Lets pray the present US administration deals with their arrogance.
BY PNW STAFF
Inasmuch as this will be a truly global company, it would be hard for any government to rein it in on its own. There would have to be a broad agreement among various countries in order to regulate such a company.
BY ELIANA RUDEE/JNS.ORG
The building project on Chanoch Albeck Street–called the Global Fellowship House–will likely take about three years to complete, and is sandwiched in between the Western Wall and Bethlehem.
by Lamb & Lion Ministries
Dr. Reagan: Is it true that the Jewish people stole the land of Israel from the Palestinians? Is it true that the Jewish people have no historical claim over either the land of Israel or the city of Jerusalem? The answer to these questions is very simple. The answer is — No!
The real truth is that these allegations against Israel are myths that are totally false. These myths have been propagated by both the Palestinians and the mainline press, both our national press and the international press.
These satanically-inspired myths have been perpetrated because God is fulfilling promises today that were made to the Jewish people thousands of years ago. These promises rest on a series of legal agreements, called covenants, made between God and the Jewish people, that center on the land of Israel.
Over the last two weeks on our television program Christ in Prophecywe’ve been taking a hard look at the world’s accusation that the Jews stole the land of Israel from the Palestinians.
Now, this is a very emotional argument that is used to picture the Palestinians as an oppressed and denationalized people. That picture is the one that is being used on college and university campuses all across this nation to rally young people against Israel.
So, did the Jews steal the Palestinians’ land?
Nathan Jones: You can’t steal land that isn’t legally yours. The Jews own the land legally, first and foremost, because God created the Abrahamic Covenant. Genesis 13-17 and Psalm 105 and other biblical passages reiterate the covenant that God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob’s descendants hold eternal ownership to the land of Canaan, and actually somewhat beyond, for God delineated Israel’s borders from the Nile River to the Euphrates River.
Dr. Reagan: So, you’re saying first off that the Jews have title to the land given to them by God Himself?
Nathan Jones: Yes, by God Himself. God said to Jacob and his descendants basically, “This piece of land is yours forever.” Bear in mind, God also made a promise to Ishmael and his descendants — the Arabs — that his line would birth many, many people, and they would own very much land, just not the land of Canaan. True to prophecy, the Arabs possess more lands and countries than Israel will ever possess.
But, the Arabs are not satisfied with that arrangement. They want all of the land.
Dr. Reagan: Let me play the Devil’s advocate here for a moment, because when you say God gave the Jews the land, true, there is no doubt about that. That’s provided for in the Abrahamic Covenant, which is repeated over and over and over and over again in the book of Genesis.
Nathan Jones: Yes, the Abrahamic Covenant stands apart as an eternal covenant without any preconditions.
Dr. Reagan: The covenant was renewed with Abraham’s son, Isaac. It was renewed with Isaac’s son, Jacob, also called Israel. But, the Jewish descendants were disobedient to God, and so they were ejected from the land — twice. Therefore, because of the Jewish exile, they lost their title to the land of Israel, right?
Nathan Jones: No. While the Abrahamic Covenant exists as an unconditional covenant, God set up a conditional covenant with Israel called the Land Covenant, or the Canaan Covenant. This second covenant exists as a conditional covenant that depends on the Jewish people obeying God. Moses, before he died, as recorded in Deuteronomy 28-30, foretold all the blessings the Jews would have if they followed God with all their hearts. But, if they repeatedly rebelled against God, then all these curses would come: nations would invade their land and oppress them, there’d be economic problems, social problems, and political problems. And, if the Jews continued to rebel even after being disciplined, God promised the Jews would be exiled from the land for a period of time.
Dr. Reagan: Exile was to be the ultimate punishment for continued rebellion against God.
Nathan Jones: Right, exile became the ultimate punishment, and we saw God exercise that provision twice.
Dr. Reagan: But, and this is so vitally important, the Jews still retain the title deed to their land?
Nathan Jones: Yes, exactly! Again, the Abrahamic Covenant stands apart as an eternal covenant, and yet due to the Land Covenant the Jewish people have to live up to their promise to remain faithful in order to stay in the land. Even in exile, God’s covenants provide for the Jews so that they never lose ownership of their promised land, just the right to use it for a time.
Dr. Reagan: That point is emphasized in a particular passage — Psalm 105. It’s a passage that was written by King David. Psalm 105:8-11 reads, “He [God] has remembered His covenant forever. The word which He commanded to a thousand generations, the covenant which He made with Abraham, His oath to Isaac, He confirmed it to Jacob, to Israel as an everlasting covenant. Saying, ‘I will give you the land of Canaan as the portion of your inheritance.'”
I don’t know how any passage could be any clearer than that.
Nathan Jones: The Jews may have been evicted from their land — twice — due to their rebellion against God. But, true, as Psalm 105 explains, God guaranteed in His Abrahamic Covenant that the land of Israel unconditionally and forever belongs to the children of Jacob. And, as the Apostle Paul argued in Romans 9–11, “Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself… Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!” And so, no, God has neither disinherited the Jewish people nor revoked His land covenants.
In summary, first the Abrahamic Covenant grants the Jews the eternal deed to the land of Israel. Second, when the Jews began returning in the early 20th Century, there was no such thing as a Palestinian. The handful of Arabs living in that wasteland sold the land back to the Jews at exorbitant prices. And third, Israel was created legally in response to a United Nations declaration passed in November 1947, which authorized the establishment of a Jewish state in the land the Romans had renamed Palestine.
You can’t steal land that’s already legally yours.
Dr. Reagan: God gave the Jewish people the land of Israel. It’s their land forever, no exceptions!
by Caroline Glick
NATO ally Turkey withdrew its ambassador from Washington. The severe step is meant to punish the U.S. for opening an embassy in Jerusalem on Monday.
Also Monday, Turkey expelled Israel’s ambassador to Turkey. It had already withdrawn its ambassador from Tel Aviv.
In a speech at Chatham House on Monday, Turkish President Reçep Tayyip Erdogan called Israel a “terror state,” and accused Israel of carrying out a “genocide.”
Indicating his view that the U.S. is also responsible for the so-called “genocide,” Erdogan said, “I condemn this humanitarian drama, this genocide, from whichever side it comes, Israel or America.”
Turning his attention to Washington, Erdogan accused the U.S. of violating international law by recognizing Israel’s capital and moving its embassy to Jerusalem. He insisted that following the embassy move, the U.S. can no longer mediate the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
As Erdogan was condemning Israel and the U.S. in London, protesters in Ankara were burning Israeli and American flags at a mass rally. One speaker at the rally referred to the American people as “dogs.” The rally was organized by Turkey’s Islamist IHH group. IHH, which is aligned with Hamas and al Qaeda, has close relations with the Erdogan regime.
Also Monday, Turkey called an emergency meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Istanbul. Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said that immediately after the conference, a mass protest against Israel would be held at Istanbul’s central thoroughfare.
It would be easy to dismiss Erdogan’s latest moves as simply another expression of his hatred for Israel and Jews. By this line of thinking, the Turks are not hostile towards U.S. per se when Erdogan accuses the U.S. of committing genocide, and Turkish pro-regime demonstrators burn the U.S. flag. Erdogan and his followers are just sore at Washington for siding with the Jews.
That is, Erdogan’s anti-Americanism is a function of his anti-Jewish bigotry.
While it is certainly true that Erdogan is a raging anti-Jewish bigot and hater of Israel, antisemitism is only a partial explanation of his behavior.
On Thursday, Israeli Minister of Tourism Yariv Levin offered another explanation. After calling for Israelis to forego travel to Turkey, Levin said that Erdogan is striking out against Israel – and presumably the U.S. – as part of his election campaign. (Next week Turkey is holding parliamentary elections.)
Levin said, “Unfortunately, Turkey has a leader who repeatedly exploits Israel to make headlines for himself and to mobilize support ahead of elections. I would view the steps that Turkey has taken in terms of [next week’s] elections.”
The problem with explanations like Levin’s or the notion that Turkey’s anti-Americanism stems entirely from its hatred of Israel is that they ignore Erdogan’s view of elections on the one hand, and the purpose of his anti-Israel and anti-Jewish policies and his anti-Americanism on the other hand.
In regards to elections, Erdogan has made clear repeatedly over his 16 years in power that he will not allow election results to determine Turkey’s trajectory. In June 2015 elections, Erdogan’s Islamist AKP party lost its parliamentary majority. Rather than accept the loss, he called for new elections. Those elections, held in November 2015, unsurprisingly brought the desired results.
In an interview with Bloomberg on Tuesday, Erdogan would not rule out — indeed he all but admitted — that he will repeat the practice in the event his ruling AKP party fails to retain its parliamentary majority in the coming poll.
So, contrary to Levin’s assessment, Erdogan really doesn’t care about elections. His latest diatribes and actions against Israel and the U.S. do not stem from electoral considerations.
As for the role his Jew-hatred plays in determining his policies towards Israel and the U.S., while it is possible, indeed probable, that some of his policies are the result of his vituperative hatred of all things Jewish, the fact is that Erdogan uses hatred of Jews, which is widely shared by more than 70 percent of Turks, to advance a much larger goal.
To understand that goal, it is important to recognize Erdogan’s history with various U.S. administrations.
Erdogan was upheld by both the Bush and Obama administrations as a paragon of a moderate Muslim leader. To secure U.S. support, Erdogan was perfectly happy to let them believe that. But while he was basking in the support of the likes of Condoleezza Rice and Barack Obama,(who referred to Erdogan as one of five foreign leaders with whom he had formed “bonds of trust”), Erdogan repeatedly rejected the notion that there is such a thing as moderate Islam.
Erdogan never has made his true goal a secret. In his 16 years in power, he has enacted a slow motion revolution in Turkey. The Turkey he took over in 2002 was the secular republic formed by Ataturk on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of World War I. Ataturk appointed the Turkish military as the constitutionally-mandated guardian of Turkey’s new secular order.
Military protection of secularism was necessary because, as Samuel Huntington explained in his book Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, Turkey was always a “torn” society. It was never able to strike a balance between Islam, secularism, and Western identity.
Turkish scholar and former Pentagon official Harold Rhode explains in the book Ally No More: Erdogan’s New Turkish Caliphate and the Rising Jihadist Threat to the West that Erdogan represents the majority of Turks who never accepted the regime’s secularism. Since entering office, he has used public support as well as U.S. backing to dismantle the secular state over time. He replaced the secularists who controlled the media, the judiciary, civil service, law enforcement, and education with Islamists who share his goal of transforming Turkey into an Islamic state. The failed July 2016 coup gave Erdogan a pretext to purge the military brutally of all pockets of secular resistance.
Erdogan’s aspirations are not limited to Turkey. Indeed, Rhode explains, his goals extends far beyond Turkey. Erdogan intends to restore the Ottoman Empire and install himself as the caliph, or leader of the Islamic world.
As Rhode notes, Erdogan made his aspirations clear during a victory speech following his reelection to a third term as Turkish prime minister in 2011. Erdogan said, “Today, our victory here in Turkey is as important [here] as it is in Sarajevo [the capital of Bosnia]; in Izmir [Turkey] as it is in for Beirut, this victory is as important in Ankara as it is in Damascus…in Turkey as it is in Ramallah, Jenin and in Jerusalem.”
Like the Iranian regime, which shares Erdogan’s ambition to lead the Islamic world, the chief sociological obstacle Erdogan faces in achieving his goal of leading the Islamic world is that Turkey is not an Arab state. To overcome this racial impediment, Erdogan has latched onto Islamic hatred of Israel and of the Jews as a means to prove his worth.
Thus Erdogan competes with the Iranian regime for the mantle of Hamas’s chief sponsor. Hamas’s operational headquarters are in Istanbul. Most of the lethal terror attacks the group carried out against Israelis in recent years were directed from Hamas offices in Turkey. Turkey serves as a hub for financial transfers and money laundering operations for Hamas. And Erdogan is Hamas’s chief advocate in international forums.
For Erdogan, propagating hatred for America is another key feature of his efforts to seize leadership of the Islamic world. Since entering power, he has inculcated deep-seated hatred of the West generally, and the United States specifically, into Turkish society. Television shows, movies and books have been released that spew conspiracy theories demonizing Americans and America.
It seems a day doesn’t go by without Erdogan or one of his underlings saying or doing something deeply hostile to Israel, or a report emerging about another Turkish policyadopted to harm the Jewish state. Likewise, it seems a a week doesn’t go by without Erdogan saying or doing something deeply hostile to the U.S., its citizens, or its strategic interests.
This week, Israel’s foreign ministry debated whether or not to cut off diplomatic relations with Turkey altogether. As Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely explained in a radio interview Thursday, the decision was made to keep formal ties intact. Most of the flights of Israel’s national airline, El Al, overfly Turkish airspace, Israel has considerable trade with Turkey, and Turkey has a significant Jewish community that is increasingly at risk, she explained.
While this is all true, given Erdogan’s desired end state, it is clear that Israel should have contingency plans ready to surmount the challenges to air travel and trade for the day Erdogan cuts off relations with Jerusalem.
Parallel to Israel’s discussions, it is reasonable to assume that Erdogan’s viciously anti-American statements and actions have provoked Washington policymakers to conduct cost-benefit analyses of Turkey’s continued membership in NATO. The reasoning presumably concludes that it is better for the U.S. to betray its Kurdish allies in Syria and Iraq and other shocking displays of Turkish treachery than lose its bases in Turkey.
While these considerations are not ridiculous, like Israel’s assessment of the desirability of continued diplomatic ties to Erdogan’s Turkey, they are largely missing the point.
Sixteen years ago, Erdogan launched Turkey on a trajectory that is implacably hostile and antithetical to the very notion of a Turkish-U.S. alliance, let alone to continued Turkish membership in NATO.
Unless U.S. cost-benefit analyses are based on that basic fact, their conclusions are largely irrelevant to the strategic challenge Erdogan’s Turkey poses to the U.S.