towns. In Article Three the monarch of greater Syria pledged to carry out the Balfour Declaration west of the Jordan River, with the East Bank ruled by his brother Abdullah (who likewise favored the Zionist cause). Article Two illustrated the borders of the Jewish homeland with a map including slightly more than all territory claimed by today’s rightwing Zionists.

King Faisal clearly intended to rebuild the Middle East with the Jews, without Western supervision. He understood from his talks with Weizmann that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was as disastrous for Zionist aspirations as it was for pan-Arab ambitions. In a letter to Felix Frankfurter, head of the American Zionist delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, Faisal distanced himself from both the Western interference and the Arab hostility then emerging in Palestine:

We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race (and) have suffered similar oppression at the hands of powers stronger than themselves…. We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement….

We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home…. People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for co-operation of the Arabs and Zionists, have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stage of our movements. 

Map showing the boundaries of the protectorate of Palestine, as outlined in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, superimposed on modern boundaries. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)Map showing the boundaries of the protectorate of Palestine, as outlined in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, superimposed on modern boundaries. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

This two-state solution, however, depended on Britain and France repealing Sykes-Picot. To his agreement with Weizmann Faisal appended this proviso: If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of 4 January, addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement.”

The French and British answered that visionary proposal with their own ‘peace’ plan, assembled at the hastily convened San Remo Conference (1920).

Only months after the French had recognized Faisal’s popular government, San Remo awarded them the right to dethrone him by military force, cancel Syria’s independence and make it a French mandate. The British then invited Faisal to rule the newly minted British mandate of Iraq, and they granted his wish to install Abdullah Hussein in Transjordan, another British mandate created from eastern Palestine. The San Remo reshuffle also collected the splinters of western Palestine into one British mandate and reaffirmed the Balfour Declaration, rekindling Zionist hopes.

But by 1921 the British betrayed their Palestine mandate by appointing the convicted criminal Haj Amin al-Husseini as Jerusalem’s Mufti, changing the election results to appease his violent supporters. Jewish and Arab communities alike suffered from Amin’s terror incitement, which began in 1920 before his appointment, and only increased afterward. He promoted the same fictitious inflammatory accusations heard from today’s Palestinian leaders to ignite strikes and riots. After becoming targets along with the Jews, the British finally gave up negotiating with him and tried to re-arrest him in 1937. Amin then fled to French-controlled Lebanon, and from there to Syria, from where he broadcasted incitement and ordered assassinations, providing a model for global Islamic terrorism. He was linked to the 1951 murder of Transjordan’s King Abdullah, the only Arab ruler to accept the 1947 UN Partition Plan for a Jewish nation. (King Faisal had already died in 1933, from a suspected poisoning.)

Thus the Arab-Jewish peace plan of 1919 was sabotaged by enlightened Europe. Britain persistently backed arch-terrorist Haj Amin under the assumption that leadership would transform him into a “moderate”; when violence erupted instead, the Jews were blamed and Jewish settlement was throttled. Sound familiar? To complete the sense of Déjà Vu, Haj Amin repaid the British for their earlier support by calling for a global jihad against them.

The Western powers never learned from their Middle East mistakes, which is why they are repeating them. Or… perhaps they did learn something, which is why they are staging a Paris redoux. We will explore the evidence in Part 2.




Hannah Weiss lives in Isrnnah Weissael with her husband Hillel, their three children and two grandchildren. Besides writing on issues relevant for followers of Yeshua, she also works as an English writer, editor and translator for Israeli exporters and academics. Hannah is part of a small home fellowship, Restorers of Zion, which serves the Body of Messiah by focusing on neglected or dysfunctional areas






opinions and views expressed are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of Kehila News Israel.

Why I am not worried about the UN’s hatred of Israel

Aaron Hecht 

Jan 9, 2017

Sre on Facebook

Tweet on Twitter


United Nations General Assembly hall in New York City. (Photo: Patrick Gruban/Wikimedia Commons)

My dear Auntie M (full name withheld because she values her privacy) lives in New Jersey. My parents raised me in a different state and M never came to visit us so I had never met her when, all of a sudden, I got an email in the spring of 2005 saying she was going to be in Jerusalem visiting friends who used to live in her old neighborhood but who had retired here and she naturally wanted to meet me too.

The day came and we were soon sitting at a restaurant trying to jam a lifetime worth of conversations into the few hours we were to have together. M is as Ultra-Orthodox as it’s possible to be, but she had taught at a school in NYC that had a student body which was almost entirely Puerto Rican and Catholic, so she thought she knew what Christianity was all about.

The subject was impossible to avoid, so she finally asked me (far too casually) where I “attend Mass” to which I replied with a chuckle “Nowhere. I’m not Catholic.”

She looked at me with an expression of utter bafflement.

She had a Masters Degree in Secondary Education and had spent her entire life in one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world, but somehow she’d managed to never discover the fact that not all Christians follow the Pope.

So I explained to her all about the difference between Catholics and Protestants (leaving aside the Eastern Orthodox denominations because it would only add unnecessary confusion) and at some point she asked me “well, what do you think about Israel? Do you believe it belongs to the Jews”?

My answer to her question, which came out of my mouth and surprised me almost as much as it surprised her, went something like this (although I don’t remember precisely what I said.)

I said “M, I studied civics and political science in college. I know how a country is supposed to work, and what will make a country fail. Israel breaks all the rules. So, my semi-professional opinion, as a student of civic government and political science, is that every single day this country continues to exist is a miracle, and miracles don’t happen unless God wants them to happen. So yes, I believe Israel belongs to the Jews and I believe God has His hand on this country and I also believe He has plans for this country and the Jewish people, otherwise the people and the country would have both disappeared a long time ago.”

I would add for the sake of any skeptics reading this that if there is no God, miracles don’t happen at all.

Every single day that we’re here in a country called “Israel” is testament to the existence of a God who is actively interested and involved in the affairs of the human race.

And so, with that in mind, I submit to anyone reading this that the UN and the Obama Administration in the US and anyone else can say what they want. Despite what they desperately want to believe, they’re not the ones directing this movie.

We know how the movie ends and we’ve been told what part we’re supposed to play in it, so although we must react to the raging against this country at the UN, etc. reacting in fear, anger or despair is un-Biblical and also a waste of time. It’s much better to react by praying in confidence of the outcome and, as difficult as it might be sometimes, praying for God to have mercy on those who are railing against His plans for this country. Pray that God would have mercy on them and open their eyes to their need to repent and change course.

Another takeaway from this story is that many Jewish people are like my Aunt and don’t know much about Christianity and just assume that the Pope is the leader of all Christians everywhere.

Over the years I’ve lived in Jerusalem I’ve been asked many times by my Jewish friends about this or that thing the Pope did or said. At first I was annoyed and frustrated by these questions but I’ve come to see them as opportunities to share the Gospel, because if people ask a question like that it’s often only the first of many questions they have. It’s important to be prepared, “in season and out” to take advantage of the opportunities these kinds of questions have to share our testimony.




Aaron Hecht

Aaron is a member of Jerusalem Assembly, House of Redemption.





4opinions and views expressed are solely those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of Kehila News Israel.

Can the United Nations reform?

Joni Koski 

Jan 3, 2017

Share on Facebook

Tweet on Twitter

United Nations General Assembly hall in New York City. (Photo: Patrick Gruban/Wikimedia Commons)

Following the now infamous Dec. 23 resolution at the United Nations Security Council calling Israel’s settlement building a “flagrant violation” of international law, President-elect Donald Trump commended the UN but condemned it as  “a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time.”

Trump promised “things will be different after Jan. 20” when he takes office. He is likely to be even more strident if the UN votes to divide Israel before President Barack Obama’s veto at the UN expires with his presidency on Jan. 20.

The UN has indeed been accused of anti-Israel sentiment and actions:

  1. In 2016, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions against the democratic State of Israel, population 8 million, and a mere four resolutions concerning the rest of the world, a population of 7.5 billion, including 50 dictatorships.

  2. The UN has provided offices for the terrorist organization the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

  3. The UN Human Rights Council maintains scrutiny of Israel as the only standing item on its agenda.

  4. The UN provides a platform for blatantly anti-Semitic hate speech, such as that of former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

  5. UNRWA, the UN’s Palestinian Refugee Agency, has been accused of perpetuating a “refugee hand-out culture” and “fostering terror”. It was established to temporarily support refugees in 1949, yet today supports 5 million recipients, employing some 32,000 Palestinian staffers in Gaza and Washington.

  6. UNESCO in 2016 promoted the lie that there is no Jewish (or Christian) tie to Jerusalem.

  7. The UN has been accused of allowing corrupt or non-democratic members, such as the 57 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to dominate decision making.

  8. The UN campaigns vigorously against corruption, yet many of its member states are considered corrupt. One highly respected international measure of corruption is run by respected think tank Transparency International – the Corruption Perceptions Index. Of the 15 UN Security Council members that recently voted against Israel, permanent members China and Russia in 2015 ranked no. 84 and 121 respectively out of 168 states. Non-permanent members Malaysia came 54, Senegal 64, Egypt 90, Ukraine 135, Venezuela 160 and Angola 163 – the low rankings call into question the integrity of these nation’s voting agenda and right to impact other nations.

  9. The United Nations has been accused of being passive in the face of most of the world’s 124 clear-cut territorial disputes, including China’s annexation of Tibet and harassment of Taiwan, yet disproportionately spends its resources arguing about Israel’s land.

  10. Outgoing UN Chief Ban Ki-moon has blamed Israel as the underlying cause for the actions of terrorists.

  11. Ban Ki-moon has admitted that Israel is not the primary cause of wars in the Middle East, yet under his leadership Israel has been targeted by the UN, rather than the true perpetrators of wars.

  12. Earlier this month Ban Ki-moon openly admitted anti-Israel bias in the very organization under his watch.

General criticism of the UN includes failure to issue clear spending reports to donor nations, failure to resolve corruption in response to Ban Ki-moon’s 2007 system-wide audit, accusations of corruption even within the UN internal audit office – the Office of Internal Oversight Services and a lack of clear oversight and leadership from leading member states – notably the US in recent years.

So what, if any, are realistic options for reform at the UN?

Trump, for one, can hold financial sway over the UN. The $8 billion the US contributes annually is 22 percent of the UN budget. Hence creatively targeted funding reductions would hurt, while financial incentives to reform might help. However, there is plenty of scope for the bloated UN to slim down without its core functions being affected. Countries like Russia and Iran have demonstrated that evil ends can be pursued even in the face of tough economic sanctions.

A second approach might be reform of the ‘one country one vote’ system. Unfortunately the existing system tends towards the lowest common denominator. The corrupt are in the majority and are therefore unlikely to vote themselves out of influence or office.

Furthermore, countries that do not have bad rankings on global indices of corruption can be manifestly corrupt in their anti-Semitism. For example, Israel PM has recently slammed the USA’s abstention, and the UK, France, Japan and Spain’s UN vote against Israel.

Another strategy to bring about reform is protest. Netanyahu has used this approach, ordering the Israel Foreign Ministry to temporarily limit working ties with the embassies of the 12 Security Council members with whom Israel has diplomatic relations, who supported Resolution 2334. Critics have argued that the approach is inflammatory, isolating and self-defeating. Israel’s protest alone will have little weight other than registering displeasure. However, when combined with the weight of the USA under Donald Trump and on-going reasoned argument for a negotiated peace process some progress might be made, although probably not enough to significantly reform the UN.

Recent events concerning football’s governing body FIFA might provide a model of how a highly corrupt international body can be reformed, with the FBI arresting numerous officials and a new president installed in February 2016. The problem with applying this model to the UN is that of immunity, “The United Nations, its property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process.” Similarly representatives of member states and high-level officials enjoy absolute immunity and are exempt from arrest, detention and legal process of any kind.

Time will tell whether incoming UN leader António Guterres will exercise the Secretary-General’s “right and duty” to waive immunity if “in his opinion, the immunity would impede the course of justice.” Exploring the possibility of a partnership between the Secretary-General and the FBI, probing corruption, waiving immunity exemption and making arrests of corrupt individuals, might lead to a significant degree of reform.

Furthermore, more rigorous enforcement of existing UN rules would surely result in the expulsion of a good number of member states. States are required to be ‘peace loving’ and many have accused Russia in recent days of being quite the opposite.

Can Trump help restore good governance to this key organization? If not, the UN will ultimately expel Israel making it even more of a pariah nation, thrown to the wolves by a global modern day Pontius Pilate, washing his hands of all responsibility.

If Trump can instigate reform, the world will experience a degree of grace in blessing the one nation whose land is uniquely covenanted to its people, the Jewish people, by Almighty God himself.

Ultimately God will judge the nations for dividing Israel, just as the prophet Joel expresses:

“In those days and at that time,
when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem,
I will gather all nations
and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat.
There I will put them on trial
for what they did to my inheritance, my people Israel,
because they scattered my people among the nations
and divided up my land.”
Joel 3:1-2





Joni is a reporter based in northern Israel




The West must understand that Christians in Jerusalem will disappear if East Jerusalem, along with its holy sites, is passed on to Arab control.

Shadi Khalloul 

Jan 3, 2017

Share on Facebook

Tweet on Twitter

Members of the UN Security Council vote on a resolution to rid Syria of chemical weapons in 2013. (UN Photo/Mark Garten)

During the Islamic occupation of Israel that began during the seventh century, Christians and Jews were forced to convert to Islam through horrific oppression that included colonization and the resettlement of tribes from the Arab Peninsula in Jerusalem and the rest of the Middle East. These Christians and Jews were indigenous to the holy land of Judea and Samaria, an area that some refer to as the West Bank.

The Islamic occupiers ruled Christians and Jews through strict Sharia laws that branded Christians by requiring them to wear conspicuous, unique items of clothing. The Christians could not build new churches, ring church bells or publicly celebrate special holidays. This treatment was eerily like the marking of Jews in Nazi Germany with yellow badges, or of the anti-Semitic Nuremberg laws of 1935, which contained many of the racial theories prevalent in Nazi ideology. Those pieces of legislation excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having relations with persons of “German or related blood.”

The “Pact Of Umar” – also known as the Treaty of Umar or the Laws of Umar – is an apocryphal treaty between the Muslims and the Christians of Syria, Mesopotamia or Jerusalem. It later gained a canonical status in Islamic jurisprudence. This document (which was reportedly signed by the second caliph, Umar I [634-44], after he occupied Jerusalem) is the source of the restrictive regulations embedded in Sharia and Islamic law that are put on non-Muslims. The spirit of these laws still exists; they continue to be followed in all Islamic and Arab countries and in all current and future state constitutions of the Palestinian Authority. The Islamic State, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and any terror organization that delegitimizes non-Muslims’ right to exist independently in the region also follow the Pact of Umar. Some of those laws are the most racist in human history and have led to genocide, annihilation and suffering for Eastern Christians and Arameans – even today, as evidenced by recent events in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and by the treatment of the Jewish indigenous population inhabiting the Fertile Crescent and Israel.

The “Jerusalem Pact of Umar,” which was created after Islamic forces conquered Jerusalem in 638 A.D., contains similar racist apartheid laws prohibiting Jews to live or exist within the city of Jerusalem. Likewise, the “Damascus Pact of Umar,” written around the same time period, treated Christians as second-class citizens in comparison to their Muslim counterparts.

Under the Pact of Umar,

1. Christians were forbidden to build new places of worship or rebuild churches or monasteries that had been destroyed during the Islamic conquest.

2. Churches were required to shelter any Muslim, day or night, without compensation, and could not hang crosses. They had to widen their doorways so that any Muslim trespassers could walk through at any time, reducing the church’s sanctity.

3. Christians could not attempt to persuade their family members against submitting to Islam.

4. Christians could not dress same as Muslims. They were required to dress in unique clothing that included a special belt. They were also required to cut their hair a certain way to differentiate them from Muslims.

5. Palm Sunday celebrations were forbidden in public.

6. The houses of non-Muslims were required to be short so that every time the owners entered or exited, they would have to bend in a way that would remind them of their low status in the world.

The pact also included many other racist conditions that still exist today in most Arab states. These laws forced Christians and Jews to submit to Islam, and in the process, those individuals lost valuable knowledge of their shared roots and lineage.

Since the end of Second War World and the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the world has witnessed the attempted organization of the Jewish Zionist movement and the Christian Maronite Lebanese movement. The ultimate goal is the creation of a haven for persecuted people in their ancestral homelands – the land of Israel and Mount Lebanon. Not only have both groups tried to establish their own states, but their common pasts as persecuted minorities under Islamic rule have brought them closer together. The Jews succeeded in creating a state, and have increased in numbers. Seven million Jews now live in their historical homeland. But the Christian Maronites – who were once the majority of the country of Lebanon – now make up only one-third of the nation’s population.

In 1948, the United Nations recommended partitioning the land of Israel, allowing two states for Jews and Arabs. The Arabs rejected the proposed partition and started the First Arab-Israeli War. Jordanian forces occupied Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), killing many Jews who lived in Hebron, Gush Etzion and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. The Jordanians subsequently illegally occupied those areas until the Six-Day War of 1967. Arabs in this area of the West Bank were satisfied with the Arab Jordanians’ control, and did not ask for Palestinian freedom or sovereignty. But that changed after the 1967 war.

Many Galilean Christians – who some call Palestinians – are in fact Aramean Christians who have Levantine roots and do not identify themselves as either Palestinians or Arabs. This Arab (Islamic)–Jewish conflict is similar to the Arab (Islamic)–Christian and Maronite conflict in Lebanon. Only after they lost the 1967 war did the Arabs of Judea and Samaria begin to call themselves Palestinians, in order to justify the creation of a 23rd Arab state similar to the already established non-democratic Arab states like Syria and Iraq. But is this truly needed? Would humanity and spreading democratic values actually benefit from such a step?

It is true that there is an Arab population currently living on historical Jewish land, but it can’t be denied that Arabs settled this land – including Jerusalem – only after they had oppressed the Jews and Christians who had already been living there.

A Jerusalem existing under Jewish control of the State of Israel could prosper and endure as a home for all religions and a haven for all nations. Unfortunately, Christians in Jerusalem will disappear if East Jerusalem, along with its holy sites, is passed on to Arab control. Those Christians will go the way of the persecuted and disappearing believers of Bethlehem, Ramallah and Gaza. It is important to understand that this would hinder Christians’ abilities to pilgrimage freely. The original purpose of the crusaders’ holy war (1095–1099), which occurred 400 years after Islamic occupation of Jerusalem (638 A.D), was to release Jerusalem and save its Christian western pilgrimage rights and population.

We Christian Israelis are desperate to prevent history from repeating itself, and we implore the international community – including the United States – to learn from history before it is too late. We urge that international community to stand with Israel and support our basic rights as Israeli Christians and Jews to preserve and keep our holy sites in East Jerusalem under the Jewish democratic State of Israel.

Christians living in Israel enjoy the same democratic human laws as all other non-Jewish citizens; their community is consistently increasing as they experience the freedom of the Jewish State. Before providing any assistance to the Palestinian Authority or rushing to create another Arab state on historical Jewish land, the West should put pressure on Arab leaders to assure democratic human rights, security, equality and freedom for the Christian community and the Jews who might live under their control.

Democratic Jewish Israel will prevail. Israel is not the problem; Israel is the solution, and is the key for stability. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 is bad for Christians, Muslims and Jews, and should be rejected. The Israeli Christian Aramaic population calls on the West to stand with justice and truth, and to support Israel.

This article originally appeared on Philos Project, January 2, 2017, and reposted with permission.





Shadi Khalloul

Shadi Khalloul

Shadi Khalloul, The Philos Project fellow and chairman of the Aramaic Christian Association in Israel, is also a parliamentary candidate in Israel.


All are welcome to post comments below. Please view our Comments Policy. If are you interested in writing for KNI, you may submit articles to or Apply to be a Writer.





Jan 1, 2017



US Representative to the UN, Samantha Power (Photo: screenshot YouTube)

“One of the biggest American rebukes of its longstanding ally in recent memory,” and “a striking rupture with past practice,” is how The Associated Press characterized the Obama administration’s failure, on Dec. 23, to veto a United Nations security council resolution condemning Israeli construction in east Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

The abstention opposed the will of 88 out of 100 US senators who signed a letter addressed to President Barack Obama in September demanding that he continue to ensure the automatic American veto against any unilateral, anti-Israel actions by the United Nations Security Council.

Where does the United States’ abrupt abandonment—Donald Trump’s election notwithstanding—leave modern Israel, a nation which has since its inception seemed to have placed its faith and trust in America above all others, including the God of Israel?

The U.S., though credited by many with having orchestrated passage of the UN condemnation, did not act alone. The original draft of Security Council Resolution 2334 was prepared by Egypt, which withdrew the nomination after what its ambassador described as “intense pressure.”

On Dec. 23, the resolution was proposed again by Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela. These four, with China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, Angola, Egypt, Japan, Spain, Ukraine and Uruguay, voted in favor of condemning Israel. With the U.S. failing to use its veto power, the resolution passed 14-0.

Belgium, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Turkey—government non-members of the security council—voiced approval of the condemnation after it passed.

Despite the absurdity of the resolution’s claims, much of the world has endorsed it.

“It’s as if the [United Nations] passed a resolution declaring Mecca and Medina to be sovereign Jewish or Christian territory,” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer told Fox News regarding the Obama administration’s claim that the White House played no active role in passing the resolution. “It’s absurd. It’s an insult to the intelligence of the world and is supremely damaging to the Israeli claim to its own holy places…The claim that the resolution just showed up and they decided to abstain is ridiculous. This was a U.S. operation all the way.”

Among non-state parties, Amnesty International welcomed the vote and added, “[Israel’s construction activity] constitute[s] a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and, according to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, constitute[s] a war crime.”

The self-described pro-Israel organization, J Street, said, “…the resolution is consistent with long-standing bipartisan American policy…” in support of the Obama administration’s veto decision.

President Obama’s full role in this historic action is not known, and may never be, but Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., Ron Dermer, told CNN that, “Israel has evidence that…Obama’s administration is behind Friday’s Security Council resolution…We will present this evidence to the new administration through the appropriate channels. If they want to share it with the American people they are welcome to do it.”

Dermer described the U.S. abstention and the drama surrounding it as “a sad day and a shameful chapter in U.S.-Israeli relations.”

“Jerusalem, meanwhile, continued to take measures to express its displeasure with the 14 countries that supported the resolution,” per a Jerusalem Post story. Israel’s envoy to Angola, Oren Rozenblat, delivered “a letter to the Foreign Ministry in Angola announcing that Jerusalem was terminating Israel’s international development programs with the country…

“The steps against Angola were the latest in a string that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu initiated in response to the resolution, including recalling Israel’s ambassadors to Senegal and New Zealand; summoning in for protest the ambassadors and representatives of all the UN Security Council states; canceling the scheduled visit on Wednesday of the Ukrainian prime minister; and calling on his ministers to curtail visits to the 14 Security Council states that voted for the measure.”

Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Avi Dichter repeated Israel’s claims that the U.S. orchestrated the vote.

“A delegation from the Palestinian Authority met with the [U.S.] secretary of state 10 days before the resolution, including Saeb Erekat, [PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s] personal adviser and the head of their security apparatus,” Dichter told Israel Radio. “In addition, the American ambassador to the UN met with the Palestinian ambassador.

“Though the Egyptians pulled their resolution, the US…found other countries to do the job,” Dichter added.

Netanyahu has been both praised and criticized for his response to the UN action and the Obama administration’s role in bringing it about, with those who have weighed in expressing both hope and concern for the future.

In a 2007 Associated Press article, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed hope for international diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions without the need for military action and also expressed his faith in man’s ability to solve Israel’s problems.

“I believe the international efforts will achieve the goals,” Olmert said. “There is no need to get caught up in any apocalyptic prophecies that have no basis in reality.”

With benefit of hindsight, it seems Olmert may have unwisely impugned the Hebrew prophets, particularly Zechariah.

“Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.”
Zechariah 12:8-9





Cliff Keller

Cliff Keller lives in Jerusalem, Israel with his wife, Marcia after making Aliyah in the spring of 2011 from the United States. He has recently published a three-novel series, historical biblical fiction the theme of which is The Modern Restoration of Israel, based on the life and times of the prophets Elijah, Hosea and Daniel. ( ) Cliff also blogs at and has a writing website at .





Netanyahu: arabere foretok "etnisk rensing" av jøder i Samaria og Judea
The Jerusalem Post, oversatt av Thor Evje 2016.12.31

Netanyahu påpekte at i 1929 massakrerte araberne jødene i Hebron; i 1948, ble jødene utvist og drept i Gush Etzion, Kalya (nær Dødehavet) og i Atarot, nord for Jerusalem

Begravelsen av et jødisk offer etter Hebronmassakren i 1929

Det var ikke Israel, men araberne som var ansvarlige for "å endre den demografiske sammensetningen" i Samaria og Judea ved å rense området for jøder i 1948, sa statsminister Benjamin Netanyahu tirsdag 27. desember. "Anti-Israelresolusjonen som nettopp ble vedtatt i FN`s sikkerhetsråd, er basert på argumentet om at Israel "endrer den demografiske sammensetningen "i Judea og Samaria," skrev Netanyahu på sin Facebookside. "FN har konsekvent ignorert det faktum at jøder ble jaget bort i 1948, noe som er grunnen til at det ikke var noen jøder i dette området før etter 1967."

Resolusjonen ble støttet av 14 nasjoner i Sikkerhetsrådet. USA avsto fra å stemme, men lot den passere ved ikke å bruke sin vetorett. Den fordømte "alle tiltak som tar sikte på å endre den demografiske sammensetningen, karakter og status for Det palestinske området som ble okkupert i 1967, inkludert Øst-Jerusalem, herunder blant annet bygging og utvidelse av bosetninger, overføring av israelske bosettere, konfiskering av land, rivning av boliger og fordriving av palestinske sivile i strid med internasjonal humanitær rett og relevante resolusjoner."

Netanyahu påpekte at i 1929, var det araberne som massakrerte jødene i Hebron, og i 1948 ble jødene utvist og drept i Gush Etzion, Kalya (nær Dødehavet) og Atarot, nord for Jerusalem.

"Den arabiske Legion drev også bort jødene som bodde i det jødiske kvarteret i Gamlebyen i Jerusalem, og sprengte deretter alle synagogene,» skrev han. "Ikke en eneste jøde ble igjen i noen av de territorier som ble erobret av invaderende arabere i 1948. Hva var FN`s reaksjon? Stillhet."

Netanyahu pekte på at Folkeforbundet i 1922 ratifiserte Balfourerklæringen som "tildelte nasjonale rettigheter til det jødiske folk – og bare det jødiske folk – i Israels land," og sa at dette senere ble vedtatt av FN og "er et bindende dokument i henhold til internasjonal lov som definerer den internasjonale juridiske statusen til landet Israel."

FN har ingen juridisk begrunnelse for vedtaket på fredag, skrev han, "bare uvitenhet og ondskap."

I mellomtiden har Jerusalem uttrykt sin misnøye til de 14 landene som støttet resolusjonen, gjennom Israels utsending til Angola, Oren Rozenblat. Han leverte et brev til utenriksdepartementet i Angola og sa at Jerusalem avslutter Israels internasjonale utviklingsprogram i landet. Den umiddelbare effekten er liten siden det for tiden bare er en angolansk student som deltar i et program i Israel, men tjenestemenn i UD sa at en rekke prosjekter i fremtiden nå er frosset. Det ble ikke sagt når denne politikken mot Angola vil tre i kraft. Men ifølge talsmannen, var Israel spesielt skuffet over Angolas stemme, siden landet tidligere hadde informert Israel om at det ville avstå.

Tiltaket mot Angola er det siste i en rekke som Netanyahu satte i gang som følge av vedtaket, herunder mot Israels ambassadører i Senegal og New Zealand. Israel har levert protest til alle ambassadører og representanter i FN`s sikkerhetsråds stater; avlyst det planlagte besøket på onsdag fra den ukrainske statsministeren; og bedt sine statsråder om å stanse besøk til de 14 statene i sikkerhetsrådet som stemte for resolusjonen.

Selv om Netanyahu ikke fortsatte med sin skarpe kritikk av USA på tirsdag, gjentok formannen i Knessets utenriks- og forsvarskomitéen, Avi Dichter (Likud), Israels påstander om at USA arrangerte avstemningen.

"En delegasjon fra de palestinske selvstyremyndighetene inkludert Saeb Erekat, som er PA-president Mahmoud Abbas personlig rådgiver, og leder av sitt sikkerhetsapparat, møtte USA`s statssekretær 10 dager før avstemmingen," fortalte Dichter Israel Radio. "I tillegg møtte den amerikanske FN-ambassadøren den palestinske ambassadøren."

Selv om egypterne trakk tilbake sitt vedtak, forble ikke USA alene, og fikk andre land til å gjøre jobben, la han til, og viser til at Kairo i siste øyeblikk besluttet å trekke tilbake vedtaket torsdag etter tydelig press fra den amerikanske president Donald Trump. Senegal, New Zealand, Malaysia og Venezuela tørket deretter støv av forslaget, og brakte det til avstemming allerede neste dag.

Israels ambassadør i USA, Ron Dermer, fortalte CNN mandag at Israel har klare bevis for at USA sto bak denne endringen, og at disse bevisene vil bli presentert for president Donald Trump når han inntar kontoret 20. januar.

Men Dov Weisglass, som var tidligere statsminister Ariel Sharons stabssjef, uttrykte tvil om påstandene om at USA i hemmelighet sto bak resolusjonen.

"I mine øyne, det er uhøflig når en ambassadør tør å stikke nesen inn i den amerikanske beslutningsapparat," sa Weisglass til Dermers påstand. "Jeg vil gjerne se hva dette beviset er," sa han i et intervju med Army Radio. "Denne resolusjonen var ikke uventet i det hele tatt, det er den tradisjonelle holdningen til administrasjonen. Jeg tror ikke at administrasjonen fikk i gang resolusjonen, "sa Weisglass.

"Å vente at administrasjonen ville nedlegge veto mot en resolusjon med en tekst som er i tråd med USAs holdning i løpet av de siste 50 årene – det er grense for hvor mye de kan gjøre i tjeneste for Israel for enhver pris, og under alle omstendigheter, inkludert å bruke vetorett i en sak som tydelig uttrykker deres egen posisjon, " la han til.

Weisglass sa at Netanyahus tiltak mot de landene som stemte for resolusjonen, er «latterlige».

"Forsøk på å skape harmoni mellom oss og resten av verden og å straffe de 14 landene som stemte mot oss, gjør faktisk den palestinske drømmen om å isolere Israel internasjonalt til virkelighet," sa han.

Innkallingen av ambassadørene for å irettesette dem, var direkte "uhøflig" fra Netanyahus side, hevdet han. "Å innkalle utenlandske ambassadører på en søndag, spesielt på julaften, er rett og slett elementær mangel på oppførsel. Jeg tror disse irettesettelsene får folk til å le i de utenlandske ambassader som er involvert. Selv ikke Senegal er redde."

Han sa at disse tiltak var ment å styrke Netanyahus egen politiske basis på hjemmebane.