Islam – Page 2

September 17, 2015 By Olivier Melnick 1 Comment

Refugees, Migrants and Terrorists: Europe is out of Control!

At the very time when global borders should be tightly monitored because of the ISIS invasion, Europe is faced with a tsunami of migrants. I choose to call them migrants because they are far from all being “refugees.” The guidelines of acceptance vary from one European country to the next. It goes from Germany having pledged to receive in excess of 800,000 refugees to Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Hungary building fences and walls to prevent anyone from entering illegally. The one thing that all these European countries have in common is a lack of preparedness for such a tidal wave of people.
To be sure, there has always been a somewhat steady flow of immigrants to Europe. They have always been attracted by better lives and safer environments and even in some cases, financial independence.
France opened its doors to Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian migrants in the 1950s. They came as guest workers and received the jobs that native Frenchmen wouldn’t dare touch such as garbage collectors, street sweepers and construction workers. Today, their kids and grandkids are French citizens constituting a hard to ignore voting power as seen during the last French presidential elections.

Too many, too fast:
It would almost appear that the refugee crisis happened overnight. It seems like the on-going Syrian civil war is forcing people out. Nobody can argue with one’s decision to leave their native land to escape persecution, oppression and even death. So the question isn’t about the validity of the Syrian refugee flight. One of the concerns is the sheer number of migrants. For 20 years now, the “New Europe” has allowed people to move freely between its borders, acting as if it had virtually erased them all. But the recent flow of migrants has many European countries reconsider and re-close their borders. Germany still believes that they can welcome at least another 800,000 migrants. Chancellor Merkel is under the assumption that her refugee intake will help balance out the dangerously low native birthrate. I am not convinced that we are comparing apples to apple here! There isn’t one country in Europe that has the infrastructure to assimilate such a flow of people properly. We have already seen issues in the area of space needed, health and safety. Curiously enough, most Gulf States like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait that speak a similar language, have similarity in culture and religion have taken none. NONE! They do have the space and are some of the richest countries in the world and they have taken none, WHY?

Not all Syrians are Syrians:
And that is all before we even entertain the concept of some of the migrants being impostors. When I speak of impostors, I actually mean two different kinds. First we have those who claim to be Syrians but are not. We could call them the “desperate impostors”. Technically, only legal immigrants can remain in a host country. Others, without the proper application of identification papers will be sent back. Of course, this doesn’t apply to war or political refugees. Syrians qualify as refugees of war and as such have a much greater rate of acceptance (98%). Since the publication of the 1951 Refugee Convention by the UNHCR, a refugee is a person who from “fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” Going by that definition, Syrians qualify as refugees, along with other countries being plagued by civil unrest. In reality, many people are flooding the European borders with little or no proof of Syrian citizenship.

A Potentially Dangerous mix:
Then we have those who choose to pose as Syrians to be granted asylum and benefits but know all along that they enter a country with a different agenda. These are dangerous individuals that we could call the “radical impostors.” They belong to Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist organizations. Their immigration isn’t a result from persecution and/or oppression but rather based on their desire to infiltrate, recruit, train and deploy more terrorists. The last 18 months have shown us the damage inflicted by ISIS infiltration and recruitment. The current wave of migration will only exacerbate the whole problem. It is virtually impossible to detect a Syrian from a non-Syrian refugee, so how do various European governments expect to detect ISIS impostors? Good luck with that!

An Unlikely Assimilation:
Being migrants in search of a better life or refugees seeking asylum, the vast majority of these people have Islam in common. In and of itself, this shouldn’t be a concern since the very definition of who qualifies as a refugee includes freedom of religion. Yet it should now be very obvious to the West that Muslims do not integrate and assimilate very well if at all. This isn’t to say that all the incoming Muslims are a menace to Europe, but there is a danger to the cultural and religious divide that is being created by their insertion into the respective countries. And frankly, ISIS’ recruits have almost exclusively been from Islam sympathizers of all sorts. Yet there is also another possibility that most westerners are unaware of and that is part of Islam’s ideology. It is some sort of “stealth jihad” akin to the changing demographics due to European Muslim high birthrates of the last 50 years. It is known as the Islamic doctrine of migration or hijrah.

The Muslim Migration Known as Hijrah :
Islam’s expert Robert Spencer writes: “To emigrate in the cause of Allah – that is, to move to a new land in order to bring Islam there, is considered in Islam to be a highly meritorious act,” . He then quotes Islam’s holy book: “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance, And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful” (Quran 4:100).
While the original concept of hijrah is based on Mohammed’s flight from Mecca to Medina, it can also be applied to modern Muslim migrations. It is usually referring to leaving a country were Muslim are persecuted for one where they are welcome and can join other Muslims. But it can also refer to their moving to a non-Muslim country considered to be a “lesser evil.” This goes against every fiber of postmodernism, multiculturalism and tolerance, yet it is happening in front of our very eyes. Again, this doesn’t mean that every Muslim is to be treated as a potential terrorist, although I have no doubt that many will end up being manipulated into the radical Islamist agenda, either against their will or even unbeknownst to them.

Europe might not yet be on the edge of extinction but in light of the current refugee crisis, it is running the risk of reaching that point of no return sooner than expected. Many European countries already have a severe “native birthrate drought” and are seeing a demographic Muslim takeover. I am all in favor of helping refugees, but now is not the time to uncontrollably open borders to unknown Muslim migrants. This blurred combination of stealth jihad, demographic jihad and radical apocalyptic jihad is a lethal cocktail that Europe doesn’t seem to be able to control!

July 16, 2015 By Olivier Melnick 4 Comments

Pushing Israel Under the Bus Won’t be Easy!

After years of sanctions and failed attempts at curbing Iran’s appetite for a nuclear weapon, we now have a deal. What a relief to know that Iran will soon be added to the list of international powers, seeking to “better the world and promote peace.”

It is both ironic and frightening to witness the caving in of America and other world powers, days after Iranians marched the streets shouting “Death to America“ and “Death to Israel.“ Iran’s al-Qud’s day last week was once again the proof that we are dealing with a fierce enemy of democracy and progress. So, since all actions have consequences, we should lift all sanctions on Iran and pour up to $200 billion into their economy, right?

Could the US have at least demanded that incarcerated Pastor Saeed (along with three other Americans) be freed as part of the deal? Considering that President Obama said that “securing his freedom was a top priority”, you would hope so. What an opportunity we have missed.

President Obama spoke from the White House delivering a clear and believable message–if only to himself, which seems to be what really matters. He said:” A comprehensive long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. This deals demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure… Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region.” Wow!

Much of the world is scratching its head and asking the question “Why?” when in reality we are way passed the “why” on this matter. We are now into the “Now What?” We can continue to ponder whether President Obama acted out of ignorance, arrogance or even defiance. Unfortunately, identifying the motives this late in the game might be fruitful if you are writing a history book but will be pointless in the midst of what we should consider a global existential crisis. It goes along the lines of trying to determine if President Obama is a closet Muslim or not. It no longer matters since he has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is at the very least a sympathizer if not an open supporter of some of the worst terrorist organizations on the planet, now including Iran.

It could be easily argued that the Iran deal is akin to pushing Israel under the bus, but we must not forget that on the road to Islamic hegemony, America is next to be trampled down. If indeed this Iran deal is approved by Congress, it will not stop the clock on Iranian nukes but reset the timer on a shorter unchallenged run.

Incidentally, Congress is now faced with one of the most important decision in the history of our nation. Not so amazingly anymore but defiantly, our president has already threatened to use his veto if Congress gets in the way of this “historic” deal. Everything ends-up being historic at some point. The falling of the Berlin Wall was historic, and so were the rise of Hitler and his abuse of power. If Congress really wants to make history in a positive way, they will not let our current president intimidate them and they will get the two-thirds bi-partisan majority to stop the treaty from going into action.

In the meantime and once again, Israel finds itself in a very precarious situation. Prime Minister Netanyahu was of course quick to respond and laid out the facts that represent a real danger for Israel AND the world. In agreement with him, I see several great concerns ahead:

• A bold regime of Islamic thugs has just be made bolder by a lame, ex-leader of the free world.

• Iran’s economic sanctions will be lifted, allowing the country to become a desirable prospect in the business world. In other words, a lot of people are about to make a lot of money in this deal, starting with Iran. So, really, what’s the loss of a few lives in the grand scale of the global market? (This is sick but true in many cases.)

• Billions are going to be released back into the Iranian coffers as a sign of good will and to help them rebuild their future; a future including an Islamic Caliphate with no Israel and no America. Not only that, but even if a small fraction of those funds are funneled to finance Hamas, Hizbollah and other terrorist organizations, it will increase the already existing danger to a whole new level. Hamas and Hizbollah will greatly benefit from Iranian funds…and we should get excited about this deal because…?

• Iran’s would have ten years before they can resume all nuclear operations. What is it exactly that they promised to stop doing under this deal? NOTHING. And if they promised or agreed to anything, we know that they cannot be trusted under their current regime.

• Israel will be forced to defend itself meaning that if they are alone in going after Iran’s nuclear facilities, they will go alone. But what the rest of the world needs to understand is that once Israel makes a preemptive move, Iran’s response will be global and not local to the region. It could turn out that Israel will lead a coalition of various countries in a campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities. America will certainly not lead, at least not under this administration.

• Israel and many Arab countries are extremely concerned about the outcome of this deal. Like Netanyahu mentioned in an interview (2:30):” it doesn’t happen very often in history but when Arabs and Israelis agree, it is worth paying attention.”

It is possible that several countries are interested in stopping Iran’s nuclear proliferation, but they have so much at stake that they will not make a move. Israel has become the “older brother” in the region, and when the world gets bullied, the older brother comes to the rescue. It certainly looks like the United States and other powers that agreed to the Iran deal are trying to push Israel under the bus. But Israel is determined to survive and as time might soon tell, this is to the world’s benefit.

For the time being, it is indeed a win/win situation, but only for Iran. President Obama self-centered obsession for a legacy has reached a new high. If the deal goes unchallenged, it will become a legacy of huge negative proportions. That is of course if we are here long enough to write the history books retelling the events.

Now would be a good time to remind President Obama and the other nations involved that when you throw Israel under the bus, you throw the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as well. This doesn’t end well for Israel’s enemies as Zechariah reminds us:

And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem
(Zechariah 12:9)

June 24, 2015 By Olivier Melnick 1 Comment

Western Civilization’s Assisted Suicide!

I have never been a supporter of assisted suicide. Many people consider it to be a murderous act, and I tend to agree; yet there is a moral chasm between murder and assisted suicide. The first is a premeditated act by the perpetrator(s), while the second is a premeditated act by the victim(s). They both lead to annihilation and sadly remind me of what is taking place in our contemporary society.

I have watched the erosion of Judeo/Christian values over the last two decades with much sadness at first. Today, I have great concern and even fear for the increasingly decaying state of the West. There is no doubt in my mind that western civilization is slowly committing assisted suicide. End-Times anti-Semitism is in full force across the globe, swinging it’s lethal pendulum from liberal Left to neo-Nazi extreme right. Somewhere on the edges we can spot the agnostics, secularists, atheists and universalists, along with radical Islam smack in the middle. While the pendulum swings destructively and endlessly from one extreme to the next, I believe that the bulk of the damage is performed by the center part.

There are several reasons why radical Islam has been so successful over the last few decades (I offer no apologies if you feel a “they against us” attitude since I have no doubt that it is exactly what’s happening):

They have been extremely patient as they slowly but thoroughly infiltrated all levels of society.
They are masters at using our own laws against us–the very same laws that they would NEVER uphold under shari’a.
They have scared the West into unchallenged submission or “dhimmitude“.

It is on this last point of “dhimmitude” that I wish to elaborate further because it exactly where I think the West is participating in assisted suicide.
The word “dhimmitude” was coined by scholar/activist Bat Y’eor in 1983 as she explained: Dhimmitude: the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars, encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political system. The word “dhimmitude” comes from dhimmi, an Arabic word meaning “protected”. Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination…. ruled by the same type of laws, based on the shari’a.

“Dhimmitude” used to be inflicted on various ethnic subjects under Islamic control, and it continues to be forced upon people by those within Islam who believe that shar’ia is the only valid law of the land. Of course, what they mean by land is more on a global than local scale. Islamic rigidity and even violence is too often whitewashed by political correctness, tolerance and multiculturalism. This process has helped “dhimmitude” become the default reaction of the West in almost every case. While I certainly do not believe that every single Muslim falls into the shar’ia “trap”, the trojan horse of Islam has been advancing slowly but steadily, leading Americans to believe that an all-encompassing ideology is just another religion to be tolerated. Consider the following non-exhaustive list of unchallenged submissions to Islamist rigid ideology. While these examples are all from the United States, it is safe to say that they are a very accurate representation of Western civilization:

Government (Federal and local)
• US Congressman Keith Ellison was sworn into office in 2007 using the Qur’an.
• CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) which is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood has had many welcomed visits to the White House.
• DHS (Department of Homeland Security) advises against training their people “against” the Muslim Brotherhood.
• The FBI no longer includes Islamic Terrorism in its list of threat assessment. 
• Shar’ia Law is adopted by the city of Dearborn, Michigan (30% Muslim)

Educational Institutions
• Public Schools are being pressured to serve halal food (prepared according to islamic dietary law) to their students and have it financed by tax-payer dollars.
• Muslim curriculum has been forced in some California school districts.

Financial Institutions
• Many US banks are now “shar’ia” compliant, meaning that they do not charge interest to Muslims and they must invest 2% of their profits into Muslim charities; with quite a few of these charities linked to terrorist organizations.

Media
• Liberal Media censors cartoons about Islam but has no problem humiliating Christians and Jews.

The Military
• Jihad is justified as “communal military defense” for Muslim in the military and head scarves are becoming a common part of the military uniform.
• Muslims in the military don’t seem to be held to the same standard as other US personnel.

Judicial System
• US Attorney Eric Holder refuses to talk about radical Islam in a testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on 5/13/2010

The Police
• Police forces in Dearborn ignore a Muslim mob descending on a Christian group and sting them.

The Church
• After recently having officially recognized the State of Palestine, Pope Francis no equates the Bible and the Qur’an.
• Evangelical Christians are increasingly buying into the lies of BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israel and also changing from Christian Zionism to Christian Palestinianism.

The point is that the United States have been shamefully and cowardly flexing under the pressure of Islamic influence for quite a while now, as many apparently innocent and harmless Muslims continue to infiltrate all levels of society. Many nominal Muslims want absolutely nothing to do with the rigidity of shar’ia law but at the end of the day they will have to choose which side of the fence they will stand on. I am not convinced that their desire for tolerance and multiculturalism will win the other side over. By other side I mean the radicals of course!

There is a tolerance that is worth investigating; that is biblical tolerance of course. Those who have a relationship with God understand His love and can easily be more tolerant toward others. Tolerance doesn’t have to mean compromise or standing for nothing. Biblically speaking, we must defend our beliefs as we are committed to be on God’s side, but at the same time we are to extend God’s love onto others. This is available to all (Muslims, Jews and Christians) through the work of Yeshua the Messiah.

Proverbs 16:24 tells us that “Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body”.

Additionally, in Romans 12:14-19, we learn much about love and tolerance: ” Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “ Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.

Political correctness is one of the most viral enemies of America. It blinds people into one-sided tolerance. I really don’t care what you choose to call it because at the end of the day it yields the same result–the death of modernity, the death of freedom, and the death of freedom of religion. In other words, the death of Western civilization by assisted suicide!

March 25, 2015 By Olivier Melnick 9 Comments

The Six Dangers of Christian Palestinianism

There has been a shift in Christian theology as it pertains to the Church’s relationship with Israel and/or Palestinian Christians. Loyalties once rooted in biblical principles are quickly changing. For followers of Yeshua (Jesus), it should not be much of a struggle to recognize Israel’s right to exist as well as the desperate need of the Jewish people for their Messiah.

Nevertheless, there is a real crisis facing Evangelicals today. A growing number of Bible believers appear to have made it their personal duty to act as theological referees between Jews and Palestinians. One of the key words heard over and over is “reconciliation,” and it often punctuates the various programs and projects aimed at bringing both Jews and Palestinians to Yeshua. It seems to be the ultimate goal of Evangelicals involved in such programs. But is it really? For any reconciliation to work, it must be a two-way street. Reconciliation needs to include forgiveness, mutual acceptance and a desire to press on together towards a common goal. The new trend in question is known as Christian Palestinianism.

Christian Palestinianism is a new way to look at the Middle East. It is almost like a new worldview. It has ramifications politically, historically geographically, archeologically, culturally and even spiritually. In his book For Zion’s Sake, Dr. Paul Wilkinson defines Christian Palestinianism by opposing it to Christian Zionism. He writes: “Christian Palestinianism is an inverted mirror image of Christian Zionism. All the basic elements of a Christian Zionist eschatology are reversed, so that the Bible is seen to be Christian, not Jewish, the land of the Bible is Palestine not Israel, the son of God is a Palestinian not a Jew, the Holocaust is resented not remembered, 1948 is a catastrophe not a miracle, the Jewish people are illegal occupiers not rightful owners, and biblical prophecy is a moral manifesto and not a signpost to the Second Coming.”[1]

I believe that Christian Palestinianism is a distorted view of God’s Word hiding a political agenda behind a reformed theology, resulting in a presentation of Christian Zionism as heretical. The Bible is slowly getting “de-judaized,” paving the way for Islam’s influence to overtake Judeo/ Christian history. This shift from Israel to Palestine in the Christian psyche really is a slap in God’s face and a grave altering of His Word. Postmodernism’s thirst for social justice and tolerance has positioned many Evangelicals on the other side of the spectrum from Christian Zionism to Christian Palestinianism. It could be argued that Christian Palestinianism is Replacement Theology amplified. It presents six dangers as follows:

• A Distortion of God’s Word
The promise of Genesis 12:1-3, made by God to Abraham and the Jewish people, still stands. The land boundaries of Genesis 15:18-20 have never changed and have yet to be fully fulfilled:“To your descendants I have given this land, From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenite and the Kenizzite and the Kadmonite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Rephaim and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Girgashite and the Jebusite.”

Why is it that almost nobody questions the historical and biblical revisionism of people like Stephen Sizer, Naim Ateek, Elias Chacour and the likes? We are seeing 21st century Christians blinded by reports of occupation and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians completely turn their back on Israel. But even more than changing one’s interpretation of the Bible, we also witness rejection of the inspired Word of God.

• A Rejection of God’s Word
Christian Palestinianist Naim Ateek recently wrote in Sabeel’s newsletter Cornerstone: “The lesson is clear for me: whatever does not agree with the hermeneutic of God’s love for all people has no authority for us and must not be read even if it is written in the Bible…Jesus had a hermeneutic of God’s love for all people and Isaiah’s words did not comply with that criterion.” [2]

This desire to ignore and even reject Scripture from the Tenach simply because it appears to be in conflict with later teachings of Yeshua is strangely reminiscent of Islam’s “Law of Abrogation,” when Qur’anic verses can be annulled, when historically superseded by contradicting ones. Such an approach to God’s Word is inherently wrong, yet many Evangelicals take their lead from people like Naim Ateek on what they perceive to be a valid biblical approach to the Middle East crisis.

Biblical illiteracy is running rampant within the Evangelical Church, and it creates a very shaky foundation upon which historical revisionism can be built with very little challenge, if any. Christian Palestinianists excel at biblical revisionism. They will go as far as painting Yeshua as the first Palestinian. This far-fetched revisionist approach to Yeshua’s origins has been heavily promoted by the Palestinian Authority. [3]

In both cases of distortion and rejection of God’s Word, the authority of the Bible is put in question. The God of the Bible, who is the God of Israel, as well as the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, is made into a different god. This allows for the insertion of a revised agenda favoring the Palestinian people at the expense of Israel and the Jewish people.

The concept of Eretz Yisrael being the Palestinian homeland and that of the existence of a native Palestinian people were already looming over the horizon a couple of decades ago, but today it is no longer discussed. The land ownership is accepted without questions. The false premise of a biblical Palestine was propaganda long enough to become truth, with no longer needing to be checked for biblical accuracy.

• A One-Sided Reconciliation
Accusations of “apartheid,” “colonization,” “ethnic cleansing,” or “nazification” of Palestine are constantly brought-up without ever speaking of terrorism, rocket attacks and human rights violations ordered by Palestinian leadership of both Fatah and Hamas. Islamic terrorism is simply dismissed and, in some cases, even justified. Christian Palestinianism offers a one-sided reconciliation, and that, of course, is no reconciliation at all.

• God the Covenant Breaker
Christian Palestinianism changes God from a covenant maker and keeper to a covenant breaker. While it might not be clear to many Evangelicals yet, for Christian Palestinianism to exist, Israel has to cease to exist.
What better way to postulate that Israel has become irrelevant than to say that God’s covenants with the Jewish people have been changed? If God had reneged on His covenant or changed the original recipients of His covenantal blessings, it would become obvious that He is done with Israel and the Jews.

But God never changed His mind when He said to Abraham: “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

If God were a covenant breaker, He would also have to be a liar. 1 Samuel 15:29 tells us otherwise: “Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

• A Demonization of Israel
Once one is convinced that God is finished with Israel and the Jews, it becomes easier to extrapolate the generalization that Israel is the cause of evil against the Palestinians. The accusations against Israel come from Palestinians, Liberals and some Evangelicals. They come so strongly that at times, it becomes difficult to define one source from another. Additionally, the liberal media has absolutely no other agenda than demonizing the victims and victimizing the perpetrators. Facts no longer matter in our postmodern global village. As a matter of fact, radical anti-Zionism is now part of the fabric of society and is in the process of becoming the standard by which one measures his/her degree of tolerance and multiculturalism. French author Pierre-André Taguieff develops it further in his recent book Israel et la Question Juive when he writes: “ Intellectual and political conformism moves alongside radical anti-Zionism, having nothing to do with a critique of Israel’s politics but rather aiming at the final destruction of the Jewish State.” [4]

• A Promotion of Islam
In her book Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis, Jewish author and activist, Bat Ye’or, describes Christian Palestinianism as “Palestinian Marcionism:” “The Christian policy that would eliminate the Jewish source of Christianity by suppressing the link between the Hebrew Bible and the Gospels represents an old and lingering trend, always opposed by the Church. Today, Palestinian Marcionism (Palestinianism) paves the way for the Islamization of the Church as it prepares mentalities for an Islamic replacement theology…and encompasses the whole paraphernalia of traditional anti-Semitism.” [5]

Bat Ye’or’s assessment has tragically proven true in the last eight years. Christian Palestinianism is well on its way to de-judaize Yeshua–a job that the gentile branch of Christianity generously contributed to, out of ignorance and sometimes, pure hatred of the Jews over the centuries. Christian Palestinianism will also continue to invalidate much of the Jewish Scriptures as history gets re-written and Jewish references get replaced to accommodate the “Islamization” of the Bible.

While it would be tempting and almost accurate to describe Christian Palestinianism as anti-Semitism, we must be careful in labeling this new trend. Some Christian Palestinianists are clearly anti-Semitic, but this doesn’t allow us to paint with broad strokes and simply say that Christian Palestinianism IS anti-Semitism.

I believe that it is a fair assessment to claim that Christian Zionism and Christian Palestinianism can be found on two opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of the Church’s relationship with Israel and the Jewish people. In fact, Christian Palestinianism is Christian anti- Zionism. But rather than labeling Christian Palestinianism as anti-Semitism, I would rather place it as one of the key components of the latest trend in anti-Semitism: Eschatological anti-Semitism.

Being well aware of the fact that anti-Semitism is the “irrational hatred” of the Jewish people, I see the obvious converging of many unlikely allies against Israel. Islam, Liberals and Evangelicals have many reasons to disagree ideologically and spiritually, yet they find it acceptable to go against Israel in one accord. Campus Intifada, BDS, media bias, historical revisionism, and Holocaust denial are different arrows in Satan’s quiver of hate.

An evangelical might not be as determined to destroy Israel as a radical Muslim is, but they have become co-conspirators and co- perpetrators. As such, they become guilty of the same crime in the eyes of the God of Israel.

God was the first Zionist but He also sent Yeshua for both Jews and Arabs. I am obviously pro-God and thus I am pro-Israel, but being pro- Israel doesn’t mean that one is anti-Palestinian, sadly, and I must say irrationally, the opposite is seldom true!

[1] Wilkinson, Paul R.: For Zion’s Sake (Paternoster, Nottingham, England, 2007) p. 65

[2] Ateek, Naim: Sabeel Newsletter: Cornerstone (Winter/Spring 2014), p.3-4.

[3] http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=13536

[4] Taguieff, Pierre-André: Israel et la Question Juive (Les Provinciales, Paris, France, 2011), p. 191-192.

[5] Bat Ye’or, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (Teaneck, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. Press, 2006), p. 213.

February 26, 2015 By Olivier Melnick Leave a Comment

Help us protect ourselves from the people who want to kill you!

Recently, the Saudis have made two very peculiar moves to protect their country from an ISIS invasion and/or Iran. It is interesting to note that we now have an apparently sharia compliant country trying to defend itself from a sharia enforcing state. Is there more than one way to abide by sharia law?

It is also worth noting that the brand of Islam known as Wahhabism or Salafism, that is the driving force behind the Islamic State was born within the borders of Saudi Arabia. Even though it is clear that Saudi Arabia has progressively distanced itself from the extremist brand of Wahhabism adopted by ISIS, the connection cannot be ignored. It would appear as if the pupil has surpassed the master.

First, it was recently officially announced by the Saudis that they had decided to build a 600 mile wall/fence on their northern border with Iraq to protect themselves from a possible ISIS invasion. Seeing how Iraqi forces have poorly responded to ISIS, the Saudis are getting concerned. But this isn’t a reaction based on the growing threat from the Islamic State since apparently the idea first came up almost a decade ago.

Then there is the most recent offer they made to Israel in regards to opening their air space for the IDF to use if they choose to strike Iran. Of course it wasn’t announced in those words and was only discussed behind closed doors with some European leaders. According to The Wall Street Journal : US and Arab diplomats say that, although Arab nations have avoided matching statements made by Israel, they share many of the same fears regarding a nuclear deal with Iran. While I can appreciate Saudi Arabia’s desire to protect their borders, I find both those moves to be quite hypocritical.

The 600 miles wall/fence isn’t necessarily a bad idea. I believe that any sovereign state is absolutely entitled to its own safety. This is a sad reflection on the times we live in, when countries have to isolate themselves for their own safety, but like someone once said: “It is what it is!” As Saudi Arabia is building their fence, why isn’t there any outrage about their isolationist attitude? Should we accuse them of Islamophobia, or better yet “ISISophobia”? Are they becoming an apartheid state? Of course, you see where I am going with this as nobody is finding the Saudi fence to be out of line, yet the Israeli fence is Islamophobic and driven by colonialism and an apartheid mentality. Give me a break, the Saudi fence AND the Israeli fence have the exact same purpose and that is sovereign protection of their citizens. Why the double standard?

Now let us consider the opening of the airspace over Saudi Arabia for the IDF to fly over he they decide to strike Iran. As the United States continue to flex under the Iranian arrogance, the whole world is wondering how soon Iran will be ready to go nuclear. It certainly appears to be a matter of when and not if. Iran just performed a military exercise days ago and destroyed a life-size replica of a US ship to show the world how capable and certainly willing they are to destroy the West. They now have missiles capable of reaching Europe and the United States. What are we waiting for?

Saudi Arabia doesn’t share a border with Iran but finds itself on the other side of the Persian Gulf and definitely vulnerable. They understand that the one country that can and might do something is Israel, so they are willing to open up their air space in case of a strike. They obviously have much to gain with that move. But wait, there is a catch! The Saudis expect Israel to promise progress in the Israeli/Palestinian “Peace talks” if they want air space access. Nothing has been specified regarding what kind of progress, but good will towards reconciliation must be shown.

Excuse me! Saudi Arabia wants Israel to get along with Hamas who pretty much lines up with much of ISIS’ ideology and wants nothing but the death of all Jews (first) and the West (next). Last September, at the United Nations, Netanyahu rightfully said: “ISIS and Hamas are branches from the same poisonous tree.” Reconciliation requires both sides to be willing to reconcile. One-sided reconciliation is abdication, and in Israel’s case, abdication to Hamas would mean instant suicide.

How hypocritical is it from the Saudis to ask Israel to negotiate with some of the same bloody murderers that they [the Saudis] are trying to protect themselves from? How can they keep a straight face and ask Israel to “Help us protect ourselves from the people who want to kill you!”

It might still come to the time when Israel flies over Saudi skies to strike Iran, and it could be a positive move for the whole region. This being said, it is time for the world to recognize that Israel isn’t the enemy but the only hope in the Middle East. Deep down, Saudi Arabia probably knows it, otherwise they wouldn’t open their air space to them, but they are not willing to make such a statement in the open.

I look at the Saudis and It reminds me of Doc Holliday in the movie Tombstone, when he said:“My hypocrisy only goes so far!”

Subscribe to our Daily Devotions

Archived Articles

Tags